Most Americans Want Wealth Redistribution

**maxx** · September-23-10, 06:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_736132.html
"...
The report [[pdf) "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School [[hat tip to Paul Kedrosky), shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number was closer to 84 percent.
More interesting than that, the report says, is that the respondents [[a randomly selected 5,522-person sample, reflecting the country's ideological, economic and gender demographics, surveyed in December 2005) believed the top 20 percent should own only 32 percent of the wealth. Respondents with incomes over $100,000 per year had similar answers to those making less then $50,000..."

**gibran** · September-23-10, 07:03 PM

maybe not as much as wealth redistibutation, but opportunity that is equal and just... that resources are palced where they can do the most good and work to see the value of all equally...not just those who agree with us... remember 9 billion in aid to a foriegn government would buy a lot of qualified teachers and mentors....as well as helping our children in the meantime.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 08:23 AM

Correction....

.... SOME Americans want to redistribute 'someone' elses wealth!

Ala your politician and or government promoting the idea that some simply have too much, OR the thief thru your window.

The result is the same.

**maxx** · September-24-10, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by gibran

maybe not as much as wealth redistibutation, but opportunity that is equal and just..

How about an elections system free from the corrupting influence of Big Money?

that resources are palced where they can do the most good and work to see the value of all equally...not just those who agree with us... remember 9 billion in aid to a foreign government would buy a lot of qualified teachers and mentors....as well as helping our children in the meantime.

The U.S. government is positively stingy in the percentage of GDP that goes to foreign aid. I'd use another word, but some people would consider it a racial slur.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...to-foreign-aid

**GOAT** · September-24-10, 09:35 AM

Oh yes people want wealth redistribution but not if it their money that is being re-distributed.

**MCP-001** · September-24-10, 09:44 AM

Let's just say for arguments sake that they succeed?

What incentive will people have to go out and do more/earn more if the next person who did absolutely nothing to achieve that will also benefit equally?

**Papasito** · September-24-10, 09:44 AM

What's this? 98% of the country want the cash that 2% of the country has?
What a notion! So let's keep exporting jobs, signing free trade agreements,
and keep up the years of red tape it takes to get a factory online here in the US
Let's tell the existing factories they need to put in ten million dollar environmentally
friendly smokestacks that require a quarter million dollar filter put in each one every
month and if they dont lets shut them down
let's restrict loans to new small businesses and bash entrapanuers and increase
taxes on small business owners who make over $100k..
then wonder why we dont have a prosperous economy.
So let's take the cash away from the people who earned thier fortunes to make up for it!

Do you think that asking someone if they want a rich man's money during a recession will get a NO response? Doubt it.Sign me up for a share of the profits from Heinz.. the Kerry's have way too much cash and they need to spread the wealth around

**maxx** · September-24-10, 10:32 AM

Let me repeat: the richest 20% in the U.S. control 84% of the wealth in this country. Are we a banana republic yet?

What incentive will people have to go out and do more/earn more if the next person who did absolutely nothing to achieve that will also benefit equally?

Many of the top 2% received money from the Wall St. bailout and had their fortunes enlarged by trickle-down Reaganomics.

**Mikeg** · September-24-10, 11:41 AM

Let me repeat: the richest 20% in the U.S. control 84% of the wealth in this country. Are we a banana republic yet?

You sound like a blind man imitating a broken record. You ought to open your eyes and recognize the difference between wealth and income measures and the fact that there is significantly less skewing when you compare income quintiles.

The bottom 80% of households may possess only 16% of the nation's wealth, but they earn 50.0% of all income. [2004 data]

**Relayer76** · September-24-10, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

So let's take the cash away from the people who earned thier fortunes to make up for it!

Anyone who is making over a million a year did not "earn" it. That kind of wealth is made on the backs of working people and above a certain amount should be taxed and redistributed. I'm not talking about turning into Cuba here where doctors make the same as garbage collectors but it seems to me that there could be a maximum income - say a cool 1 million. I think most peole would consider that it is still worthwhile to get an education and work hard for that kind of money.

**oladub** · September-24-10, 01:48 PM

Relayer, Bill Gates, a Democrat, earned his millions by creating products that had never before existed. Had the government confiscated more of his money, perhaps some bureaucrats could have created the same internet products and put thousands of Americans to work just like Bill Gates did.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 03:16 PM

Yep! And the politicians motivated to secure partisan loyalty love to 'PIMP' that concept knowing full and well that they will be EXEMPT from any 'redistribution's' [[dem or repub)!!

Originally Posted by GOAT

Oh yes people want wealth redistribution but not if it their money that is being re-distributed.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 03:24 PM

It never works out that way... the people at the mega rich levels will not have their income fully altered in mass, too many of them are players and decision makers in said quest for "redistribution" [[as a bargaining chip for their constituents and allies, to further build their fiscal reserves).

It's not just about dollars, it is about POWER therein. Thus, the force of "redistribution" will always head downward, to the less powerful, uh, eh-hmm "rich": those making around $150 - 200,000 a year, heading "downward" from that segment of the upper middle class, downward further onto the working stiffs... who initially thought redistribution was grand idea, until their check is so eroded.

On downward to those sated, wanting and waiting for the entitlement goodies, regurgitated and strained thru the vast government bureaucracies [[health care and other government services) - cents on the dollar [[the redistribution effort at work - sic). They will soon find the goods, and services fall short from what was promised.

Ohhhh yes, redistribution is a grand idea... indeed.

Originally Posted by Relayer76

Anyone who is making over a million a year did not "earn" it. That kind of wealth is made on the backs of working people and above a certain amount should be taxed and redistributed. I'm not talking about turning into Cuba here where doctors make the same as garbage collectors but it seems to me that there could be a maximum income - say a cool 1 million. I think most peole would consider that it is still worthwhile to get an education and work hard for that kind of money.

**jt1** · September-24-10, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

Oh yes people want wealth redistribution but not if it their money that is being re-distributed.

Not necessarily true. I earn in the top X% and would be fine paying more taxes to support health care for all, equality in educational opportunities, etc.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 03:31 PM

I heard that! Can I come work for you [[smile)....? Just joking... I am one of the many barely standing middle-class [[sorta) working 'stiffs' at the $45,000 and below range who can't quite make it with family and expenses. And like so many of us I must work [[full and part-time) multiple jobs to cobble together that income. One job just just rarely cuts it now! A bugler may disagree, but NO I don't need my income 'redistributed'! The shrinking value of the dollar is depreciating it enough... LOL!

Originally Posted by jt1

Not necessarily true. I earn in the top X% and would be fine paying more taxes to support health care for all, equality in educational opportunities, etc.

**jt1** · September-24-10, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Can I come work for you [[smile).... just joking... I am one of the many working stiff at the $45,000 range who can quite make it with family and expenses. And like so many of us I have work multiple jobs to cobble together that income. One just just rarely cuts it now, and no I don't need my income 'redistrubited' the shrinking value of the dollar is depreciating it enough... LOL!

I think it would be ridiculous to expect someone supporting a family on 45K to re-distribute their money. There are ways that the tax code may be updated to ensure that working families [[whatever that means) can support their families but that as a society we can ive opportunities to everyone [[whether they take them or not is another issue)

I just think it is ridiculous that we have so many people that believe they need a 3,000 sq ft house, 2 brand new cars, new toys every year, etc but recoil at the thought of a nominal tax increase to support health care and education. [[I'm not talking about you above but way too many people - just my thoughts on the fact that we have become a very amterialistic society that is all too willing to turn our backs on those that need help)

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 03:42 PM

I hear you... but the concept and enforcement of [[we could call it) 'conservationist' policy always gets distorted to jack up the people at my level, heading downward. Example: in some peoples world 'we' who are traveling mostly alone should drive a tiny car [[with some fee leveled for non-compliance), or hop on public transpo.

The big wigs [[yes, the democrats included), elite and bold continue in their big foot homes, with stretch limos and private jets from the white house on down.

They, have not, do not self-subscribe to the same policy they endorse to enforce... the poor and working poor are the ones that get the dictation and policy... I guess I have a real problem with that... politically and personally.

I drive a four-door mid-size door sedan alone. I am not trying hear a politician [[dem or repub) repudiate me for that choice....

Originally Posted by jt1

I think it would be ridiculous to expect someone supporting a family on 45K to re-distribute their money. There are ways that the tax code may be updated to ensure that working families [[whatever that means) can support their families but that as a society we can ive opportunities to everyone [[whether they take them or not is another issue)

I just think it is ridiculous that we have so many people that believe they need a 3,000 sq ft house, 2 brand new cars, new toys every year, etc but recoil at the thought of a nominal tax increase to support health care and education. [[I'm not talking about you above but way too many people - just my thoughts on the fact that we have become a very amterialistic society that is all too willing to turn our backs on those that need help)

**jt1** · September-24-10, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I hear you... but the concept and enforcement of [[you could call it) 'conservationist' policy always gets distorted to jack up the people at my level, heading downward. Example in some peoples world 'we' should drive a tiny car [[with some fee leveled for non-compliance), or hop on public transpo.

The big wigs [[democrats included), elite and bold continue in their big foot homes, with stretch limos and private jets from the white house on down.

They, have not, do not self-subscribe to the same policy they endorse to enforce... the poor and working poor are the ones that get the dictation and policy... I guess I have a real problem with that... politically and personally.

I drive a four mid-size door sedan alone. I am not trying hear a politician [[dem or repub) repudiate me for that choice....

Agreed that politicians would mess it up and negatively impact those that should be least impacted. When GWB was speaking with at a fundraiser [[of very wealthy people) he stated, "Some people call you elite. I call you my base." I think that is applying too much to both sides of the aisle. Given that people tend to look out for those that they relate to it would be a stretch to think that it would be implemented in an equitable manner.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 03:52 PM

Yep, and that is what some people don't get. Too caught up in partisan loyalty the impact of "party of self-interest" is forgotten or considered a vice only of the repubs...

Originally Posted by jt1

Agreed that politicians would mess it up and negatively impact those that should be least impacted. When GWB was speaking with at a fundraiser [[of very wealthy people) he stated, "Some people call you elite. I call you my base." I think that is applying too much to both sides of the aisle. Given that people tend to look out for those that they relate to it would be a stretch to think that it would be implemented in an equitable manner.

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 04:12 PM

Yes, that is ideal. The only problem is that you have those who do little who want the that which they don't even attempt to earn. Standard example: teens who want a new expensive car, failing to understand that you get that thru effort and ascension not just because you WANT IT... Too many adults think this way... robbers, thieves, swindlers etc. The politic of it just fires their already poised justification... Sadly, we live in a quick-gratification world so those that do not easily can ascribe to the politic of taking someone else's hard earn wealth...

Originally Posted by gibran

maybe not as much as wealth redistibutation, but opportunity that is equal and just... that resources are palced where they can do the most good and work to see the value of all equally...not just those who agree with us... remember 9 billion in aid to a foriegn government would buy a lot of qualified teachers and mentors....as well as helping our children in the meantime.

**jt1** · September-24-10, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yes, that is ideal. The only problem is that you have those who do little who want the that which they don't even attempt to earn. Standard example: teens who want a new expensive car, failing to understand that you get that thru effort and ascension not just because you WANT IT... Too many adults think this way... robbers, thieves, swindlers etc. The politic of it just fires their already poised justification... Sadly, we live in a quick-gratification world so those that do not easily can ascribe to the politic of taking someone else's hard earn wealth...

I think there is a difference between material items and opportunity. Nobody deserves free things like cars but every chil deserves access to education that supplies them opportunity. Everybody [[IMO) deserves the opportunity to have access to health care.

I don't advocate giving anything to anyone. I do advocate ensuring that everyone have equitable opportunity to apply themselves and achieve or live without the fair of a health condition driving them into poverty

**Zacha341** · September-24-10, 04:29 PM

Works for me... I'm all for equal opportunity.

Originally Posted by jt1

I think there is a difference between material items and opportunity. Nobody deserves free things like cars but every chil deserves access to education that supplies them opportunity. Everybody [[IMO) deserves the opportunity to have access to health care.

I don't advocate giving anything to anyone. I do advocate ensuring that everyone have equitable opportunity to apply themselves and achieve or live without the fair of a health condition driving them into poverty

**GOAT** · September-24-10, 04:51 PM

I don't disagree with that either Jt1. As a part of society we need to address equality opportunity to education [[it should now include post-secondary because HS just doesn't cut it anymore) and healthcare.

But try saying that to a family that makes $60K. In Canada the middle class is getting sucked dry and the the top 2-5% don't hurt when electricity or taxs go up; the poor get tax breaks and/or help with bills but the middle class? They get a big middle finger.

**jt1** · September-24-10, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

But try saying that to a family that makes $60K. In Canada the middle class is getting sucked dry and the the top 2-5% don't hurt when electricity or taxs go up; the poor get tax breaks and/or help with bills but the middle class? They get a big middle finger.

That's the tricky part. You can't negatively impact people and move middle class families into a tighter predicament. I wish I had an answer fo rhow to strcuture it. I could write a book, sell a million copies then bitch when the politicans ignore the ideas.

lilpup · September-24-10, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

I think it would be ridiculous to expect someone supporting a family on 45K to re-distribute their money. There are ways that the tax code may be updated to ensure that working families [[whatever that means) can support their families but that as a society we can ive opportunities to everyone [[whether they take them or not is another issue)

I just think it is ridiculous that we have so many people that believe they need a 3,000 sq ft house, 2 brand new cars, new toys every year, etc but recoil at the thought of a nominal tax increase to support health care and education. [[I'm not talking about you above but way too many people - just my thoughts on the fact that we have become a very amterialistic society that is all too willing to turn our backs on those that need help)

Peter Drucker warned about massive income gaps between the upper and lower employee levels being destabilizing. That's why he recommended a differential factor of about 40 times or so. If the lowest paid employee earns 10K then the highest paid gets only 400K. It's enough of a differential to keep people striving but is nowhere near the absurdity we have today. Tax laws could be used to induce similar thinking by businesses.