Income Disparity

That the U.S. is currently suffering a giant gap in wealth distribution is way past obvious. So what are the possible solutions? I don’t wanna hear the simplistic “kill the lawyers” or “just work hard and bootstrap yourself into affluence”. They are solutions, but they resort to violence or are destined to fail from the outset.

What are some plausible realistic steps that could be taken to begin reversing this ugly trend? We are supposedly intelligent people so lets apply those bright lights and come up with some solutions that would actually work. Being a little light on the intelligence part, I have a couple of lame ideas that might work, but I invite all you brilliant people to weigh in. What are the fixes?

I think that riots are no solution. They are not more than the antithesis in a Hegelian dialectic sense.

So the injustice goes on, the gap between rich and poor will increase.

“The other guy is the problem”. “If only he would change”.

More ‘us versus them’ thinking.

I am afraid that you are right.

A few questions come to mind when reading the first post:

  1. What does wealth distribution look like, ideally? (Assuming the numbers are all that matter)
  2. Is there an example of a country that has a more equitable distribution of wealth? What are the numbers like? In comparison to the U.S.?
  1. I think it would be safe to assume that an ideal situation would have at least 90% of a society earning a living wage. And what might that be? There might be several definitions of “living wage”. I’d be open to any suggestions. I don’t believe that numbers are the only criteria, but that’s the way we currently keep score.

  2. The disparity seems to be quite severe no matter where you look, but I really don’t know for sure. That might be another interesting research project. Some society might actually have some workable solutions. If they do, they’re keeping it a secret.

All other countries of the first world (developed countries) have a more equitable distribution of wealth than the United States of America have.

Because you believe in such massive national and global economies, the most stable wealth distribution will always be:
$$ W = \frac{1}{1 + x^2} $$
… not a great deal different than the current global economy.

Money is a crude measure of affluence, which is a social term for Affectance. Need more be said?

The “solution” - stop forming such massive economies (of course nothing is a solution if never applied).

Please explain how shifting the economy from global to local changes the equation. I can see how it might reduce the complexity of myriad middlemen, but how does it change greed and the lust for power? It seems possible that a global economy is simply local human activity writ large.

In my mind: A small number of Upper Class at the top (5%), the majority of people in the Middle Class (85%), a small number of lower class (5%) and poor at the bottom (5%).

Upper class=$200,000-$1,000,000
Middle class=$50,000-$199,999
Lower class=$30,000-$49,999

In the posted video certain people had to say what the ideal situation of wealth distribution in the United States should be ( ). 92% of them said that for instance the richest 20% should have 30% and the poorest 20% should have 10% of the nation’s wealth. This is not even the case in Finland, one of the nations that have a much fairer distribution than the United States have.


In that posted video is said that 1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation’s wealth ( ), so that the richest 20% of all US people have 93% of all the nation’s wealth, wheras for instance the richest Finnish 20% have 35% and the poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish nation’s wealth.

In other words: 92% of the US people who have been asked answered that they wish to have a distribution of the nation’s wealth that is even a bit better than - for example - the Finnish one, which is one of the best on this planet.

:question: :blush: :question:

:exclamation: :blush: :exclamation:

:bulb: :blush: :bulb:

Those who formed, form and will form such massive economies, didn’t, don’t and won’t stop forming them.

Then don’t ask them to. What happens is the combination of what is and what you cause. When asking doesn’t cause what you wish, stop asking.

Your concern is the disparity between the highest wealth and the lowest. When all of the wealth is under the same domain, the highest will always be that tiny little portion on top of the pyramid. But then imagine that instead of having a single huge pyramid, there are 100,000,000 pyramids. The same “highest wealth” is now distributed over 100,000,000 people. And even better is the fact that the lowest not only didn’t get any lower, but are now closer to the wealthiest. They have more in common. They know each other. They know of each other’s problems. And if done properly, they even know why each is doing what they do. There comes common understanding between the highest and the lowest.

The result of such nearness tends to be a blending of affluence, wherein there isn’t a great deal of difference in suffrage. Isn’t it really the equality of suffrage that you are after?

All behavior … ALL … behavior … of conscious beings is due entirely to Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. To alter any behavior, simply alter the person’s perception of hope and threat. Greed and lust are no exception. When the need is no longer perceived and the hope has found a new home, the behavior WILL change in every case without exception. There is no option.

You merely have to cast a stone in the eye of David.

The system itself is based on violence, as its rules are enforced by police and military.

But I didn’t, don’t and won’t ask them.

Violent overthrow of the system is likely to end in a much more unequal system, as rights and norms of equality are cast aside by whoever is in charge. I don’t think the history of violent overthrow justifies an expectation that it would end in a more egalitarian system.

Better is to elect politicians that think that redistribution is a worth goal, and keep pressure on them to pass incremental reforms towards a more equal society. Things like changing capital gains tax and expanding EITC and child benefits are small but make a big difference over time. More radical reforms would include implementing a national land value tax and decreasing income taxes. Taxing income makes social mobility harder, and taxing land is about as close as we can realistically get to a wealth tax, since a lot of wealth is held in the form of land.

The whole idea of just wiping out the entire system is just lazy. Yeah, we all wish we’d done things a little differently in the past, but we’ve also improved a lot of lives in the interim. And there are many more ways to make things worse than there are to make things better. We should keep what we have and make it better slowly; the alternative is not to make it better quickly, it’s to make it worse quickly.

:laughing: Explain how to keep pressure on them effectively? Who holds Congress accountable to their word, their handshakes, their written platforms? Once they are elected the public is screwed.

You are advocating more of the same with small failed attempts to get Washingtoneers to stop serving themselves over the best interest of the public. Why would we want more of the same? Today’s politicians (particularly Congress, Governors, and Mayors) are in the pockets of corporate America and those folks have no real interest in making their constituents come first so explain to me how working with the current system is going to accomplish any significant change for the better or even stop the downward spiral of our economy and the gaps in wealth?

In the meantime, what about the full-time working poor who aren’t earning enough to feed and clothe their families, let alone have money set aside for emergencies.

Just a hint (again):
“As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.”

You suffer from hidden judgments, choices, and manipulations (largely that of mass hypnosis).

Our government needs an overhaul, not more of the same.