Monday, November 7, 2011

Income equality?

OK, all us wealth redistributors (And we are all wealth redistributors--depending on whether you want to see the wealth accumulate on the top or be more equitably redistributed).

This little clip comes from the BBC show Mongrels and tells of the benefits of everyone becoming middle class!

When every one is middle class, there will be no poverty or starvation!

Try the game make Vince Wince if you check out the show's website.

Nothing like a show featuring urban foxes!


  1. So when we are all middle class I assume we would all have roughly the same net worth...

    Current median net worth in the world is $43,800 per adult.


    Now this is net worth, not income. Median income for the world is about $7,000 a year.


    So will we all really be happy with a net worth of $88,000 and income of $14,000 per traditional family?

  2. oops - my bad. Average income was $7,000 per year. Median income was only $1,700 per year.

  3. "Current median net worth in the world is $43,800 per adult."

    Considering that some billions of people have not enough food to eat, the "median" is of small comfort to them.

  4. demo - my point was that this is what the world would be when we are all "middle class". Equal distribuion of the world's wealth would be a net worth of $43,800 for every adult. If that is what you would be happy with, then feel free to donate everything in excess of that to someone poor.

  5. Here is how it works Jim.

    No one is ever suggesting we should redistribute wealth so that we are all middle class.

    But it is historically true that when wealth is so unevenly distributed two things consistently tend to be true.

    1. There are rules, laws, particularly tax codes which are inherently unfair and which are contrived, deliberately formulated, and manipulated so as to assist the wealthy to become far, far richer, while penalizing and victimizing all other economic demographics. This kind of wealth gap does not occur in normal competitive environments, it ONLY occurs in contrived environments where the economics are effectively rigged for the wealthy and against everyone else.

    Which is what we have NOW.

    and the other thing which is consistently true is

    2. Such inequality inevitably creates instability, including instability leading to violence in some instances.

    What it does not do is to encourage innovation, creation/creativity, healthy competition, or the possibility of most people to improve their status by hard work, perseverance, the creativity and innovation of genius.

    It creates a stagnant status quo of inequality, poverty, no education or bad education, and suppression of problem solving.

    So..... why are YOU apparently supporting this bad status quo?

    I suggest you inform yourself on issues such as the kind of executive compensation paid now, versus the comparative levels of executive compensation paid during periods where there was real growth - not just fake growth as a result of 'creative accounting', and where there was real growth in the national economy, and where there was far more value produced.

    Comparisons in executive compensation is just a starting point; but it is a helluv an eye opener. And it goes hand in hand with interlocking directorates, and the number of companies and corporations where the stockholders no longer have any significant control despite being the real owners of those entities.

    You can start your education here:

  6. "No one is ever suggesting we should redistribute wealth so that we are all middle class."

    Then what did the video intend? (sorry can't watch the video - no sound).

    I do agree with you that the current tax structure favors the ultra rich. That is why we need to abolish the current tax code and go to some form of a flat tax or a consumption tax with no deductions. If there are no special rules for industries to manipulate, then they will have a harder time avoiding paying their fair share of taxes.

    The more we can do to limit the government's ability to set special rules for companies, the more we will remove the incentive to lobby government. There will be no point for a corporation to spend millions of dollars on a campaign if that president, senator, or congressman has no power to change laws to your benifit.

  7. Jim wrote:

    "That is why we need to abolish the current tax code and go to some form of a flat tax or a consumption tax with no deductions."

    There is probably no single tax revision that could make things worse than they already are and would cause an even greater inequity that we already have than either a consumption tax or a flat tax. The only thing worse is the two combined.

    Are you really THAT ignorant about economics? Because your suggestion has all the errors of the not really common sense / aka "I read a book once' crowd that believes you don't have to learn anything to solve problems or understand them,and that experts in these fields are poseurs without real knowledge or expertise.

    You are WRONG, and not just kinda wrong, but scary wrong in your degree of ignorance.

  8. DG - as long as the law allows for a tax code that gives out special benifits to individuals or corporations then we will always have people with power and money making laws that favor them.

    I admit - I don't have the answers as to what is the most fair tax system. I just know that the current system is so convoluted that fraud and special treatment are inherently built into the system. I firmly believe that the simpler we can make the tax system the less chance there is of corruption or favoritism. If that means 4 progressive tax brackets then I would be fine with that as well. My main point is that the code needs to be simple enough to fill out on a postcard and fair enough such that everyone in the same income range pays the same taxes.

  9. Jim:

    On the one hand, you say we should abolish the current tax code and go to a flate tax. On the other hoof you say you don't anything about how the system works. Well, if that's not a good reason to leave well enough alone, I have no idea what you think would be.

    The U.S. Tax Code is a fucking mess and it does need to be rewritten--care to find out what that would entail? It's not a quick read--hell it's not even a quick carry, the sumbitch probably weighs over a hundred pounds.

  10. I'd just like to share my income for a year with Bill Gates' income for a week.