» News

The “inequality” of wealth distribution

Home - by - March 5, 2013 - 00:30 America/New_York - 23 Comments

Bitterly stating that wealth is unequal implies that you want wealth to be spread equally. Or, at the very least, you want someone to intervene and redistribute the wealth.

There is inequality of wealth in this country because their is an inequality of intelligence.

The bottom rung of poverty is littered with people with substance abuse problems, mental health issues, illiteracy, morality problems and political ideological problems.

And then there are the people who throw their lives away because they gambled that they were going to strike it rich in sports and entertainment, two industries that are frivolous, and yet, revered in today’s society, much to our detriment.

And then there is the white collar gambling, the stock market, that creates the super rich and the super bankrupt.

Question for these pinheads -

If we storm the one-percenter’s castles, and we rob them of all their wealth, are my taxes going to go down? Is my mortgage going to be paid off?

 

» 23 Comments

  1. IOpian

    March 5th, 2013

    Here’s a chart of everytbody in America who plays basketball, see how all the money is inequitably distributed to the very best professional players? See how Kobe makes more than all the players through the collegiate level ? There has to be a better system.

    Here’s a chart of all the workers in America. See how all the wealth is distributed to those who work smart rather than hard?

    Why is that? Because the rarity of a skill draws more in the market place. But if you’re a socialist or carried some infantile concept of fairness into your adulthood you’re never going to comprehend that.

    So if you’re unhappy with your station in life look in your mirror.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +10

     
  2. Edith McCrotch

    March 5th, 2013

    Once the government gets what they can squeeze from the rich, then they’ll turn on the working class. It’s only a matter of time.

    We don’t pledge allegiance to the government, we pledge it to the flag and for WHICH IT STANDS.

    We the people must defend this country and constitution from all enemies foreign and (especially) domestic.

    The time draws near…are you ready?

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +11

     
  3. Cynic

    March 5th, 2013

    This thing is so deceptive. It plays on the fact most people think that the money supply is fixed and The only way someone can get rich is is if someone else has less.

    Morons. Everybody’s income grew, the rich people just had theirs grow a whole lot faster.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +10

     
  4. Mary Jane Anklestraps

    March 5th, 2013

    Oh geez.
    Libs will NEVER be happy unless they have what someone else has. And then they won’t be happy because they don’t know how to maintain it. They
    either want total control or to be totally controlled. And ALWAYS by the government. WTF?!

    Thumb up +6

     
  5. [...] The “inequality” of wealth distribution [...]

    Thumb up 0

     
  6. Alpha Maser

    March 5th, 2013

    When wealth is spread like peanut butter, its gone in a jiffy. It’s still early…

    Thumb up +5

     
  7. Paul Moore

    March 5th, 2013

    The real problem isn’t that wealth flows to the best and brightest, but to those with friends in Washington. That’s what needs correcting.

    Thumb up +9

     
  8. Marqsheb

    March 5th, 2013

    Sadly, the libs keep pushing this mantra and the low informed people start believing it. If you worked hard and earned more than your neighbor, you must have had more breaks so you don’t deserve what you earned. People who were content now feel they’ve been cheated.

    All part of Obama’ s plans. Just like he defined Romney

    Thumb up +9

     
  9. Boobie the Rocket Dog

    March 5th, 2013

    Brains cost more than brawn. Simple as that.

    But brawn can always overrun brains; that’s the equalizer.

    I looked for a credit in that clip and didn’t see one. Who put that together, and what ever happened to the notion of a narrator having a masculine voice?

    All this reminds me to mention that Part II of
    ATLAS SHRUGGED is out on DVD now.

    Thumb up +1

     
  10. Boobie the Rocket Dog

    March 5th, 2013

    OK. Found it. Mother Jones Magazine. Again, a big fur hat tip to BFH for reading it so we don’t have to.

    Thumb up +2

     
  11. Diann

    March 5th, 2013

    The inequality in this country is the public school system which does well in affluent areas, but sucks in less affluent or urban areas. Like you said, Fur, we have intelligence inequity in this country.

    If Liberals were really interested in making things equal, they would advocate for school choice.

    For those of us who worked our asses, saved (let me repeat that word because the Left doesn’t know it) saved our money, what is inequity is confiscating money from us to give to those who showed no ambition to better themselves, never thought to save their money and expect someone else to do for them.

    That is most certainly inequity.

    Thumb up +6

     
  12. Anonymous

    March 5th, 2013

    Paul Moore (above) is right. Washington DC has the highest median income in the country.

    Tampa has the lowest, at approx half that of DC.

    Thumb up 0

     
  13. Dadof3

    March 5th, 2013

    Everyone being poor is the only equality they can manage.

    Long ago I realized I already made enough money to last me the rest of my life.

    Provided I die before 3 tomorrow afternoon.

    Thumb up +1

     
  14. Annie

    March 5th, 2013

    @ The only way someone can get rich is if someone else has less.

    This is 3rd world thinking. They really really think if you have a boat, whatever, that they owned that boat and you took it from them.

    The saddest thing is the president of the United States and his wife really really share that belief.

    Thumb up +7

     
  15. Kenny Sullivan

    March 5th, 2013

    So, the top 1% are heavily invested in stocks? I guess they are benefiting from the feds (Obama) pumping billions into the market keeping it propped up…and when it crashes, and it will because it is not real wealth anymore…they will lose all that printed money. Will these whiners be happy when that happens? No, they will demand more government and more bailouts—they are that dumb.

    (and I’m pretty sure the amount that has been pumped into the market is in the trillions now)

    Thumb up +2

     
  16. Chris

    March 5th, 2013

    So much wrong with this video. Just some food for thought.
    1. If you want a more equitable distribution crack down on crony capitalism (subsidies, regulations etc.. that picks winners and losers).
    2. Equating the CEO as the one percent. He actually works for the one percent like everyone else.
    3. The CEO may not work 380 times harder, but he has more than 380 times the responsibility as the average worker. How much do you pay a man who is responsible for managing billions in assets, cash flow, tens of thousands of jobs, a global market etc..
    4. The one percent are global and have global income compared to the rest of us. Their income is not a “paycheck” from a singular source.

    Thumb up +1

     
  17. BILL

    March 5th, 2013

    once your government regulates wealth distribution all they will have left is to regulate effort and output.

    the useless will never measure up and therefore be left to die in conditions much worse then they are suffering now.

    the poor in this country are fat and sitting in air conditioned or heated houses while playing their video games, all the while being stirred up to resent the successful by our community organizer in chief.

    the end result will never be what Obama or his useful idiots intend it to be.

    Thumb up +1

     
  18. beachmom

    March 5th, 2013

    Couldn’t make it all the way through this socialist tripe. Mostly because of the guy’s whiny voice.
    Hey buddy, go do something to earn more!
    And wealth isn’t distributed unless you inherit it or the govt. takes it from someone else to “distribute”.
    Tool.

    Thumb up +1

     
  19. MNHawk

    March 5th, 2013

    Wealth “flows” to anyone who lives under their means. Don’t believe me? Look at the numbers. Want to be average? $55,000 in net worth is all it takes. Want to be rich? In the top 40%? Have $120,000 to your name. Pay off that $200,000 home? Moving towards 30%. Pay off that home and squirrel away a little bit in the 401k? You’re in top 20% territory now at $400,000.

    Achieve the minimal retirement dream and actually put away that million dollars? The top 3.7%. Anyone can do this by living under their means. About $1.2 million puts you in the top 2%…the filthy rich. And a minimum of what any retirement planner says you should have to retire with a decent standard of living…especially in a 0 interest environment.

    Thumb up 0

     
  20. MNHawk

    March 5th, 2013

     
  21. Dr. Tar

    March 5th, 2013

    There are a lot of things wrong with this study in envy of others. Thomas Sowell takes these kinds of demonstrations and blows holes through them.

    a.) What is wealth that is being measured here? Money, possessions, health, leisure? Its never stated. One might as well be measuring height or hair on ones head for all it matters. “That person has more hair, I want some distributed to ME! Chop that other guy off at the knees, he’s tall enough already.” What good is money if there is nothing worthwhile to spend it on or that money is worthless. What matters are the decisions people make in life and the willingness to sacrifice in order to improve one’s situation.

    b.) Few people stay extremely poor or extremely wealthy. Many of those poor are college age and just starting out in life, with a whole life ahead of them to earn and enhance their wealth, which most do. On the other hand the extremely wealth rarely stay at those rarified levels for very long. They inherit wealth, sell something valuable, have a successful run that does not last but very few stay in the top bracket.

    c.) So what if someone has more “wealth” than I do? Good for frickin’ them. I want to get that wealth myself, so maybe I should be making good decisions on how to apply my limited resources (time, energy and wealth) on how to generate more of wealth, if I’m so inclined. In other words, go get a job, then get a better job, then make your self more valuable to society and save and invest your money, hippie. Stop measuring what everyone else has instead of you and focus instead on what you can do on your own initiative to achieve that level of success. But that might require breaking a sweat.

    d.) The real measure should be are people better off now than they were in the past? From ancient times through the Medieval Age there wasn’t much progress in how one lived. So having more wealth meant something in a world with little innovation or improvement. Not so today.

    How many millionaires 50 years ago had the following: Gigantic flat screen TVs, a personal computer, a mobile phone that did all kinds of other stuff, air conditioning, cheap readily available food of a bewildering variety to the point where the very poor in this nation suffer from obesity? Many, many, many of this nation’s poor have lifestyles that yesterday’s futurist couldn’t imagine. So whose wealthy when you make that comparison?

    Thumb up +2

     
  22. Billy Fuster

    March 5th, 2013

    Yes, the zero-sum fallacy.

    I want to know how many of the wealthy have earned it via government force and legal/moral fraud. Now THAT would be a telling study.

    Thumb up +3

     
  23. Maudie N Mandeville

    March 5th, 2013

    As Churchill said about democracy, it is bad but everything else is worse.

    The video was suspect bc they interspersed “wealth” and “income”. Dollars to doughnuts, they didn’t include all the welfare the poor receive as income.

    It gets back to how good our poor have it over middle class in other countries. Remove the cultural affinity for violence and a generational dearth of pride in one’s self and home, and the poor could be Swede or French.

    Thumb up +1