How the rich get richer

[CMike]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

Sewer Worker Winger your premise is all wrong.

4 people don't get $5.32 each, unless they are getting money from the taxpayers, 4 people earn $5.32 each

 

[The T]

I know it's depressing.

I really wish for their own sake that they would realize that it is in their own power to change their own circumstances. It may not be easy, but it can be done.

And if our forefathers had taken the same tact as these people do? I shudder to think where we'd be as a nation.

Rugged individualism isn't dead. It's been on hiatus.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

So what would an acceptable outcome be? From each according to his ability to each according to his need?

 

[The T]

Wealth isn't distributed, it's earned....It's only those who want to do the confiscating and redistributing of others' earned wealth, and their willing useful idiot accomplices, who prattle on and on about "wealth distribution".

That basic lesson in economic freedom 101 was free.

And what's worse? There are those that think growing wealth has to be stopped. [See: Zero Sum Game].

 

[rightwinger]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

So what would an acceptable outcome be? From each according to his ability to each according to his need?

How about we eliminate all the Government incentives and tax breaks that allow them to monopolize so much wealth? Maybe return to the pre Reagan stucture?

 

[boedicca]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

Here you go:

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now lunch for the 10 would costs only $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be only fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount that each paid and he started to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next day he didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

A Tax Fable

 

[Gadawg73]

I am all for social justice. However, who determines who has "need"and who does not?
Take the school lunch program for example. Some counties do not even verify the applications for the money. Guess why? It would take away many that do not "need" it.
Additionally, most "need" programs are basedon income ONLY. You couldlive in a mansion and have little income and still qualify. Top it off with the marriage penalty for the benefits. Why marry if the "single" other gets more in benefits?
You get more of what you reward. You reward mediocrisy and lower and you get it.
I love the lottery in Georgia even though I have never bought the first ticket. We issue the government benefits at the first of the month and within two weeks we have most of it back.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

So what would an acceptable outcome be? From each according to his ability to each according to his need?

How about we eliminate all the Government incentives and tax breaks that allow them to monopolize so much wealth? Maybe return to the pre Reagan stucture?

The pre-Reagan structure that allowed writing off of all interest?

 

[CMike]

The Distribution of Wealth in this country

Wealth Distribution in U.S. Unacceptably Unequal

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

In the US the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

So what would an acceptable outcome be? From each according to his ability to each according to his need?

How about we eliminate all the Government incentives and tax breaks that allow them to monopolize so much wealth? Maybe return to the pre Reagan stucture?

You mean that allows them to keep more of their own money?

 

[Intense]

I am all for social justice. However, who determines who has "need"and who does not?
Take the school lunch program for example. Some counties do not even verify the applications for the money. Guess why? It would take away many that do not "need" it.
Additionally, most "need" programs are basedon income ONLY. You couldlive in a mansion and have little income and still qualify. Top it off with the marriage penalty for the benefits. Why marry if the "single" other gets more in benefits?
You get more of what you reward. You reward mediocrisy and lower and you get it.
I love the lottery in Georgia even though I have never bought the first ticket. We issue the government benefits at the first of the month and within two weeks we have most of it back.

I'll stick to Impartial Justice, which is based on Ideal. It does not compromise with Evil, nor does it corrupt the application of Truth and Righteousness.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am all for social justice. However, who determines who has "need"and who does not?
Take the school lunch program for example. Some counties do not even verify the applications for the money. Guess why? It would take away many that do not "need" it.
Additionally, most "need" programs are basedon income ONLY. You couldlive in a mansion and have little income and still qualify. Top it off with the marriage penalty for the benefits. Why marry if the "single" other gets more in benefits?
You get more of what you reward. You reward mediocrisy and lower and you get it.
I love the lottery in Georgia even though I have never bought the first ticket. We issue the government benefits at the first of the month and within two weeks we have most of it back.

I'll stick to Impartial Justice, which is based on Ideal. It does not compromise with Evil, nor does it corrupt the application of Truth and Righteousness.

Impartial justice is subjective justice which in most cases is no justice at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am all for social justice. However, who determines who has "need"and who does not?
Take the school lunch program for example. Some counties do not even verify the applications for the money. Guess why? It would take away many that do not "need" it.
Additionally, most "need" programs are basedon income ONLY. You couldlive in a mansion and have little income and still qualify. Top it off with the marriage penalty for the benefits. Why marry if the "single" other gets more in benefits?
You get more of what you reward. You reward mediocrisy and lower and you get it.
I love the lottery in Georgia even though I have never bought the first ticket. We issue the government benefits at the first of the month and within two weeks we have most of it back.

I'll stick to Impartial Justice, which is based on Ideal. It does not compromise with Evil, nor does it corrupt the application of Truth and Righteousness.

Impartial justice is subjective justice which in most cases is no justice at all.

So there can be no justice in any society? Every society is ipso facto unjust?

 

[Intense]

I am all for social justice. However, who determines who has "need"and who does not?
Take the school lunch program for example. Some counties do not even verify the applications for the money. Guess why? It would take away many that do not "need" it.
Additionally, most "need" programs are basedon income ONLY. You couldlive in a mansion and have little income and still qualify. Top it off with the marriage penalty for the benefits. Why marry if the "single" other gets more in benefits?
You get more of what you reward. You reward mediocrisy and lower and you get it.
I love the lottery in Georgia even though I have never bought the first ticket. We issue the government benefits at the first of the month and within two weeks we have most of it back.

I'll stick to Impartial Justice, which is based on Ideal. It does not compromise with Evil, nor does it corrupt the application of Truth and Righteousness.

Impartial justice is subjective justice which in most cases is no justice at all.

Try to think more fair minded an even handed, based on ideal and principle, rather than self interest and manipulation.

Main Entry: im·par·tial
Pronunciation: \(&#716im-ˈpär-shəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1587
: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

synonyms see fair

— im·par·tial·i·ty \-ˌpär-shē-ˈa-lə-tē, -ˌpär-ˈsha-\ noun

— im·par·tial·ly \-ˈpär-sh(ə-)lē\ adverb


Impartiality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary