Top 400 Americans control same amount of wealth as the bottom 50%.

[caketastydelish]

Now that the title statement is out of the way, here is the discussion: Is it morally acceptable?

The two arguments I can say for each side is:

1. Yes. It's free trade, free market. They control so much wealth because of their talent, intelligence, work, etc.

2. No. It is unfair that they have so much wealth while so many other people are suffering. This is an injustice.

----------

If you want my personal opinion on the matter, I would easily go with the second option. But anyone's opinions are welcome here, even if you disagree with my opinion. If you go with the first option, I'd like you to explain why.

And if you like the second option, I'd like you to propose a solution to the problem.

 

[Godwynn]

why do you liberals want to take away from those who earned it liek the walton children when sam passed away

 

[Ajidica]

Solution: Give every person in the world a gun and instructions on how to make weapons.

Solves the problem nicely, until Deng Xiopeng comes along and causes Glorious Chairman Mao to begin revolving with increasing velocity!

 

[caketastydelish]

Thanks for the posts, but I would appreciate it if you gave actual serious opinions instead of jokes.

 

[Godwynn]

Thanks for the posts, but I would appreciate it if you gave actual serious opinions instead of jokes.

What if I used serious actual opinions?

 

[Ajidica]

I mean on offense, but when your two solutions read like Middle School Debate topics, I have to get creative.
Plus, the Maoist uprising by noble and honorable armed peasantry overthrowing the corrupt, evil, (and imperialist!) bourgeois landlord unleashing a font of culture and creativity ushering a new and perfect age of mankind has been put forward as a solution to the accumulation of capital by a select few.

 

[plarq]

They say top 1% Americans control 40% of the country's wealth.

400 families... must be extended families.

 

[squall78]

Well they have the wealth and held on to it for a long time for some reason. I'm not a big fan of inherited wealth however.

 

[Zelig]

I wish I controlled 50% of the wealth.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The problem is that it is not the free market that leads to such a concentration of wealth, but usually government favoritism. Even if we ignore direct subsidies, bailouts, tax loopholes, and limited liability protections, the government's role as the protector of private property disproportionately benefits those who own the most property. Shifting from income tax to wealth taxes, especially land value taxes, would help.

 

[NiRv4n4]

Why is money of such great importance? The fact is, there will always be millions of starving people out there, regardless of what the rich do. I doubt any amount of money alone will feed every child in Somalia or Rwanda.

And, if these people have the money, they have it for a reason, and it is simply a result of "survival of the fittest". "Merit" isn't the only reason why a person should be able to have something; inherited wealth is simply a natural behavior for a wealthy adult to care more about his child than a kid in the third world. And why shouldn't he? Because someone else thinks he shouldn't? Please.

 

[Whomp]

270 of the top 400 are self-made. I have no problem whatsoever with those who creatively destroy.

 

[Skwink]

Thanks for the posts, but I would appreciate it if you gave actual serious opinions instead of jokes.

You must be knew here. You didn't even use an RD.

 

[Archbob]

I don't think they control 50% of the wealth, the actual stat was that the top 400 families control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans. However, the bottom 50% do not control 50% of the wealth.

 

[amadeus]

The top 400 have as much net worth as the bottom two quartiles, not that they control 50% of the "wealth."

In this net worth calculation, many of those on the lower end have little in terms of assets, whereas those on the top don't consume as great a percentage of their income so that allows them to invest and create more wealth. How much do the two lowest quartiles consume? Probably a lot more than the 400 richest families.

 

[Leonel]

1. Yes. It's free trade, free market. They control so much wealth because of their talent, intelligence, work, etc..

If the maxim of wealth through hard work were true, I'd see fry cooks and newspaper deliverers be as rich as kings and the offspring of the rich relegated to cardboard boxes on skid row.

 

[History_Buff]

They say top 1% Americans control 40% of the country's wealth.

400 families... must be extended families.

Nah, it's individuals. Top 400 people, not families.


But yeah, we should be redistributing the wealth. They didn't earn it in a vacuum, and the economy is better off that way anyway. Lets ensure that a rising tide does lift all boats.

 

[Dachs]

Nah, it's individuals. Top 400 people, not families.

That makes the math work out even worse than it does with "families". 400 people do not make up 1% of America's population.

 

[Souron]

Shifting from income tax to wealth taxes, especially land value taxes, would help.

Wealth taxes sound sensible, but land doesn't mean wealth as much as it once did.

 

[Newbunkle]

There is no free market. The idea that it's consensual and everyone reaches a mutually agreeable deal is a utopian fantasy.