Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Either way the number of assertions you can reasonably make from this one graph are very few and very general.


One assertion that you can and should make is that wealth does not trickle down, rather it is very evident that it concentrates at the top. This leads to inevitable conclusion that the only way to address wealth inequality is via progressive taxation.


So why is unequal wealth distribution so bad in the first place?

What is import? That people closer to the bottom can still live well, or that nobody has more than they do? The gap between the living standards of the 70percentile and the 1 percentile of the population in the USA is lower than in any society in history.

The 70percentile still typically have cars, and houses and PCs and clean food and plumbing and electricity and big TVs and internet etc. The top percent just has nicer houses and cars etc, and the very top has some additional conveniences.

If we go socialist, the haves will be the politicians and bureaucrats, and the have-nots will be everyone else. I would much rather market forces and market assigned value be the driving factor regarding wealth distribution than politics. And when you argue that those with money use their money to pursue unfair advantages, you realize that that lobbying/unfair advantages mostly come from the govt.

Your arguments regarding money and power, are arguments for smaller govt, not larger govt.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)