Of course, this article isn't about wealthy people having actual pie. They actually tend to be skinny and eat healthier than the rest of us. This article is about wealth distribution in the United States. It's a lot more skewed than you probably think it is.
The 100-Pie Graphs are pretty useful. In other words, if you take 100 slices of pie to represent wealth (or lack of it) in America, you can illustrate the way people think things are AND the way they really are.
Here's the story of U.S. wealth distribution told with pie:
How Do Average People Think Wealth is Distributed?
If you take a survey of your friends, neighbors, and coworkers, this is how they probably think the pie s and should be distributed:
In other words, most people assume that the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans have a little less than three times the pie of the poorest 20 percent. In this world, poor people would drive a Kia, and rich people would own Mercedes or something like that. Rich people get a smoother ride, but everybody gets to ride.
Sadly, this is NOT now it really works out.
How the Pie (or Wealth) is Really Distributed
The following graph illustrates how pies are really distributed between the top 20 percent vs. the bottom:
The BOTTOM 40 percent have NO PIE. The bottom 20 percent are in debt and owe pie. Meanwhile the top 20 percent have 90 percent of the pie. Even the middle 20 percent only have two slices of pie and are sitting on an abyss.
What do the famous one-percenters have? They have 40 pies out of 100. So the poor saps who are still in the top 20 percent have to split 50 pies between them. Man, that's still a lot of pie if your sitting in the middle to the bottom.
Is Wealth Distributed the Same in Other Countries?
Actually, if you look at other countries, pie distribution changes a bit. Lets look at other Western nations:
Anyway, if you think the wealthy need more income distributed to them in the US because they deserve it, you might first look at your own stock of pie. This kind of distribution isn't good for the economy because people with less wealth actually tend to spend their money, but the top wealth holders get to stash a lot of their pie in the freezer.
Less pie means wasted potential in upward mobility, education, and more. Also, the wealth distribution in the US is the worst it has been for 50 years. NOBODY says wealth creators shouldn't get more pie. It's fair to say they shouldn't get ALL the pie.
Give Me Feedback or PIE
Do you still favor the GOP tax plan because you think it will help you? I'm interested in what you have to say! Please offer me some feedback or just send me some more pie.
@originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @theinsideout to be original material and upvoted(1.5%) it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
The developed world (West) bicker over the "equitable" distribution of resources raped from neo-colonial saps of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It is true that the wealthy own much of the resources, but the West owns disproportionately more wealth compared with the rest of the world. Would the West be willing to surrender the power and wealth accumulated over the last hundred years? Unlikely, and rightly so.
Life is not fair or equal; to believe such is foolhardy and harmful. Human society will always be unequal with the ruling class and the ruled class. Much, if not all, of man's station and success derives from God, or dice of the Universe. Either man can choose to accept his lot in life and live according to his station, or he can choose to live in misery, anger, and envy under the delusion of pernicious concepts like "fairness," "equality," "democracy," or "justice."
Interesting take. You're right to perceive that I was only thinking about the US, so thanks for adding that to the discussion. I still think a more equitable distribution of wealth would end up benefiting everybody more than it harms them, so you haven't convinced me that we should use taxes to roll the dice in favor of people who already have a lot. Doesn't that weight the dice in their favor? Anyway, thanks for chiming in.
Regardless of how the tax code is structured, the wealthy will always benefit from the legal system in hoarding their ill-gotten gains. Reduction of wealth inequality, or the wealth gap, is positive trend. Well governed and properly functioning society will not permit such ravenous accumulation of resources by a select few. The problem, however, is not legal or political but societal. The modern West has deluded itself in the ludicrous concepts of "meritocracy" and "free" market. As long as accumulation of wealth is justified with "merit" of the blessed chum and rampant inequality rationalized as the "cost" of a "free" market, any social structure will devolve into the mercantile and mercenary sociopolitical dissolution that is the modern West.
While the reality of the class distinction and separartion can not be denied or wished away, in a more older, civilized times, the ruling class frowned upon modern Western mercantile sensibility. The force of social ostracism kept the ruling class on check, regarding excessive wealth accumulation and gaudy displays. Modern "democracy" and the rise of the mercantile muck has ruined decent sensibility.
I agree it's not fair, but that's not to say we should just give up and let things stay the way they are. Plenty of interesting thought experiments about things like universal income, and just the fact that things today are better than they were historically, (hard to quantify, but access to information is a big one too, for example)
Yes, you're right. Also it's not just about fair. It's about what is best for everybody. I believe public schools are best for everybody even though richer people pay more in property tax. Do wealthier people want to be surrounded by a bunch of illiterate people? I doubt they'd enjoy that sort of society.