The Distribution of Wealth

William Domhoff’s claims in the article Wealth, Income, and Power, are, for the most part, very strong. He makes strong statements regarding the concentration of wealth in the United States, and backs them up with good sources throughout. The statistics used are valid, and consistent among many trusted sources. The only area where Domhoff’s argument falls short is when he references the causes of wealth inequality. In this portion, his argument is a bit weak and could be strengthened by considering other important factors effecting wealth concentration, rather than limiting it to two seemingly all-important issues. Overall, upon examination of Domhoff’s ideas and sources, he presents an accurate and fairly strong argument about the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States.

“A Harvard businessman interviewed 5,000 Americans on how they thought wealth in the United States was distributed” (Wealth Inequality video). They assumed that the wealth was distributed a little unfairly, with the top 20% owning most of the wealth in a low but even decline into poverty. Then he asked them what they thought would be the ideal distribution of wealth, 92% of them (at least 9/10) said that they thought an “ideal” distribution had the top 20% barely distinguishable from the middle class with the bottom percent not too worse off than the bottom 20% of the middle class. The reality of how wealth in the U.S. is budgeted looks something a like this: the top 20% owning well of half of all the nation’s wealth, the middle class is now as worse off as what citizens thought the bottom 20%

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

According to Henslin (2015), “Weber illustrates, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor” This is a dynamic that should be working currently in American society. However, in the past three decades there has been a gap between the poor and the not very rich. This gap has not happened by itself. According to Reich (2015), in the movie Inequality For All, “…the all

Marx’s solution to poverty and social injustice is Communism. The principles of Communism as listed in the Communist Manifesto are: elimination of private land ownership, graduated or progressive income tax, elimination of inheritance rights, confiscation of rebel and emigrant property, state control of money and credit, state control of manufacture and agriculture, universal labor, combination of agriculture and manufacture leading to no distinction between urban and rural, population spread out over the country, free education, proper child labor. By centralizing all power, capital, and property in the state, theoretically all power, capital, and property would belong to all citizens equally. If the state controls all manufacturing and agriculture, and if all citizens are required to work, than theoretically the workers will not be mistreated as they are their own employers through the state.

In the United States, there are real imbalances in our wealth and wages. If these variance are the fundamental reason for political inconsistency, then these private imbalances should be decreased in order to move toward a political system where power is dispersed among all citizens. Changes in the distribution of riches and income will not change through the economy but should be established through different sorts of public policies on the state and federal level.

In this paper I will be discussing the wealth gap. I will also be discussing if there should be a “special” tax to redistribute the wealth. I hope to enlighten the reader of the issue of the wealth gap, and if a tax would help.

The crowd began filing into Sister Jean’s soup kitchen on Pacific Ave. in Atlantic City, N.J. well before lunch was to be served, while directly across the street, people with money to burn strolled into Donald Trump’s massive and garish Taj Mahal casino.

I am the farmer from Massachuset. The uneven wealth distribution is the money was distributed unevenly among the the rich and poor, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the United States. Many Americans lost their jobs, became bankrupt and couldn't provide enough to sustain their families due to the loss of income. These issues were created because of their inability to cooperate together. The selfishness of the upper class allowed the economy to be in a rut. This uneven distribution caused prices to go up on products as the factories put them out en masse, but the everyday laborer was increasingly unable to buy the products. The top 1 percent of Americans each had a wealth equal to the bottom 42 percent combined.

After the text expresses its skepticism of human ingenuity, it describes the growing divide between the upper class and the lower class to illustrate how the wealthy will not act. The eventual outcome of the divide would be best represented by the Thomas F. Homer-Dixon’s scenario of “a stretch limo in the potholed streets of New York City”, with those in the limo “drinking bottled water and breathing bottled air”. Even though there will be some technological advances, only those with wealth will be able to use them “for a price” (69). Quammen does not view the technology as a solution to stem the extinction, but as a stopgap measure for the wealthy to survive a little longer. Jablonski speculates how problems that arise from the extinction

Every American dreams of finding a job that pays well enough so that they may comfortably take care of their loved ones and themselves for years to come. Most Americans hope to find some way to make a living that they enjoy, something that they view as productive. Unfortunately, many do not have this luxury. In our society, a good portion of the population is forced to hold the base of our country in place while hardly being redeemed for their time and effort, and thus the problem of income inequality. Numbers of these people live from paycheck to paycheck, barely getting by, not because they manage their money poorly, but because the value of their time at work is negligible.

The way money is distributed within the United States is unbalanced, with the majority of the wealthy owning the bulk of the country’s wealth. Wealth can be defined as a person’s assets and monetary gains. This unequal distribution has caused numerous economic and geographical problems, such as how resources are divided among countries, how developed or industrialized a country is in relation to wealth distribution and the wide spread of disease and lack of medical attention due to an absence of money. In this paper I will address the negative and positive aspects associated with wealth distribution. I will explain how resource distribution contributes to an area’s economic growth. I will also discuss varying ways to measure wealth

Some argue that redistribution is theft from the rich because they either worked there whole lifetime or a generation of people before them to achieve the riches they have. This would leave the impression of the government taking their money and given it to someone less deserving. When actually in retrospect, the money big time CEO’s get is from consumers of their company. Most company’s biggest customers are the poor and middle class, now if you take money away from these groups there is going to be a decrease in sales and revenue. So in reality, the more money being given to the less fortunate the more money that can be invested back into companies and organizations. Another concern of redistribution is that the people receiving the money will become dependent on the money and grow lazy. While this is a valid point it can be easily compensated for by providing the poor with services to help them acquire legal employment which will help them start weaning away from social

Karl Marx once said that “The Theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private good.” (brainygquote.com) Communist states are usually “dominated by a single party or a group of people.” Everyone has a job and his/her living standard is same. People who say communism is bad are the ones who lead a company and own loads of wealth, so they afraid to lose the power they have. Literally, communism gives peace around the world, and the relations between people and the state will be improved. Karl Marx was hugely involved in making his idea beneficial for countries around the world. Reducing the wealthy people would calm down the furious poor people, and balance the economy for many years. Benefits of equality are that employee’s and workers work with a good organization and good relations, so there will be higher growth in country’s

Wealth has affected american society and evermore has affect the fabric of families. Has the distribution of wealth gotten so out of control that the effect will reverberate for generations to come and as a society can we do something about it.