Is Wealth Distribution Today Just?
In current times we often observe that many members of our society receive less than other members regardless of whether they are no less deserving. In contrast, there are some who have ownership over assets and earn income that they may not be deserving of. The distributive balance is upset and wealth distribution today can thus be seen as a social injustice. This injustice that is becoming more noticeable as people start to become aware of the facts, as we can see through the start of the occupy wall street movements that, first started on wall street in America, have spread to other countries (one of which being Australia). As a consequence of how wealth is habitually distributed and the way in
…show more content…
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the wealthiest 20% account for 62% of total household net worth, with an average net worth of $2.2 million per household while the poorest 20% of households account for only 1% of total household net worth, with an average net worth of $31,829 per household. This can be at least partly attributed to a decrease in tax rate increments. The statistics draw on the selected income distribution indicators, which specify disposable household income (money that can be kept and spent for recreational purposes), show that those individuals in the high income bracket receive 40% of their total income while those in the low income bracket only receive 10%. Consequently, the net worth across households becomes even less matched as the rich not only have a considerably higher income, but are also able to save up much more. The discrepancies between the net worth in households are therefore exponentially larger than the discrepancies that exist in income, which reflects the previously mentioned pattern of people accumulating wealth through their working lives. The indignant attitudes posited by the movement can therefore be seen as justified. However, thought it may be justified, the movement seems to lack a focused goal –they demand that some change is needed so that the situation regarding inequality can be rectified, but their demands fail to offer articulated strategy as to how this can be
James Madison once stated inequality of the rich and poor predicament to be “evil” and believed that the government should avoid an “immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” (Johnston, 2016). As one of the founding fathers of our nation, James Madison had a concern about the separation between the rich and the poor. He felt the government should do what it could to avoid the separation, which one can infer that he meant for the government to tax the rich by a greater percentage, thus reducing the financial burden on the poor. A rift has always been present between the rich and the poor throughout history. Depending upon the job, the working class may or may not make enough to support a family. At this point, the
It is a commonly accepted that inequality is increasing throughout the globe, with startling statistics such as the recent Oxfam report indicating that the richest 85 people in the world own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion people(Oxfam Australia Media, 2014). Inequality is thought of as disparities or gaps, such as the distance between a low income and a high income household, or the ratio of their incomes (Divided We Stand, 2011). Domestic inequality refers to inequality within a country and
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
The issue of income inequality in the United States is complicated and does not have a definite answer. Income inequality can be measured in a few different ways. The first measurement for the income inequality in a country is to look at the percentages on households and group them into income categories, called distribution by income category. The second measurement for income inequality is called distribution by quintiles or fifths. This is when you divide the total number of people, households, families into five groups called quintiles to examine the percentage of total before tax income received by each quintile. Each quintile would then be ordered by income and households in the category.
In a research of Harvard professor 5000 people in America have opinion in how they think about the actual distribution of wealth in the U.S. and the 92 percent choose the ideal would be 20 percent and 20 percent the middle class. However, the reality is very far from it. “The poorest are not even registered, they are on the package change and the middle class is barely distinguished from the poor, even the rich between the 10 % and 20 % are worst off, only the top 10 % are better off. Only the one percent gets ten time higher and 40 % all the nation wealth. The bottom 80 % 8 out 10 people only has 7 % between them.1 % makes a quarter of the national income today”(you tube, 2015). All of this data reflex one of the truly perspectives in economy of the U.S. Not only people with low wages are the most affected, but also those who have good jobs and
Income Inequality is a major problem that has been going on in America for decades. Many people feel that it barely exists today, but those people are very uneducated and don’t really care about the huge problem in front of them the many people that feel that way are highly uneducated, and seem to not really care about which has been gradually increasing instead of decreasing. Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done, only of course if the poor class of people decide to actually educate themselves and get a higher education. One says poor class, simply because that’s how they’re classified. There are five types of levels that Americans are classified as, and they are: Upper Class, Upper Middle Class, Middle Class, Working Class, Poor. The highest percentage of Americans fall in the Poor department, and it has been that way for decades, and will continue to be that way for decades to come.
This reveals that a relatively small proportion of households have high net worth and a large portion of households have low net worth, concluding with the simple statement that: The distribution of wealth is more unequal in Australia than the distribution of income.
Income inequality is increasingly becoming a significant concern for many countries around the world. The income difference between the highly-educated, skilled, wealthy class and the poor, low to mid-skilled workers is growing larger and larger. In fact, the incomes of the rich are increasing significantly, while the low skilled workers’ incomes have been declining (The Economist, “Wealth Without Workers”). According to The Economist, real median wages have been decreasing since 2000 in half of the member countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the United States, there was a 4% increase from 1980 to 2012 in the share of national income that was distributed to the top 0.01% (The Economist, “True Progressivism”). Canada is facing a similar problem of rising inequality.
A brief look at history validates that an income inequality gap between the wealthy “haves” and those viewed as “have-notes” has existed for hundreds of years. Consider for a moment the French revolution that occurred during 1789. Prior to this event, French society consisted primarily of three estates made up of the clergy, nobles, and those viewed as the common people. Individuals could not move up the social ladder as access to those positions and their related privileges were determined by birth. Government policies such as the assignment of taxes based on the inequality between the estates were
This first lecture gave us a close look into the unequal share of wealth and the factors that determine the wealth of individuals in the American society. One of the first factors that affect immensely the inequality in America is the obsessiveness of wanting to classify people and make them mark a box for their gender, race and class. Where men and whites have more privileges than any other person and are not only paid higher, but would most likely spend less time in prison for committing the same crime as an African American. The United states is so unequal that the top 1% of the population has 38.1% of the wealth and the bottom 40% which is a little less than half of the people living in America only have 0.2% of the wealth. And as if that statistic alone was not scary enough, we learn in this
Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted
Wealthier individuals often have more power than the poor and are sometimes even able to maintain their wealth at the cost of the poor. Inequality of income is often one of the most significant reasons for the disparity within classes socially and one of the most important reasons that poverty is often intergenerational. Particularly in this tumultuous political time of divisiveness, people who are willing and able to make changes to the status quo in meaningful ways are of the utmost importance. Closing the gap in wealth is one of the most essential ways to ensure that inequality is addressed and that the other social issues surrounding this gap will be lessened and lessened until it hopefully eventually disappears. Change-makers are more important than ever and those groups and nations as well as individuals with power that are willing to be honest with themselves and
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
There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a