What is the proper % of a country's wealth to be held by the top 1%

[Fig]

Presently, in America, the 1% richest citizens holds 40% or so of the country's total wealth.

What percentage of a country's wealth do you think a healthy economy should see in the hand of the country's top 1% citizens?

 

[Mozz]

25/30ish

 

[The Big Al]

20/30 I guess. It depends how much private business provides in terms of services.

 

[Fig]

I fall about in that range, too - around 25% sounds about right to me.

 

[birdboy2000]

1%.

 

[Fig]

Because communism is a working model ;-)

 

[The Big Al]

I was thinking, in a service sector economy, the distribution of wealth should be more even because you have less large companies who control the industrial and agriculture sectors. Yet here in America the opposite is occuring.

 

[evkl]

25 to about 30% seems appropriate. The problem is really with the upper 10%, not with the upper 1%--everyone loves that upper 1% statistic, but it doesn't fall off after that 1% too far. I'd wager that the top 10% controls 80%.

 

[ChaosRocket]

Maybe 5-10%

 

[McGraw]

How very subjective... but this is a good indication of how right wing people are. Well, I'm a capitalist through and through, so I reckon the current percentage is about right.

 

[ChaosRocket]

How very subjective... but this is a good indication of how right wing people are. Well, I'm a capitalist through and through, so I reckon the current percentage is about right.

Why would being a capitalist mean you think the current percentage is right? Capitalism is broken in this country in various ways, for instance one reason the rich stay so rich and keep getting richer is because of golden parachute settlements, that's not how capitalism is supposed to work, if you manage your company poorly and fail you're supposed to actually lose money.

 

[Mozz]

AFAIK, aren't lucrative programs designed to lure the top executives from other companies? And doesn't the board have to approve of all executive parachute plans? :?:

 

[ChaosRocket]

I'm not actually sure if either of those things are true or not. But even if they are I don't see how that changes the fact that it breaks capitalism by taking away the risk from investment and providing no incentive to maximize profits or make good business decisions.

It seems pretty obvious that capitalism is broken here anyways, market theory says that *everyone* will be better off with the free market, but that's not been the case, like we've discussed before the poor are actually worse off than they used to be and the middle class has been holding steady, it's only the rich that are better off compared to how they were 50 years ago or whatever. That's not supposed to be the effect of capitalism according to market theory, so I don't see how anyone says that the current percentage is right.

 

[The Big Al]

AFAIK, aren't lucrative programs designed to lure the top executives from other companies? And doesn't the board have to approve of all executive parachute plans? :?:

But they do it none the less. Look at K-Mart. The CEO (can't remember the name off hand) neary destroyed it but took millions when he left them. And the it's the board, not the employees. I bet most of the workers who have told him to take a long walk off a short peir. However, despite them being the ones who are actually making the company work have zero say. That's what wrong with the system. Stock holders don't do crap for the company but make all the decisions.

 

[Mozz]

I don't care about what the workers want. I care about what the shareowners want.

 

[The Big Al]

I don't care about what the workers want. I care about what the shareowners want.

The shareholders don't matter. If they suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth I could still walk into a K-Mart buy what I need. However, the workers suddenly disappeared the comapny would suddenly stop functioning because nothing would get done.

This is the problem with modern economics. Economics is the movement of goods and services not money. Money is only a tool to simplify the process. Yet modern ecnomics puts priority on money. The labor should be put in front of the shareholders because labor is what makes the economy work, not the shareholders.

 

[Mozz]

You *do* realize that the majority of "workers" are just cogs with little to no discernable skill, right? Yet they're so important that we should put them over the people who laid out billions of dollars in capital. Without the shareowners, there would be no company. Without the workers, the company could go out and hire others.

 

[The Big Al]

You *do* realize that the majority of "workers" are just cogs with little to no discernable skill, right? Yet they're so important that we should put them over the people who laid out billions of dollars in capital. Without the shareowners, there would be no company. Without the workers, the company could go out and hire others.

Unlike you, I consider the human factor of the economy.

 

[Mozz]

i.e., people should be paid enough to live a comfortable life without needing to go the extra mile, not what they're really worth

 

[The Big Al]

i.e., people should be paid enough to live a comfortable life without needing to go the extra mile, not what they're really worth

i. e., people should be treated as a valued asset to the company and not tossed aside when its convinient. And the worth of a person should be determined on the basis of their performance. If they're a slacker, fire them. If they're hard worker, dedicated to their job, they should be given a raise.

And I'm all for going the extra mile. I support overtime. If a person wants to work more than the typical 40 hours and is doing quality work, they should get overtime pay.