Did you know? (Facts about the distribution of wealth)?
145059
Thank you for pointing out the finacial inequality of the world.    \nIt goes to show that the greed game benifits only a few.
108979
Wealth should never be redistributed or built by the government for individuals within the society. Each person is responsible for themselves and those within their own family unit.\n\nSo with this in mind, the obvious answer is YES, sustaining the economy is more important than any socialist wealth building programs.
678781
What's your own view as in rich? like how much money, asset, and etc.? Some people think they're poor even with several millions of dollars they have.
120905
82% of the worlds wealth in money.\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=135\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=140\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin3_stream.html
932748
The site below has some interesting facts.  The developed world set a target of 0.7% of its gross national income to be given to the poor nations.  Almost every nation came up short.  Except for Luxembourg and the Scandinavian nations who are always good. We give alot in gross dollars but as a proportion of our income we are cheapskates.  Italy beats us.  Tiny little Belgium beats us.  Belgium!  What have they got to give away anyway?  Chocolate?
311556
here's my guess...\n\nHow to allocation natural resources\nHow to allocation labor\nHow to allocation wealth
54627
You aren't the first to ask. http://www.salestax.org/  \n\nHowever, taxes seem to be more about redistribution of wealth than fairness.
1071675
I think that is true.  I come from a family who has had money all their lives.  We dont drive $100,000 cars, or have flashy things.  I think you can absolutely tell someone who comes from "old" money and someone who comes from "new" money.
369184
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/mill-j08.shtml\n\nThe number of millionaire households in the United States grew in 2004 to a record 7.5 million, up 21 percent in one year, according to surveys cited in the May 25 Wall Street Journal. This very wealthy segment of the population now controls an astounding $11 trillion in assets.
1162641
nothing. yay.\noh, and a correction:\nthe poor people have it , the rich need it\nit sounds more confusing that way
1000477
Yes it does and this is unfortunate, it goes against my belief that if you lift from the bottom, you lift the whole society. I use the example of three boxes, with the top box being the rich and the middle as just that, and the bottom being the poor. If you lift just the top box that is all that you move leaving the other two behind. But if you lift from the bottom then you lift all three boxes and society benefits as the standard of living goes up for all. This is why I am so against the repuglican agenda of tax cuts for the very rich, or supply side economics. We saw in the Clinton administration an example of consumer driven economics the rich got richer and so did the poor and middle class. The economy boomed. It did not take Bush long to end all of that with supply side economics did it.
412715
Yes.  This was a campaign point for W in his first election - double taxation of dividends.  The company pays its taxes and distributes the left over, then the investor has to pay taxes on those earnings.  Bush wanted to get rid of that, but the Dems threw in the whole "tax breaks for the rich" and it didn't go through.
380596
Someone else is asking pretty much the same question.  As I replied on the other question, the biggest indicator of what ones economic status will be during their lifetime is to simply look at the economic status of their parents/grandparents.  The majority of the wealthy had a head start due to better education and other opportunities and then simply built upon the vast assets they inherited.  My solution (I know it sounds like communism) was to seize everybodys personal assets when the pass away and redistribute them to pay for the deficit, healthcare, taxes, and better school districts/educational opportunities for everyone.  This would certainly even the playing field and provide for an incentive to compete (which is the basis of capitalism isn't it?).  The capitalist system wouldn't suffer because everyone would still be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor during their lifetime and may actually be enhanced by the the fact that the best/brightest/most ambitious would continually be the ones that prosper each generation.
398434
That isn't true. The poor don't get poorer, it is simply that the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor as they have capital to invest.
731135
No such thing as too much money in a free market capitalist system. Hmmm what would you suggest happen? Income redistribution, give some to the poor folks? Nope, they can go to work and make there own!\n\nDonna H down below me, for your information rich Americans are the most benevolent givers of any nation. We give to charities every year more money then the gross national product of most nations on this planet. So don't say they don't give anything back because that my dear.......is a lie!
897073
If you look at countries like India, Brazil, Mexico. Wealth in the US is veru well distributed. People in some of those countries have to live with 50 dollars a month. In India they make as little as 63 dollars a year. Think about that.
934562
no becos they r the three things that encourage and cheer you into getting your wealth\n\n=)