how to outcome the unbalance of national income?
455199
Your question doesn't make any sense. Your words don't even go together in the sentence. Have someone help you rewrite it.\n\nI knew what you were asking,it was just poorly written.\nAnswer:\nThey only way to " balance" a national income is for a government to take the higher earned income from one group and give it to another. That will never work.\n\nMost people confuse a countries economics system with their system of government. That is like comparing apples to oranges.\n\nThere are basically three economic systems: Capitalism, Socialism and Communism.  \nMany of the European countries use a socialist type system and it works great but it relies on high taxes and less poor people. "More people pushing the bus then riding it" and you can be wealthy under that systems.\n\nMany countries claim that term but actually are communist/ capitalist economic society. There is no country that is a true communist system. It is more of a dream then a reality . It is based on a system of need.\nBut, also there is no true capitalist system either. The US is a quasi capitalist/socialist system. \nWe have in theory a capitalist free market, supply and demand system but in reality we don't. No country can with our mass immigration policy of unlimited labor pool. \nThe only thing this type of economic policy will do is guarantee that wages will never go up only down. The only ones that benefit from this policy are the wealth. Think about it.
258346
STOP WORKING.\nKEEP EARNING.
858283
This looks like something a government economist/statistician might come up with.  I went to google and looked up Total Poverty Gap, then scanned a few articles about Canada, South Africa, and Malawi.\n\nThe Total Poverty Gap is the amount of money poor people would need to get them up to the poverty line.\n\nIt looks to me like someone first fixes the poverty line -- $365 in your example.  Then they see how many people fall below that line -- 353 in your example.\n\nNow, those 353 people do have <some> income, and it's necessary to know how much.  In your example, those people averaged $278.86 each.  (That's the number you need.)\n\nSince the poverty line is $365, and the poor people averaged $278.86, then on the average, they came up $86.14 short.\n\nNow take this $86.14 shortfall and divide it into the $365.  You'll get 4.237 ... very close to your 4.232.\n\nThis 4.237 is the factor which must be divided into the $365 to get the $86.14 which, on the average, each poor person must get in order to get up to the poverty line.\n\nAnd if you multiply by the number of poor people, 353, you get this:\n\n($365 / 4.237) x 353 people = $30,409\n\nwhich is the Total Poverty Gap.\n\nSo I think that's where your number comes from.  To get the Total Poverty Gap, you must know how much income the poor people have, on the average.  Once you have that, then any competent government bureaucrat/economist/statistician can do the rest.
732179
see a financial advisor\n\ninvest for the long term\n\ndiversify - invest in a wide variety of stocks, bonds, and others, so that if one area tanks, you don't lose everything.
482916
well !\nnothing but work hard, know what your goals, save and invest wisely.\ntry different secteur of the economy and take calculated risks.good luck
167086
Fiscal neutrality is a term referring to the impact of taxation on the economy. When it is said that fiscal neutrality is desirable, the meaning is that the tax measure or policy should not introduce undesirable distortions into the normal working of the economy by significantly altering economic incentives and changing behavior.\n\nIn fact almost any tax measure will distort the economy (from the path or process that would have prevailed in its absence). For example a sales tax applied to all goods will tend to discourage consumption of all the taxed items, and an income tax will tend to discourage people from earning money in the category of income that is taxed (if they can manage to avoid being taxed). Some people may move out of the work force (to avoid income tax); some may move into the cash or black economies (where incomes are not revealed to the tax authorities).\n\nThe discussion about fiscal neutrality therefore really concerns tax measures that introduce distortions into the economy or society that raise serious doubts as to the wisdom of the tax measure. For example, in Western nations the relatively affluent are taxed partly to provide the money used to assist the relatively poor. As a result of the taxes (and associated subsidies to the poor), incentives are changed for both groups. The relatively rich are discouraged from declaring income and from earning marginal (extra) income, because they know that any additional money that they earn and declare will be taxed at their highest marginal tax rates. At the same time the poor have an incentive to conceal their own taxable income (and usually their assets) so as to increase the likelihood of their receiving state assistance. It can be argued that the distortion of incentives (the move away from a fiscally neutral stance that does not affect incentives) does more harm than good.\n\nOne of the main distortions sometimes said to have arisen in the USA and the UK as a result of tax policy is the creation of a permanent underclass, dependent on welfare and discouraged (by the tax system) from seeking work and betterment. In some countries the tax system can be badly designed to deal with such issues, e.g. sometimes the marginal tax rate that applies to earned income (as someone takes work attempting to escape from unemployment and welfare) is so high that the persons take-home income (post-tax and after taking account of any benefits or welfare receipts) does not increase as a result of taking work. This is known as the welfare trap.\n\nThere was an example of distortion of the economy by tax policy some years ago in the UK when cars supplied by employers to their employees were taxed at advantageous rates (e.g. encouraging the growth of company car fleets). Over several years the distortion grew to the point that the majority of cars used by working families were company cars and the dealership structures, and even the types of cars used, altered to adjust to the tax regime.
464331
Haven't you heard, there is a 'pension crisis', which will grow exponentially every year. Be glad for what you have got because there is only one way pensions are going and it ain't up.
470109
observed phenomenon in economics where the economy experiences booms and slumps. Any force that influences national income would influence the business cycle.\n\nY = C + I + G + NX\n\nNational Income = Consumption + Investment + Government + Net Exports.
320143
A good measure of wealth would be the Gross National Product, which included the earnings of all Japanese Nationals including those living abroad and that of Japanese assets in other countries.\n\nA good measure is then to find the Gross National Product per capita, which is just the GNP divided by population. This is important because larger countries will automatically have a higer GNP due to its size, but GNP per capita measures the share that each citizen has.
812071
cause the country would go broke.
461338
You better understand correcly the name of the cordenates afterwards you must look at the chart and identify the trend, then you make your conclusion.\n\nexample: Y´s population of the world, X´s income per head\nthe chart is showing some countries with lower bars than others... Conclusion, some countries have a higher income than others...
15293
National Debt and Income Inequality are not really related.\n\nIn theory lower national debt should increase economic growth.  This would help increase the income of the nation as a whole, but the actual distribution of that income would depend on other policies. \n\nAlso how the nation decided to go about paying off its national debt would have a impact on after tax income inequality, but could be used to ether increase of decrees this inequality.  It would just depend on the policy itself.\n\nSo I would say no, paying off national debt in and of itself would have no real impact on income inequality.
436571
Go for it. Eventually the correct balance would work out.
318908
Start with yourselves. Have discipline and motivation to have a good education and a decent job. Poverty are mostly the result of undisciplined indidviduals within the society. They often complain and ask the government to help them but they don't even tried to help themselves. Also we all should have a new government. Vote for those right in the position and not because you are being paid. Officials can't make this thing a positive issue at this moment because they're so busy with their own "business" so we really can't rely our future to them. We can do it step-by-step.
739908
Well you could start by serving your country, that is aim for what the people want and putting your own personal wants aside. For example if the population wants the soldiers in Iraq out of their, then get them out, even if you feel they should stay. Also, do something great, like free up debt in a poor country, so they can feed their children. But you have to make sure the money goes to the poor people though and not to a corrupt dictator.
698209
bring it all in bags full of pennies...\n\nmake everyone earn their money
647127
You need to study economics some more.\nThen you'll know usefull things never come free.