Als Sozialdemokratie geht es uns gut. Etwas, auf das man stolz sein kann.
Vermutlich brauchen wir nicht mehr Wohlstandsverteilung dann? Oder haben wir noch?
https://i.redd.it/48s8kcyrb4kf1.jpeg
Von trueosiris2
Als Sozialdemokratie geht es uns gut. Etwas, auf das man stolz sein kann.
Vermutlich brauchen wir nicht mehr Wohlstandsverteilung dann? Oder haben wir noch?
https://i.redd.it/48s8kcyrb4kf1.jpeg
Von trueosiris2
19 Kommentare
meanwhile, italy, poland, greece and sweden bottom 50% are so poor they don’t even show up on the chart.
3 of those 4 I’m not surprised by
Finally. I was actually following this database past years but always was lazy to put together for others to see.
Yeah, Netherlands and Belgium are wicked but it also makes it hard to get in top 10%.
N-VA: ik haat dit. De rijken verdienen het om meer te mogen verdienen!
I mean 10% owning more than 50% of all wealth is still *extremely* bad. It’s just that other countries are even worse.
Should state who is taken into account for creating this chart. It’s going to make a difference whether you exclude children/ students and elderly or not.
Another nuance is how much wealth of it is foreign. Taking from the top would not necessarily mean the lower brackets are going to get better off when the influx of foreign wealth drops.
> Presumably, we don’t need more wealth distribution then? Or do we still?
Looking at the tax on income, we’ve already gone too far. The promotion trap in Belgium is strong.
So, In Belgium, top 1% own less then in most countries and bottom 50% more than in most countries. Seems like a fairly equal place to live, compared to the other countries on the graphs. Seems like socialism worked. Turns out if you take from the rich, and give to the poor, you close the gap.
Now do income distribution…
Did you really just say we’re doing alright while 10% owns half?
> We’re doing alright
THAT is your takeaway from this graph? Yikes.
I think it’s a pretty good idea to have a goal in mind about what you think is fair. 1% owning nearly half makes no sense.
Personally, I still get a bit mad when I drive by a small forrest, look it up on google maps and it’s this giant hidden estate owned by some bourgeois family since the 1500s. Piss off with your “private weg, verboden te betreden” sign, you didn’t do shit for that property but being born. Then again, if it would be equally split, it would just be houses and apartments and I still wouldn’t be able to ride my bike there.
Besides that, I don’t really mind some inequality. I do however think that generational wealth is a leftover from the Middle Ages and that it does society as a whole only a disservice.
Wow, I wouldn’t have expected us (I’m Dutch) to be so far down.
As long as people in the blue parts aren’t taxed to hell and can get to the yellow one … oh wait it’s old money club only.
Proud of us for that.
Whenever I see shit like „inequalityy“, I wonder how much effort the creator spent in making sure other parts of the chart were accurate.
Ok, so I actually looked into their methodology behind the shiny graphs.
DINA and WID wealth numbers are solid for big countries with detailed tax and survey data, but for smaller ones (like most European countries) with no access to actual wealth/tax records, the numbers are mostly “best-guess” estimates. They rely heavily on corrections borrowed from neighbors and basic surveys that totally miss the ultra-rich. TL;DR: For top 1% wealth, the figures are very shaky—treat them as rough indicators, not hard facts.
Comment: I do a lot of studies so I usually am interested in the methodologies behind these numbers. A lot of times there is a lot of guessing, and estimating going on, which in the end may result in completely unreliable results. I think this is the case here, especially for wealth distribution.
Look, if I take an example with me and someone else.
There’s myself, I’m a mere 26yo autist who’s caused a disaster every time she’s tried to work, so is no longer allowed to besides volunteerships. The most expensive item I own is certainly my e-bike (price new: 1800€, though I got it 50% off for a reason). Then perhaps my 7-years old 1000€ computer. Technically, would you count surgeries, then that piece of metal in my shoulder actually is the most expensive thing I own. That said, I have some money in the bank.
There’s Michelle, who works as a carpenter. It isn’t that much, but she still owns two houses that could probably go for 400.000€ together. Maybe even more, the neighborhood’s value is going up steadily as years pass. That’s not counting her car, and all the items inside the house, obviously (of which quite a few expensive pieces of carpenter equipment).
That’s basically putting her 450.000€ versus my 5000€, so this is basically a 99% to 1% split. Is this a failure from Belgium? I’d say no…
I doubt she’s in the top 10% still, though I’m certainly in the bottom 50%. What do the top 10% own? I can’t even fathom, but I expect the same kind of stuff with owning land and houses. I’d certainly love to own some land and a house, I dream of managing some ‚camping in the forest with a beautiful garden‘ kind of place… doubt it’ll ever happen.
Don’t look at the 1% only. Look at the bottom 50%. In all of these countries they barely hold more than a couple percent.
Half of our country. Almost 6 million people. All having to work with single digit percent of our wealth. They can’t invest. They can’t contribute much to our economy. And that’s, of course, not mentioning dealing with everyday expenses etc…
Everyone is equally poor because of abusive taxes, yay.
Just because we’re doing _better in comparison_ doesn’t mean we’re doing _good enough_.
50% of the population barely holding 10% of combined wealth is nowhere near a good enough distribution.