Why is it bad that the top 1% own over 42% of the wealth?

Why is that so wrong? they got a good career so that's why they get paid so much. Why are people mad that people with education are making more than their minimum wage jobs at Mcdonalds?Why is it bad that the top 1% own over 42% of the wealth?
This is actually a pretty complicated topic, and there are good economic arguments on both sides. Personally, I think a more even distribution is better simply because of diminishing marginal returns to income. Taking $1000 away from a billionaire and giving it to a homeless person makes the billionaire really no worse off but is incredibly welfare improving for the homeless person.



That being said, high incomes are necessary as an incentive for high skills requiring high eduction. I'm nearing the end of a double degree in Law and Economics, and I can tell you now I wouldn't be living below the poverty line and and working like crazy to get my degrees if I didn't think there would be good money at the end of it.



There are also a lot of other arguments either way (such as the wealthy having a stimulating economic effect due to higher marginal propensities to save bolstering investment levels, or higher marginal tax rates to fund welfare improving policies or social security, as well as moral questions about people born into 'undeserved' wealth etc).



As a general rule though, its not bad for there to be some well educated, hard working people who earn significant wealth. However, 1% of the population controlling nearly half the wealth is simply far too high to be welfare maximizing.



If you want an example of how bad it is - USA median wealth levels are around $50,000. In Australia, its $400,000. Thats a country with an economy WAY smaller than the US, and generally speaking they are EIGHT TIMES wealthier than Americans. There is something terribly, terribly wrong with that.Why is it bad that the top 1% own over 42% of the wealth?
This question is debatable, and very complex.



Without rich people, there would probably be no money at all - not for anyone. Look what happened in Russia when they tried to distributed the country`s wealth to all and sundry.



Then you have the question that some people know only how to spend money - and have no idea how to save it, or even increae it. Give them too much free money, and they will only waste it.



Give a conservative type money, and he will increase it, then start employing people, so they also can earn money - to either spend it or invest or save it themselves. And so it is money that makes the world go round.

Money is really the `oil` for the machinery of commercialism and capitalism.
its not just having crappy jobs, 1 in 15 people in the us are unemployed, and its becoming harder and harder to find jobs. i dont find this particularly bad, dont really care lolWhy is it bad that the top 1% own over 42% of the wealth?
It is the political ways they manuver their way thru regulations.

To rig the rules so that the playing field is unequal is the main rub.
It has ruined our democracy,said Krugman.Why is it bad that the top 1% own over 42% of the wealth?
When you look at these whining OWS hippies I'm pretty glad they don't own much of anything.