Steady State Revolution - Fighting for a Sustainable World with a Steady State Economy

Fair Distribution: Ending the Wealth Gap

Posted March 14th, 2009 by Joshua | with 10 comments

Tax cuts in 2006 gave 70 percent of their benefits to the top 5 percent of Americans

The growth-centered nature of our world economy is relatively new. For most of human history, growth has been slow and almost stagnant. Over the last 200 years (essentially since the invention of fossil-fuel driven machines) that has changed significantly and our growth has largely benefited us: increased our health and means. That is, until sometime between the 1950s and the 1980s when growth become uneconomic and actually harmful to our happiness.

Today, most of that “economic” growth now goes to the Liquidating Class, the top 1 percent of our economy. According to some Northwestern University economists quoted in Bill McKibben‘s book Deep Economy, “the top 1 percent of wage earners ‘captured far more of the real national gain in income than did the bottom 50 percent’” between 1997 and 2001.

Brian Czech notes, “approximately 62 percent of the annual increase in American wealth goes to the one percent of Americans whose per capita net worth is already greater than $2.35 million… as much as [wealth] that [is] owned by the bottom 90 percent of the population!” (Shoveling Fuel…)

Tax cuts in 2006 gave 70 percent of their benefits to the top 5 percent of Americans, while only about 6.5 percent landed in the pockets of the bottom 80 percent. This isn’t what we want: 84 percent of Americans have the desire to have incomes in the top 20 percent. Neither of these distributions are sustainable. (McKibben, Deep Economy)

This difference in income creates a vast inequality in wealth distribution. Current US corporate income inequality is up to a factor of 500! That means the CEO of a company is receiving 500 times that of the lowest man on the pole. Is that CEO really worth 500 people? The military has, for quite some time, capped this range in salary at a factor of ten to twenty and they seem to be doing just fine. (Daly, A Steady State Economy)

In the United States we have a mandated minimum wages (although the federal minimum wage has not been increased in a long time). However, there is also an unfortunate belief in the US (and most of the world) that wealth can grow without limit. We do have a limit, though, our ecosystem is finite. Besides, do we really want 90% of the wealth in the hands of one or a few? This sounds like a feudal system, not a democracy.

So what is the proper factor? Herman Daly suggests if nothing else to start at a factor of one hundred, as the “bonds of community break at or before” this point.  The ultimate goal would be moving from there to a more realistic factor like twenty, fifteen, and then eventually even ten. At these numbers the wage inequality is justifiably for experience, education, and responsibility differences from those at the top and those at the bottom. (Daly, Beyond Growth)

This limit to minimum and maximum wage will do one thing that our current growth-centered economy claims to do but fails to truly deliver: raising the poor out of poverty. Instead of a “trickle down” effect we mistakenly believe works, we will have a “lift up” effect. For example, say you run a company and want to make $1 million a year, at a factor of ten you must pay your lowest worker must be paid at least $100,000 or at a factor of 20 that same worker is paid $50,000, and so forth. Our current system pays that worker $2000 a year – while the CEO earns $1 million a year!

Minnesota Congressman Martin Sabo proposed the “Income Equity Act” which would limit tax deductions on executives whose salaries no more than 25 times the lowest paid worker. (Daly, Beyond Growth) This is a step in the right direction. Policies similar to this will improve the general well being of all without removing our ability to move up, self-actualize, or enjoy ourselves. We simply remove the ability to own more houses than you can count or multiple private jets. These are far from sacrifices.

The concept of fair distribution in a steady state economy encompasses more than just income inequality. Policies reforming taxes, creating a minimum income, placing taxes on resource extraction instead of subsidies, and altering our standard work week to a livable pace are all issues also included in the topic of fair distribution. These will be included in future posts of this series. I also encourage you to read more at The Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy’s (CASSE) website.

Related posts (automatically generated):


  1. Ethical Banking Systems
  2. Maximum Wages: Focus on Achievements Instead of Bonuses
  3. The Creation of Money And Illusion of Wealth
  4. Taxing The Bads
  5. Your Dollar Counts. Really Counts.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS feed.

10 Responses to 'Fair Distribution: Ending the Wealth Gap'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Fair Distribution: Ending the Wealth Gap'.

  1. [...] some of the Steady State Economy philosophies in his comments during this interview. For instance, fair distribution is an obvious one. He also mentions that we need to realize that “we’re all [...]

  2. [...] worth more than the average person will make in their entire life. Now ask yourself, how is it fair to give them more money? Is it fair to give them you tax money? We are now [...]

    Say No to Bonuses

    19 Mar 09 at 18:58

  3. [...] off your money, instead of it vanishing into a grocery chain likely to fatten the pocket linings of rich CEOs [...]

  4. [...] Fair distribution is another important aspect of a steady state economy. David Korten, the author, hits this value on the head: ”If the world is to work for any of us, it must work for all of us.” It is required of us to remove the “trickle-down” theory and replace it with a “trickle-up” practice. Mandating maximum wages, minimum incomes, and maximum wage inequalities is necessary to stop our ravenous capitalism from creating a few that are vastly rich and a many that are vastly poor. [...]

  5. [...] is the ultimate goal of a steady state economy: dividing the resources up to create a just world (fair distribution) without using those resources too quickly or creating too much waste from their use (sustainable [...]

  6. [...] of this new paradigm? There are three main parts to a steady state economy: sustainable scale, fair distribution, and efficient allocation. The following are the definitions given by the Center for the [...]

  7. [...] The New Economics Foundation’s blog posted this last Friday about creating a salary cap for everyone. Steady state policies would encourage a maximum and minimum wage in order to create a fair distribution of wealth. [...]

  8. [...] we’ve discussed the principles of the steady state economy, ranging from sustainable scale to fair distribution to global climate change to population [...]

  9. [...] Thirdly, it is the responsibility of our government to provide us with the capability to flourish. Enriching the wealthy and entrenching the poor to further poverty is not giving equal capabilities to flourish. Fourthly, we pay taxes for a [...]

  10. [...] Tax the Rich – People making more than 20 times the average wage should be taxed on their income. They are promoting inequality, which have been linked to a range of social and economic problems. Take this a few steps further, increase the taxes the further away you get from the average national income and subsidize the income of those 20 times below the average. This is more Robin Hood than the bank tax even: it supports equality and actually lifts people out of poverty. Basically, this could be a feebate for wage equality. [...]

    Taxing The Bads

    22 Jun 10 at 07:59

Join the Discussion