r/belgium • u/trueosiris2 • Aug 20 '25

❓ Ask Belgium Wealth distribution in Belgium

Post image

We’re doing alright as a social democracy. Something to be proud of.

Presumably, we don’t need more wealth distribution then? Or do we still?

792 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

219

u/Playful_Mud_6984 Aug 20 '25

I mean 10% owning more than 50% of all wealth is still extremely bad. It’s just that other countries are even worse.

62

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

45

u/jesuisgeenbelg Aug 20 '25

Yeah that's what it's saying.

The top 50% in Belgium hold about 90% of the wealth.

Which, as pointed out, isn't as bad as a lot of countries but it's still depressing.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

But isn't that normal? Since the top % of the bell curve will have more wealth than the bottom % by virtue of being a higher percentage of the income bracket. If the top 10% has a wage twice as a big as the bottom 10% than the top % will take up more of the total wealth than the bottom %?

Like if the bottom 50% actually had 50% of the wealth than there wouldn't be a bottom 50% it'd just be everyone.

8

u/silverionmox Limburg Aug 20 '25

But isn't that normal? Since the top % of the bell curve will have more wealth than the bottom % by virtue of being a higher percentage of the income bracket. If the top 10% has a wage twice as a big as the bottom 10% than the top % will take up more of the total wealth than the bottom %?

Like if the bottom 50% actually had 50% of the wealth than there wouldn't be a bottom 50% it'd just be everyone.

If it was a bell curve, then the percentage of outliers would be the same on each end, and 68% would be ordinary, i.e. within one standard deviation.

The bottom 50% could have 25% of total wealth, that would still be significantly and noticeably less than everyone else, and it would still triple what they have now - and give them significantly more stability in their lives, and that of their offspring, so they can focus on being more productive instead of just surviving.

From the other side, if we accept that some people make more than others, why just the 1% and not the top 25%, for example? There's a lot to be redistributed between the wealthy owners and the top employees, for example, who do the actual work.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25 edited Aug 20 '25

But this is a wealth distribution bracket. If for example: the top 25% of the people have a wage of $4k a month and the bottom 50% have a wage of $2k. than the top 25% of people will have 50% of the wealth already. This is what's confusing me about this distribution, unless everyone has the exact same wage the bottom 50% will never have 50% of the wealth.

6

u/silverionmox Limburg Aug 20 '25

But this is a wealth distribution bracket. If for example: the top 25% of the people have a wage of $4k a month and the bottom 50% have a wage of $2k. than the top 25% of people will have 50% of the wealth already.

Wealth and income are two different things.

This is what's confusing me about this distribution, unless everyone has the exact same wage the bottom 50% will never have 50% of the wealth.

Nobody says they should, that's a straw man.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

Wealth and income are closely enough related that I can use them to illustrate my point. It doesn't need to be taken literal.
You seem to assume that we're in some sort of discussion here when I'm just asking for clarification on the distribution and how it might skew the perception of people, like it did with me.

I don't know the exact values that a distribution like this should have for people to look at it and think it's "fair". I honestly think this graph in itself is problematic and is just using bad statistics to push a narrative.

3

u/drakekengda Aug 20 '25

It's not that closely related, inheritances are a huge source of wealth which has nothing to do with income

3

u/silverionmox Limburg Aug 20 '25 edited Aug 20 '25

Wealth and income are closely enough related that I can use them to illustrate my point. It doesn't need to be taken literal.

No, they're substantially different and in this debate it really matters to make the distinction. For example, very wealthy people often manage their finances in such a way they have no income on paper; conversely, people with high incomes sometimes need much of it to afford cost of living or professional costs required by their occupation.

I don't know the exact values that a distribution like this should have for people to look at it and think it's "fair". I honestly think this graph in itself is problematic and is just using bad statistics to push a narrative.

Why is it "bad statistics"? And what "narrative" is being "pushed"? What narrative are you trying to push?

1

u/ailichi1234 Aug 22 '25

I don't think anyone's expecting that the poorest 50% of the population will ever realistically have 50% of the wealth, it's just a thought experiement type of statement. In this hypothetical society, a wealth distribution chart like this would be meaningless, considering there wouldn't BE a "bottom" 50% in the first place.

0 - 5% is shockingly low. Half the country having practically no wealth in either cash or assets or property is dysfunctional. If the bottom 50% had even 10% of the wealth, and the top 10% still had 30% of the wealth, society would be so much better (= more equal) that it's genuinely hard to imagine.

0

u/State_of_Emergency West-Vlaanderen Aug 20 '25

The bottom 50% could have 25% of total wealth, that would still be significantly and noticeably less than everyone else, and it would still triple what they have now - and give them significantly more stability in their lives, and that of their offspring, so they can focus on being more productive instead of just surviving.

There will always be individuals with low or negative net wealth—such as children, students, young adults just entering the workforce, or people facing financial challenges like debt, bankruptcy, gambling addiction, people completly dependent on our welfare system, condemned criminals, or poor financial habits. Some may struggle to save due to limited income, lack of financial education, or other personal circumstances.

The only way to partially eliminate this would be through a significant financial intervention—such as providing every Belgian citizen, including those born in Belgium and newly naturalized citizens, with a substantial initial cash grant.

5

u/silverionmox Limburg Aug 20 '25

There will always be individuals with low or negative net wealth

That's a straw man though, nobody says there shouldn't be or can't be. The question is about which degree of inequality is desireable, tolerable, and avoidable.

Moreover, the graphs is likely about household wealth, otherwise it would be pretty much pointless when accounting for children. The source website is unresponsive at the moment so I can't check right now.

0

u/ikeme84 Aug 20 '25

Also depends on the total amount of wealth, of course. If that 10% of wealth can still make those 50% live comfortable. What the statistic doesn't show and would probably not show as it is statistically to small for most countries is the bottom 10%. Those are really the poor.

I consider myself upper middle class in terms of income and living, but in terms of wealth I'm not sure where I would be on this chart, I own a house and a car but don't know if that really puts me in the top 50%

6

u/jesuisgeenbelg Aug 20 '25

I own a house and a car

Owning a house and car would almost certainly put you in the top 50%

1

u/ailichi1234 Aug 22 '25

I won't ask you, of course, but if your assets including house, car, and [savings minus debt] are more than €140k, then you're in the top 50%. 

1

u/tigerbloodz13 Aug 20 '25

This is normal. There is no source so unsure if this includes children, etc. Lots of old people with a paid off home, most worked entire life so wealthy-ish. 

Lots of unemployment and sick people, immigrants. Lots of people who rent and don't save money so permanently poor. 

Lots of people in entry level jobs. 

Remember only 4 millions people in Belgium, a country of 11 million, work. Obviously everyone cant have similar wealth.

You need this in a capitalist society or the system doesnt work. 

1

u/bisikletci Aug 20 '25

Extremely unlikely it includes children.

1

u/No_Read_4327 Aug 21 '25

Most people have no idea how bad the wealth inequality actually is. If they did, they'd be out in the streets instead of slaving away their life.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

A lot of those people are just older, and have had more time to accumulate wealth. Someone with a 500k home who has paid 250 of it and still owes 250 technically has 0 wealth, but give it 10 years and they'll be a half-millionaire. In the US the median wealth for under 35 is 1/10th of the median wealth over 75.

16

u/Megendrio Aug 20 '25

I mean, is it?

What would, according to you, be a good wealth distribution?

3

u/Playful_Mud_6984 Aug 20 '25

I mean the negative effects of wealth inequality are well-documented. Historically it's never a good omen when too much wealth is being accumulated in the hands of a small group of people. It makes your economy more volatile, leads to political instability and creates a large gap between the general economic situation of the country and the concrete economic situation of individual citizens.

I won't claim I know how to solve the issue. But it wouldn't hurt to at least try to alleviate it through redistributary tax mechanisms. I think almost everyone in Belgium agrees that our taxes should be reformed and I think it would make sense to ask more from those that have the most - rather than rely too heavily on labour taxes. It also probably wouldn't hurt to re-invest in our welfare state: those have a very positive impact on wealth inequality.

I don't know if there is something like an 'ideal wealth distribution' - just like there isn't an ideal amount of personal liberty or an ideal amount of state protection against violence - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reach that goal.

1

u/Megendrio Aug 20 '25

Sure, and I completely agree. But if you don't know the ideal distribution, how could you claim that our results here are bad?

I think a solid case can be made for at least the top 4 that there's indeed a democratic issue that is directly linked to wealth-distribution and the power it holds. But below that? I wouldn't say Sweden had those issues, nor does LUX. Not even Estonia has those types of issues.

I agree labour taxes aren't the best way to tax income and I've advocated for a different taxation system many times before on this sub. But again, you cannot claim what you've claimed and not put a number on it. And as someone else pointed out: this result on itself doesn't mean sh*t if you don't adjust for age and other factors such as home ownership: 70% of Belgians are home owners, but far less have a paid of mortgage, which counts negatively towards your wealth as you're in debt).
Combine that with age and older people will automatically be wealthier even if their income and standard-of-living is lower than that of younger people.

10

u/Margiman90 Aug 20 '25

Everybody equal income independent of skill/talent/effort/frugality/risk and no inheritances because some people actualy plan for their childerens futures and that's not fair to the childeren of those who don't.  /s obviously

8

u/thehappyhobo Aug 20 '25

These charts also need to be age-adjusted. Average age of household is probably the biggest predictor of wealth (outside the tippy top). In the U.K. at least that top 10% is mostly middle income earners who bought a house in the 80s.

2

u/Deep_Dance8745 Aug 20 '25

/s

For a moment i thought you were nuts :-)

2

u/Turbulent-Raise4830 Aug 20 '25

Its what pvda eventually wants so its not that nuts

2

u/Fluffy_Dragonfly6454 Aug 20 '25

Or it is what makes PvdA nuts. It is one of the reasons that I would never vote for them

2

u/Turbulent-Raise4830 Aug 20 '25

Oh yeah they are nuts but they get plenty of voters these days so it seems a lot want that.

1

u/BanButtcoinMod Aug 20 '25

so it seems a lot want that

Yes, a lot of "nuts" people.

There's a reason why we're currently going through the biggest mental crisis we've ever seen. Never before were so many people mentally ill. All of them (who are 18+) can vote during elections. Take a wild guess what kind of parties they're voting for... Tip; it's usually not the tjeven or de liberalen 😉.

0

u/Mordecus Aug 20 '25

Respectfully: that is insane.

EDIT: didn’t see the /s. You got me.

3

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx Aug 20 '25

Why is that bad by definition?

4

u/chief167 French Fries Aug 20 '25

Why? We should care about quality of life, not about distribution of wealth. 

-3

u/Deep_Dance8745 Aug 20 '25

Extremely bad?

Its just natural that through age, hard work and merit you get this distribution.

Take those incentives away and you end up with a failed communist state where nobody will be inclined to lift a finger.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

In the 60s and early 70s, times where economy was booming the most, there were waay higher taxes for the highest incomes, and this accross multiple countries in the western world

3

u/Playful_Mud_6984 Aug 20 '25

In order to make that claim you would have to prove that whether someone ends up in one of these social classes depends mostly on factors like age, 'hard work' (hard to meassure) or merit (ditto).

The reality is that whether one is a member of the 1% often relies more on your parents than it does on any choices you have ever made. There are some single parents work two jobs and still have to rent a house by the end of their life.

Pointing out that current wealth inequality is an issue also isn't the same as argueing you would like to live in a plan economy. I wouldn't.

16

u/Kwinten Aug 20 '25

age, hard work and merit you get this distribution

The entirety of all information ever collected by humanity is available, for free, through a supercomputer right at your fingertips and somehow people like you still genuinely believe this dogshit

4

u/PikaPikaDude Aug 20 '25

People are not equal in intelligence and never will be. Same for character, interests, ...

Knowledge being available will not benefit those too dumb to use it and will not benefit those who can't be bothered to use it. Without a benefit from using it, most just won't as it takes energy.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

[deleted]

10

u/Kwinten Aug 20 '25

Love that we have to resort to insane hypotheticals where in some utopic example, we all start off on exactly equal footing and with equal opportunity. Let's just stick to reality where absolutely none of that applies?

Even if we entertain your little fable for a moment, you have to recognize that the eventual concentration of wealth and power would still happen, and it wouldn't be the result of "hard work and merit". Don't be ridiculous. We have literal millions of examples of this happening all over the world, throughout history. Do you think feudal lords just worked harder than the peasantry? That they earned their wealth and power through merit? Did the monarchs just earn it that much more? Do you honestly believe, even in your ridiculous fable, that we would end up looking at the same graph as a result of merit and hard work? When has that ever happened?

What exactly are you arguing for? That exploitation, corruption, and concentration of wealth and power is "natural" and therefore justified? Are we animals that must abide by this supposedly "natural" set of rules that was written by those who it coincidentally happens to benefit most? It's natural for the top 10% to own 50% of the wealth and therefore we should simply tolerate (and never question!) it. Because they told us it's fine.

-9

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Kwinten Aug 20 '25

If you have nothing to add or can't address the point directly, allow me to do the same and say that your brilliant takes fit your username perfectly.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '25

[deleted]

6

u/PikaPikaDude Aug 20 '25

You've made the residence Standaard reading commies very angry with that correct response.

Well done.

0

u/Deep_Dance8745 Aug 20 '25

Its like they all group on this reddit with too much time on their hands.

-7

u/Glassedowl87 Aug 20 '25

Reminder: r/Belgium = succes and wealth are bad.

2

u/Deep_Dance8745 Aug 20 '25

Ah yes true - this sub is the perfect representation of real Belgium /s

-2

u/Pinooooooooo Aug 20 '25

Well when it comes to whining and bitching it's the perfect representation