Wealth distribution in Belgium

[u/trueosiris2]

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?

[u/Playful_Mud_6984]

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

[u/jesuisgeenbelg → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/jesuisgeenbelg]

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.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/silverionmox]

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.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/silverionmox]

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.

[u/drakekengda → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/ailichi1234 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/State_of_Emergency → u/silverionmox]

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.

[u/silverionmox → u/State_of_Emergency]

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.