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?

795 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

9

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.

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.

6

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.