I don't like that test. Of course people are going to favor an egalitarian society when you include such conditions. That also highlights the problem with Rawls' theory. What rational people would choose to do under the scenario you give them is different from morality.

If I were asked the same question, of course I would choose the option that gave me the most wealth. But in real life, that is no compelling argument for redistributing wealth. Instead, I believe in a society with minimal restraints, meritocracy and equality of opportunity. While there's no doubt in my mind that America's upper 1/10 of a percent are rent-seekers, I'm not in favor of confiscating their assets either. What is done is done, and we need to move on. We can do that by improving transparency in government, limiting the influence of money in politics, and lifting the barriers to entry these plutocrats created to limit their competition. Tying their hands to decide elections and fair economic competition will cut them down to size.

I also find it amusing that the article mentions Sweden as a model. It seems the Swedes are desperate to export their government and legal models all the time, and frankly, all I see is misandrist radical feminists.

and it's a lot more than 84% when you consider the movie rights to their life story, the insurance payments on the movie and the servicing of that insurance contract.

That's not a joke. I just created wealth out of nothing.  It's silly only because I pitched it to YOU, who have nothing, instead of millionaires, who might throw something behind it.* Do it enough, you got an industry.  Then it needs lobbyists ($) and ethical advisors to the lobbyists ($$) and probably studies of the failures of ethical counseling to the industry ($$$).

* oh yeah? WTF is "Atlas Shrugged: The Movie"?**

** I'd rather watch Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Lauren Bacall and Michael Gambon sip whiskey in a studio and READ Atlas Shrugged than this movie , but it still got made

By a decade the vast majority of 'poverty level' people have moved up and out of poverty.

Voila proof you can leave your status behind exists!

An American system where you are free to push yourself towards the lifestyle you want to achieve is preferrable to an "egalitarian" system where you will be well taken care of in 'your place' your whole life

even if you wanted to move up

BTW if you want to move 2000 km away and open your own business...your "caring" system provides no more support than the eeeeevul US model...

Since the 1930s this country has allowed and encouraged the working man to cease to be a wage hireling and, with a vehicle easily within reach, become an entrepreneur to wealthy clients living outside the city...and by developing his skills, become a boss of crews of working men with several trucks, and himself become wealthy.  Not many plumbers on welfare in the United States.   

And with the growth of small business we have the growth of service agents who help small businesses.  And the sales of office equipment. And the development of software and electronics to facilitate their business.   And the service agents who maintain those items.  Even when you have a massive phone corporation or computer corporation manufacturing, designing and selling these items, it helps the corporation to sell franchises to citizens who move up in the world.

If the focus of the state, is instead, to say "how do we keep the plumber happy AS A CLOCKPUNCHER" we knock the engine of growth out of whack, which is why the caring sharing continent of Europe has countries where 8% unemployment or 12% unemployment is the norm.  It would be better if you had more rich people and 5% unemployment.

Agree 5% unemployment would be nice. America's is 8.2%?
Sweden's 7.5% (Not that I advocate Sweden as a model)

Stop making things into a EU vs US battle. The subject was never meant to pit the two as enemies. But asks 'What do Americans think is fair'?

"Yell. No the quintiles are each 20% band of wealth in the society. Its on absolute scale at any point in time, not relevant to the past."

No.  If our eeevvvvvvull society's poorest 1/5th someday range from $0-$70k that would be awesome progress from our current situation.  That's what I'm getting at.

"Stop making things into a EU vs US battle. The subject was never meant to pit the two as enemies. But asks 'What do Americans think is fair'?"

There's two kinds of people in the world and you disparaged the choices of the American portion.  So then I look to the experience of the other kind

"What you do not say is what you think is fair."

If I am playing football (soccer) and I make 3 goals, its fair that I get 3 points.
If I am playing football (soccer) and I make 2 goals, its fair that I get 2 points.
If I am playing football (soccer) and I make 1 goal, its fair that I get 1 point.
If I am not playing football (soccer) and I make 0 goals, its fair that I get 0 points.

If I am working and I earn $1000, its fair I get $1000.
If I am working and I earn $200, its fair I get $200.
If I am not working and I earn $0, its fair I get $0.

Inequality will exist because people are individuals and thus are not equal in their attributes.  Something being unequal and something being unfair are two different things.  It is not unfair that LeBron James can score more points than me in basketball.  The points we each get will be unequal but that does not mean unfair.

True East, but if over a 4 year period, Mace invests $50,000 into going to college and Primo invests $50,000 in cocain and hookers. You can't say its luck that Mace has his own house while Primo lives in his mom's basement.  You also can't say "Mace is a greedy bastard, he has a house and car and money... but poor Primo is in the bottom 20% and can't afford to buy his gonnorea medicine.  Therefore its unfair and unequal that Mace has a car or house.  We should take as much of Mace's money as necessary so Primo can have the equal amount of assets as Mace.  That way we are all equal.

Note:  I have no idea of the economic fitness of either Mace nor Primo, just making up an example for example's sake

Beo, no you got my circumstances about right.

But again this isn't about equality. It is about being fair. My dad always said that to be born British is to win the lottery of life. He's totally correct... all other nations are worse. And that's why the whole aspires to live in or become British.

Wealth is the same deal. You can be born to a billionaire who pays for you to go to Eton or you can be born to illiterate  paupers in Kibera, who cripple you as a child so you can make money as a street beggar.

That is the fair and equal society it sometimes seems is advocated here.

My sense of fair is that every child has an equal opportunity. That means free (yes that means state paid) high-quality education and healthcare. If one wishes to argue free healthcare ends at 18 or 21, then that's another debate. But the American model is Unfair to the children of the poorer members of its society. And I say poorer as no one in America is truly poor. Relative to Kibera even the 5th quintile of the 5th quintile of the 5th quintile is doing OK.

When you mention the poor in America not having a chance I don't think you understand the poor in America.  I went to a public school - everyone has access to the same public school.  If you live on 1st street and make a million bucks than your kid goes to the same school as the kid who lives three blocks away and lives in the slums.  Now here is where the paths divide and I will agree with you on fairness.  Poor families usually mean the parents are not well educated or have some other social disability (drug addict, convict, single parent house hold... ect).  These children don't get the parenting as the wealthly kids whose parents stress the values of an education, the important of living clean, the importance of family and community.  Therefore even though the poor kid goes to the same school and has the same teachers and the same classes as the rich kid - the environment they live in isn't nuturing their growth.  In Detroit, inner city kids who care about good grades are hasseled by there peers as "trying to be white".  (I believe in Detroit they have a 10% graduation rate - this is free education, the poor don't want it - access to education isn't the problem).  Furthermore the poor are given Pell Grants here in the US.  If you have the grades to go to college - the government will pay.  Even furthermore - student loans are impossible not to get - if you value a higher education you can have it and you don't start paying back until after you graduate with your degree.

What do you suggest to correct this unfairness?  Disallow the poor to breed?  Stealing children from households if there income isn't over a certain level?  I agree with you one hundred percent , many children who live in poverty are under an unfair influence... but how do you correct that?

Yeah, Cambodia probably had the most.  Too bad it wasn't upward social mobility.