85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth -- 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the population.
That bottom half of the population owned about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth. That's the same amount as owned by the 85 richest people, the report said.
The findings undermine democracy and make it more difficult to fight poverty, the report said.
“It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world’s population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, the group's executive director.
"Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table," she said.


85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population, report says - latimes.com
snip

The percentage of income held by the richest 1% in the U.S. has grown by nearly 150% since 1980. That small elite has received 95% of wealth created since 2009, after the financial crisis, while the bottom 90% of Americans have become poorer, Oxfam said.
The share of wealth owned by the richest 1% also expanded in all but two of the 26 nations tracked by researchers in the World Top Incomes Database.
That's caused a "massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people," Oxfam said.
How'd they do it? Hard Work? More elbow grease? More Gumption?

Falling taxes for the rich and increased use of tax havens have helped widen income inequality, Oxfam said.
And thats when they created all the jobs that are all around us. Everywhere, just like they promised when they asked for lower taxes
 

deltex1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
3,403
Points
295
Location
Near the Alamo
All the more reason to ship trillions to Kenya...a solid investment in Africa's future.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,599
Reaction score
26,689
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
They did it by understanding wealth, they did it because they each had a vision of their respective future that they worked relentlessly toward.

Do you want to discuss a specific individual sam walton, warren buffett, stephen ross or do you want to drone on about how profits are stolen wages
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,177
Reaction score
10,518
Points
2,040
The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to steal from them.
its based on all the people ON EARTH, not just in the US.

The numbers given for confiscating all the wealth of the richest in the US not being able to pay off the debt for more than a year are still valid.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
There is certainly an unnatural concentration of wealth occuring that is outside nature. Thomas Jefferson would recognize it immediately. He warned against its destructive power, and proposed laws to mitigate it. And so he sought a progressive tax system, with most people being exempt from taxes altogether, and the elimination of primogeniture. But the way to fix our current problem is not to tax the rich more. The way to fix that is to undo the legislative advantages that have tilted the field in the favor of the oligarchs.

Taxing all the rich more is punishing the just with the unjust.
 
Last edited:

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,804
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
They did it by understanding wealth, they did it because they each had a vision of their respective future that they worked relentlessly toward.

Do you want to discuss a specific individual sam walton, warren buffett, stephen ross or do you want to drone on about how profits are stolen wages
And these folks took on monumental risks. That's part of the equation that's rarely if ever mentioned.
 
OP
ClosedCaption

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.
Is "confiscate" a euphemism for "tax"?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to steal from them.
its based on all the people ON EARTH, not just in the US.

The numbers given for confiscating all the wealth of the richest in the US not being able to pay off the debt for more than a year are still valid.
No. The richest one percent in the US own more than $17 trillion, which is our current debt.

"Pay off the debt for more than one year" is a non sequitur. If you meant the deficit, then you are off even more.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,177
Reaction score
10,518
Points
2,040
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to steal from them.
its based on all the people ON EARTH, not just in the US.

The numbers given for confiscating all the wealth of the richest in the US not being able to pay off the debt for more than a year are still valid.
No. The richest one percent in the US own more than $17 trillion, which is our current debt.
That is awfully convinent isnt it? where did you get the # from?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.
Is "confiscate" a euphemism for "tax"?
It is more than tax. It is punitive tax.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,177
Reaction score
10,518
Points
2,040
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.
Is "confiscate" a euphemism for "tax"?
It is more than tax. It is punitive tax.
Taxing is when you fund the government, based on what services you want to provide, which you then figure out how to fund.

Confiscation is when you figure out what goodies you want to spread around and then figure out who to shaft with higher taxes to fund it. All of it of course, with a large federal bureacracy as overhead, which creates even more redistribution.
 

WelfareQueen

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
12,972
Reaction score
7,391
Points
1,065
Location
Uranus
The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth -- 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the population.
That bottom half of the population owned about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth. That's the same amount as owned by the 85 richest people, the report said.
The findings undermine democracy and make it more difficult to fight poverty, the report said.
“It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world’s population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, the group's executive director.
"Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table," she said.


85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population, report says - latimes.com
snip

The percentage of income held by the richest 1% in the U.S. has grown by nearly 150% since 1980. That small elite has received 95% of wealth created since 2009, after the financial crisis, while the bottom 90% of Americans have become poorer, Oxfam said.
The share of wealth owned by the richest 1% also expanded in all but two of the 26 nations tracked by researchers in the World Top Incomes Database.
That's caused a "massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people," Oxfam said.
How'd they do it? Hard Work? More elbow grease? More Gumption?

Falling taxes for the rich and increased use of tax havens have helped widen income inequality, Oxfam said.
And thats when they created all the jobs that are all around us. Everywhere, just like they promised when they asked for lower taxes

You better get a real big gun to take their money away. But then again....you probably don't support gun ownership so you are really screwed.

Oh well, too bad....they have money and you don't. Whaddya gonna do?
 

Nyvin

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
3,657
Reaction score
658
Points
190
You better get a real big gun to take their money away. But then again....you probably don't support gun ownership so you are really screwed.

Oh well, too bad....they have money and you don't. Whaddya gonna do?
productive comments.
 
OP
ClosedCaption

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.
Is "confiscate" a euphemism for "tax"?
It is more than tax. It is punitive tax.
Yeah well I call it something different. When poorer people pay more in taxes is that also punitive?

I guess it would be since its punishment for not being able to hire an accountant to weasel out of paying taxes and/or hiding money
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
Is "confiscate" a euphemism for "tax"?
It is more than tax. It is punitive tax.
Yeah well I call it something different. When poorer people pay more in taxes is that also punitive?

I guess it would be since its punishment for not being able to hire an accountant to weasel out of paying taxes and/or hiding money
You are making my point for me without realizing it.

Look at it this way: The cause of unnatural concentrations of wealth is not that the rich are being taxed too little. Therefore, raising tax rates is not the right solution.
 
Last edited:

dannyboys

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
15,431
Reaction score
2,577
Points
280
At least the wealthy are clever enough to know how to hang on to it.
Can you imagine if Bobo got his hands on it?
It would be in the pockets of all his limousine Lib friends within a month.
What would they do with it? Ship it off shore. You can bet your bottom dollar the poor wouldn't see a nickel.
 

Rocko

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
17,298
Reaction score
4,246
Points
280
Location
NY
They did it by understanding wealth, they did it because they each had a vision of their respective future that they worked relentlessly toward.

Do you want to discuss a specific individual sam walton, warren buffett, stephen ross or do you want to drone on about how profits are stolen wages
And these folks took on monumental risks. That's part of the equation that's rarely if ever mentioned.
Even if they earned their fortunes by dumb luck that's still not a justification to confiscate their wealth.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top