85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

And how is this any of your business?

 

[martybegan]

We can argue all we want about wealth redistribution and fair taxes and on and on, along with the ever increasing disparity in wealth. None of it matters or will matter until the top 1% control over 75% of the wealth. Once that happens, then the 75% will confiscate it all. Democracy will collapse, and socialism will take hold. It's a vicious circle. Why is it that communism came about in the first place? Because the wealthy controlled all of the assets, that's why.

Communism was formed on the basis of the means of production being controlled by a small amount of people, what made it come about was the collapse of Russia in WWI and the inability of the nationalists in China to be as aggressive and ruthless as the communists under Mao.

Besides, all communism does is replace one ruling class with another.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So watchya gonna do about it?

About what?

About what you posted in your OP.

What about it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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



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

And how is this any of your business?

Thats not a point

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

They own 1.7 trillion and that includes all 85 according to the article....not 17 trillion. Since all do not live in the US the total they own falls below a trillion which, after confiscated, wouldnt even pinprick the debt that the US has.

 

[SwimExpert]

About what?

About what you posted in your OP.

What about it?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

About what you posted in your OP.

What about it?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Yeah they do. Tax. Tax. Tax.

 

[ClosedCaption]

About what you posted in your OP.

What about it?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

 

[SwimExpert]

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

What do you think my first post was asking?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

And what tax rate would you propose on the 1% that you think will have any meaningful effect on our debt?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

What do you think my first post was asking?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

And what tax rate would you propose on the 1% that you think will have any meaningful effect on our debt?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Replace Liberal with Republicans.

Why cant you answer a simple question? Which do you prefer? The Debt is a big deal option or the Debt is not a big deal option?

Or will you respond with more complaining and no solutions? Because you said that is a liberal trait

 

[SwimExpert]

Why cant you answer a simple question? Which do you prefer? The Debt is a big deal option or the Debt is not a big deal option?

Or will you respond with more complaining and no solutions? Because you said that is a liberal trait

You're the one who started the thread. Burden is on you.

 

[Nyvin]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

 

[SwimExpert]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

How does it make sense to tax an arbitrarily defined group of people based on the group's composite wealth?

 

[martybegan]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

They already pay the majority of the taxes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why cant you answer a simple question? Which do you prefer? The Debt is a big deal option or the Debt is not a big deal option?

Or will you respond with more complaining and no solutions? Because you said that is a liberal trait

You're the one who started the thread. Burden is on you.

They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Lol...Now Swim wants his bullshit to be my burden while he has no ideas...just complaints. When you made that comment I didnt know you were looking in the mirror

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

They already pay the majority of the taxes.

Because they own a majority of the wealth.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why cant you answer a simple question? Which do you prefer? The Debt is a big deal option or the Debt is not a big deal option?

You're the one who started the thread. Burden is on you.

They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Lol...Now Swim wants his bullshit to be my burden while he has no ideas...just complaints. When you made that comment I didnt know you were looking in the mirror

You're the one who started the thread.

Waaaaah! The rich are rich! They're too rich! Waaaaah!

So what are going to do about it?

What? What am I...? Why shou-- Hey fuck you man! I dont' have to do shit about it. Everyone just gimme the god damned money!

 

[MikeK]

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.

Really? What do you think taxation is if not confiscation of wealth?

In the example of these greedy hoarders it is necessary to confiscate the excess they've managed to somehow acquire. Because these excesses have the effect of bringing the national economy dangerously off balance. And individual control of such inordinate wealth equates to inordinate political influence.

Am I advocating "Socialism?" No. Simply the implementation of certain socialist controls for the purpose of regulating the capitalist system -- as was the situation during the most prosperous and productive period in our history, the '40s through the '70s. Then came Reaganomics and here we are.

Confiscate Excessive Wealth! It is damaging to the internal security and stability of the Nation.

 

[Kosh]

A far left report being put on a far left blog site being believed without question by the far left Obama drones.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You're the one who started the thread. Burden is on you.

They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Lol...Now Swim wants his bullshit to be my burden while he has no ideas...just complaints. When you made that comment I didnt know you were looking in the mirror

You're the one who started the thread.

Waaaaah! The rich are rich! They're too rich! Waaaaah!

So what are going to do about it?

What? What am I...? Why shou-- Hey fuck you man! I dont' have to do shit about it. Everyone just gimme the god damned money!

I asked you a question. I mean if you are going to "act like a liberal" and not have any answers thats on you

Heres what I asked you:

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?