85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population

[Darkwind]

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

So, tell My how much food you don't have because of them. Tell Me how you don't have a BMW because of them. Tell Me anything about what you don't have..............because of them.

 

[Darkwind]

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

I propose restoring the 91% tax rate that FDR imposed on the super rich, which helped to fuel the engine that fostered the most prosperous, productive decades in our history, the '40s through the '70s, and directly enabled the rise of the Great American Middle Class.

The finishing touch would be IRS confiscating every penny in excess of twenty million dollars in personal assets. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he can't get along on that little money.

Well, so long as we intend to ignore the rule of law, I propose that those who cannot sustain their own lives should be forced to work on farms and in factories for their subsistence.

 

[MikeK]

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

I propose restoring the 91% tax rate that FDR imposed on the super rich, which helped to fuel the engine that fostered the most prosperous, productive decades in our history, the '40s through the '70s, and directly enabled the rise of the Great American Middle Class.

The finishing touch would be IRS confiscating every penny in excess of twenty million dollars in personal assets. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he can't get along on that little money.

Well, so long as we intend to ignore the rule of law, I propose that those who cannot sustain their own lives should be forced to work on farms and in factories for their subsistence.

First, laws can be changed -- which is precisely why we are having the existing economic problems. They called it "de-regulation." One major example of this law-changing was Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which enabled the banks to loot the Treasury via the massive "bailouts." Those laws need to be re-enacted -- along with adding more controls over the banks and Wall Street.

In keeping with your proposal re: work:

Raising taxes on the rich and confiscating excessive wealth would enable replication of FDR's WPA and CCC programs which helped to end the Great Depression by putting millions of Americans (including my father) to work on road-building and forestry projects and which would now facilitate restoration of our crumbling infrastructure and electrical grid. This is something which is desperately needed to alter the declining course of American society. It is revolutionary action and it must be done.

 

[boedicca]

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

I propose restoring the 91% tax rate that FDR imposed on the super rich, which helped to fuel the engine that fostered the most prosperous, productive decades in our history, the '40s through the '70s, and directly enabled the rise of the Great American Middle Class.

The finishing touch would be IRS confiscating every penny in excess of twenty million dollars in personal assets. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he can't get along on that little money.

The HEARTBREAK of Economic & Historical Illiteracy on Parade.

- Loopholes and tax breaks, have you heard of them?
- Inflation, have you heard of it?

That high rate applied to almost NOBODY.

- Socialism, have you heard of it?

It's failed everywhere it's been tried. And there is no reason to believe that This Time It Will Be Different.

 

[Defiant1]

Nobody wants to confiscate wealth. We just want policies that promote the responsible use of it. As it is.....shit ain't working.

I see. You don't want to confiscate the wealth you want laws dictating how they can use the wealth.

Should there be a law prohibiting people from removing their wealth from this county?

Sorry...I am enjoying a snack and cannot accept the words that you wish to put in my mouth. Idiot nutter. Try harder.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth.
I merely restated what you posted except I used laws instead of policies because laws would have to be passed for that to happen.
Then I asked you a question.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Falling taxes for the rich and increased use of tax havens have helped widen income inequality, Oxfam said.

If the tax code lets them concentrate the wealth, adjusting it isn't "taking" from them.

If we accept the premise that those who "concentrate" wealth are greedy, then do you really think "adjusting" the tax code will make them change their hearts? Or will they simply endeavor to scheme up new ways to continue to retain the share they currently hold?

It was adjustments to the tax code that let them accumulate so much wealth at the top. Fix it back.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

I thought Obama already did raise the taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

Nope, $400,000. And it's helping to reduce the deficit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

snip



How'd they do it? Hard Work? More elbow grease? More Gumption?



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

Sure it is; just not what you want to hear.

 

[Listening]

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.

There are other ways to take their wealth. As in the open market. The problem you have is that they now can buy political power to protect their fortunes.

I am not for taxing them. I am for starting up businesses to get some of that money. They will spend it...they always have.

Right now, the government practically ensures them huge returns on their investments while we get 1% on CD's.

 

[Listening]

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?

I thought Obama already did raise the taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

Nope, $400,000. And it's helping to reduce the deficit.

Proof please on the relationship between this move and the deficit reduction. Just saying the two happened at the same time does not work.

 

[Nyvin]

I thought Obama already did raise the taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

Nope, $400,000. And it's helping to reduce the deficit.

The original budget plan was for incomes above 400,000 to be taxed at a higher rate (ie let the Bush tax cuts expire)

But the budget deal broke down in the House of Reps because tea party idiots claimed it was "giving Obama too much" So the automatic Sequestration changes went into effect....part of that being letting the tax cuts on incomes above 250,000 expire.

It wasn't what was planned exactly, but that's how it worked out.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Pitchforks, torches and guillotines are in our future.

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité."

 

[KNB]

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.

The soldiers in Iraq took risks. Wall Street didn't take any "risks" because even if they fail as badly as they did, they get a bailout with public funds. Was HSBC taking "risks" when they were laundering billions for terrorist groups and drug cartels who were killing our soldiers? Sure, it could be considered a risk IF THE LAWS AGAINST FUNDING TERRORISM WERE ACTUALLY ENFORCED. When HSBC was caught and confessed, what was their punishment? They paid a $1.9b fine, equal to about 2-months' revenue for the company. That isn't a risk. That's funding terrorism and committing treason against the US and then paying off a pittance when they get caught.

That isn't a risk. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan take risks. There aren't any risks if there aren't any consequences for bad decisions.

 

[MikeK]

Pitchforks, torches and guillotines are in our future.

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité."

I'm afraid we have a long way to go before that boiling point is reached. And owing to the uniquely divisive nature of our increasingly complacent culture I believe when (if) that point is reached it just might be too late.

Unfortunately, Américains ne sont pas français.

 

[MikeK]

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.

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." (Honore de Balzac)

But let's ignore the rule according to Msr. de Balzac and consider the exceptional mega-billionaire who played by the rules and assumed the risks. It's important to consider that taking risks is not the same for a big guy as it is for a little guy.

What I mean is if a little guy starts out with ten thousand dollars to invest and he applies a little of that at a time to safe investments he might end up with twenty thousand in twenty years. Because safe is not the way to make a lot of money. But if he invests the entire ten thousand in some higher risk venture he stands a very good chance of losing it all and he's out of the game. In other words he has one shot.

But the big guy, meaning one who has a million dollars to play with, can afford to take risks because if he loses ten grand here and there he is still in the game. In other words, one who is rich can lose here and there and still remain rich. But one who is not rich has a very narrow opportunity to get that way.

 

[bayoubill]

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

so how 'bout we take 'em all, line 'em up against a wall, and shoot 'em dead...

how much better'll things be afterward...?

 

[auditor0007]

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.

No they do not. They do pay the majority of federal income taxes, but federal income taxes only account for about one third of the total tax burden faced by Americans. The other two thirds are accounted for through payroll taxes, excise taxes, state taxes, and local taxes. While the top ten percent pays about 70% of federal income taxes, they pay very little, as a percentage, in payroll taxes, and they pay even less of a percentage at the state and local level.

 

[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

so how 'bout we take 'em all, line 'em up against a wall, and shoot 'em dead...

how much better'll things be afterward...?

Nice dress Drama Queen