Income of Richest 100 Enough to End Global Poverty Four Times Over

[georgephillip]

Your link doesn't prove your claim. It was an unfounded mental leap that you took and then tried to proclaim as true. Next.

Define "prove."

To establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.

So far, you are lacking, thus your request for a definition of a common word. I'd neg you, but you are already nothing but a red splat.

That's much better than a green stain.

 

[georgephillip]

Put georgephillip on your tin cup. I'll drop a dime next time.

I've got all I need; however, billions of other people don't, and rising levels of inequality guarantee they will remain in abject poverty for the rest of their lives:

"Leaders must aim to bring down global inequality at least to 1990 levels

"An explosion in extreme wealth and income is exacerbating inequality and hindering the world’s ability to tackle poverty, Oxfam warned today in a briefing published ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week."

Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over | Oxfam International

Repeating stupid is termed ignorant.

Something you've proved long ago.
Is there something about "rising levels of inequality" you can't quite fathom?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Many who have earned far more than I did during my forty-five years in the workplace have seen all their property, retirement, and money taken from them by parasites like the world's richest 100 people using forces applied by governments controlled by the rich.

Can you give an example of this?

I'm not doubting it has happened I have no idea, but I'm curious about what exactly you are referencing here and how pervasive the issue is. I've been working for about 20 years and haven't had my property, retirement, or money taken. Furthermore since I've never owned my own company I'd say I've accumulated a lot of money because of people wealthier than I am who created these companies for me to work for.

 

[boedicca]

And when it's all gone and the productive sector of the economy is destroyed, then what?

"Productive sector of the economy?"
Would that be Goldman Sachs or Citi?

Would you think the following three suggestions from Oxfam would destroy the global economy?

"Closure of tax havens around the world
A reversal of 'the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation'
A global minimum corporation tax rate"

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Where do you think very rich people put their money?

Here's a hint: they don't keep it under their mattresses.

 

[boedicca]

Ahead of the global elite meeting in Davos next week, Oxfam is asking the rich to remember the fact that "...political equality is meaningless in the face of economic inequality."

"The 100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over, Oxfam has said.

"Ahead of next week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the charity urged world leaders to tackle inequality.

"Extreme wealth was 'economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive', the report said.

"The global economic system required reform so that it worked 'in the interests of the whole of humanity'".

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Ya, give me what you have. Sounds fair alright. Moron.

"It reported that while the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in 'extreme poverty' lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day."

Think the greedy 100 "earned" that level of income, Einstein?

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

I call shenanigans. Provide some actual evidence that the 100 Richest People In The World caused those who live in extreme poverty (I'll be all of these are in underdeveloped totalitarian countries) caused that extreme poverty. Please exclude the ones who gained their wealth from being strongmen leaders in totalitarian countries.

 

[boedicca]

If you divided all the money in the world equally among the hoi polloi, I guarantee you that in less than a decade the proportion of rich to poor would be nearly the same as it is today.

You arer exactly correct.

The rich are rich because they continually do the things that made them rich, the poor are poor because they continually do the things than made them poor.

Both comments are ridiculous.

You really are a moron.

SRSLY.

 

[boedicca]

Coerced Equality of outcomes for all ! Socialists unite for the myth of fairness !

Why do you suppose Capitalists oppose equality of opportunity?

"It reported that while the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in 'extreme poverty' lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day."

Because 100 people will never "earn" $2.4 billion a year?

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Actually, capitalists (the real free market variety) are perfectly fine with equality of opportunity. What they object to is the government forcing equality of outcomes.

 

[saveliberty]

I've got all I need; however, billions of other people don't, and rising levels of inequality guarantee they will remain in abject poverty for the rest of their lives:

"Leaders must aim to bring down global inequality at least to 1990 levels

"An explosion in extreme wealth and income is exacerbating inequality and hindering the world’s ability to tackle poverty, Oxfam warned today in a briefing published ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week."

Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over | Oxfam International

Repeating stupid is termed ignorant.

Something you've proved long ago.
Is there something about "rising levels of inequality" you can't quite fathom?

I get it completely. Its called the dumbing down of America. It is also called the entitlement mentality, which robs people of a desire to risk and strive for real success.

 

[boedicca]

"The richest one per cent of the world's population had increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years, Oxfam said."

Think that's sustainable?

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

Wealth is not finite. That is the mistake that socialists and left wing nuts make. They assumethat wealth is finite and that if someone else is rich that means that 1, they can't be rich themselves, or 2, the rich guy took it from me.

Total national income is a finite number representing the total income earned by all workers in a particular economy. One percent of workers increasing their share of total income by 60% over two decades means that 1) the rich guys bribed governments for favorable tax and trade policies that 2) guaranteed poverty for billions of other human beings.

Well, you have a point under Obamanomics. We have experience virtually no increase in GDP when adjusting for inflation over the past four years. Too bad the policies you and Obama support lead to a Static Pie.

 

[boedicca]

Let them eat cake...

Poor Marie Antoinette lost her head over that.

She never said it. That's a myth.

 

[boedicca]

My first claim concerning capitalist opposition to equal opportunity was based on my link in the OP which reported the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240 billion last year while people living in "extreme poverty lived on less than !.25 a day. Aside from the Oxfam study what more "evidence" would you require to establish capitalism's contempt for competition and equality?

Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over | Oxfam International

Your link doesn't prove your claim. It was an unfounded mental leap that you took and then tried to proclaim as true. Next.

Define "prove."

If you don't know what "prove" is, here's a clue: it's the opposite of what you are doing in this thread.

 

[Thunderbird]

Many of the superrich use their political connections to steal from the people. The banksters over at Goldman Sachs for example. And George Soros.

Let's start by redistributing their fortunes.

 

[Politico]

The people who wrote that should actually learn to do math.

 

[newpolitics]

You arer exactly correct.

The rich are rich because they continually do the things that made them rich, the poor are poor because they continually do the things than made them poor.

Both comments are ridiculous.

You disagree. Meh, color me not surprised.

It's surprising that in this age of free information, one can actually say that the rich earn their money fair and square , and so are entitled to it, across the board. Too often, the rich get that way because they are the unscrupulous ones willing to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate more than the next guy, and guess who they are often manipulating? The poor. If you honestly believe te rich just work harder, you are fantastically naive.

 

[auditor0007]

Coerced Equality of outcomes for all ! Socialists unite for the myth of fairness !

It is only the very few who want equality of outcomes. The problem with those of you on the far right is that you lose all sense of logic when you try to discuss just about anything. Our standard of living is taking a nosedive, and it's not because the government is giving out too much free shit. The government is giving out all that free shit because the private sector isn't working the way you guys keep telling us it's supposed to work, and it's leaving millions without work, all at a time when the wealthiest continue to increase their wealth by massive amounts. Everything is getting sucked upwards to the very few, and an awful lot of you, who are not getting any benefit whatsoever, are defending this. It's the most stupid thing I have ever seen. I just keep wondering when you guys are going to wake up. Maybe once you don't have a job, then it'll finally sink in.

 

[georgephillip]

Many who have earned far more than I did during my forty-five years in the workplace have seen all their property, retirement, and money taken from them by parasites like the world's richest 100 people using forces applied by governments controlled by the rich.

Can you give an example of this?

I'm not doubting it has happened I have no idea, but I'm curious about what exactly you are referencing here and how pervasive the issue is. I've been working for about 20 years and haven't had my property, retirement, or money taken. Furthermore since I've never owned my own company I'd say I've accumulated a lot of money because of people wealthier than I am who created these companies for me to work for.

The following information was first posted in September of 2010:

"The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

"The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

"That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

"At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower."

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans

The best recent example I can give that illustrates how parasites (financial elites) take property, money, and retirements of productive workers happened during the crisis of 2008.

Michael Hudson has done the most to inform my limited understanding of how our Great Recession was orchestrated and, more importantly, who's benefited most from the subsequent "recovery":

"Crises usually are orchestrated years in advance. Any economic recovery typically is shaped by the way in which its predecessor economy collapsed. Medieval Europe’s emergence from the Dark Age, for example, was shaped by ancient Rome’s debt crisis caused by its aggressive oligarchy.

"In a similar fashion, the coming epochal tax shift off finance and property onto labor will be introduced in response to the dollar’s crisis, in much the way that we have seen Ireland and Greece tap their pension funds to bail out reckless bankers.

"In America as in Europe, the large 'systemically important banks' that caused the crisis will be given enough money by the government ? at the expense of labor ('taxpayers') to step in and 'rescue' the bad debt overhang (i.e., toxic junk).

"The tactics of this fiscal game sequence are so time-tested that there should not be much surprise. So President Obama’s deal is not only financial and fiscal in scope, it is a political game changer. When Congressional Democrats sign on to this betrayal of their major election promise, they will be re-branding their claim to be the 'non-Wall Street party,'”

Obama?s Sellout on Taxes » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I'm glad you haven't experienced the kind of losses that millions of other US workers have; however, that dollar crises that Hudson mentions could involve hyperinflation;if so, you and tens of millions of your fellow citizens could wake one morning to discover every $10 bill in your possession has transformed into a $5.(or worse)

Should such an event happen, who do you suppose the parasites (and their elected handmaidens) will blame?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Too bad you take all the money from them and not even make a dent the US Governments poverty.

 

[Katzndogz]

For a moment let's pretend this is true. The richest 100 in the world could be divested of their wealth and distributed among the poor of the world (including those in the third world villages_. Now the poor aren't poor anymore.

What will they do next month when there is no longer any rich to divest of wealth?

Impoverishing the rich to give to the poor has one major failure. It counts on the rich continuing to generate wealth. The poor generate poverty. The rich generate wealth. The governments of the world not only have to take and redistribute wealth, but must find a way to make sure the rich keep working to generate more wealth to pay the poor to be poor.

 

[peach174]

You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth --and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Redistribution sounds good but it never works out in reality.

 

[georgephillip]

And when it's all gone and the productive sector of the economy is destroyed, then what?

"Productive sector of the economy?"
Would that be Goldman Sachs or Citi?

Would you think the following three suggestions from Oxfam would destroy the global economy?

"Closure of tax havens around the world
A reversal of 'the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation'
A global minimum corporation tax rate"

BBC News - Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Where do you think very rich people put their money?

Here's a hint: they don't keep it under their mattresses.

Here's another:

"Millions of Americans knowingly lie on their tax forms. The government loses out on roughly $300 billion a year in unpaid taxes."

But you already knew that.

The American Tax Cheat