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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I don't think anyone wants to just divide it up. What we want is for jobs to pay a living wage. For the rich to employe them. Benefits for all. What we have now is the elite few hording the wealth. It's not helping anyone, not even them. Spread it around and the start to that is a law requiring a living wage for all employees everywhere. And yeah, the money comes from the rich. Eventually everything will even out. Yeah, there will still be rich, but they won't be quite so much wealthier than everyone else and no one will be starving or begging.

No a living wage as you call it will do nothing but raise prices for everyone.

What good is making 50K a year for bagging groceries when a loaf of bread will cost you $25?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Redistribution has a 100% Guaranteed fail rate

 

[PredFan]

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.

I didn't say that the national income wasn't finite. I said wealth is not finite. Our system, our economy, isn't closed. You are talking about an imaginary number. I'm talking about reality.

If we're talking about income as a stream flowing into a national reservoir called wealth, all I'm saying is that over the last several decades 1% of the population has bribed Republicans AND Democrats for tax policies shifting the burden of taxation from FIRE sector incomes to labor and consumers.

Gains from using government to inflict your share of taxation upon others, along with "deregulation" initiatives like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, explains why the richest 1% of the world's population increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years.

Have they earned that increase?

It's a strawman argument. I can't answer the question because the premise is flawed.

 

[georgephillip]

I didn't say that the national income wasn't finite. I said wealth is not finite. Our system, our economy, isn't closed. You are talking about an imaginary number. I'm talking about reality.

If we're talking about income as a stream flowing into a national reservoir called wealth, all I'm saying is that over the last several decades 1% of the population has bribed Republicans AND Democrats for tax policies shifting the burden of taxation from FIRE sector incomes to labor and consumers.

Gains from using government to inflict your share of taxation upon others, along with "deregulation" initiatives like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, explains why the richest 1% of the world's population increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years.

Have they earned that increase?

It's a strawman argument. I can't answer the question because the premise is flawed.

"To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Can you point out the flawed premise?

My proposition is that the 60% income gains of the richest 1% over the last two decades has come from governmental actions that favor those who fund politicians' election campaigns and not from the hard work of the richest 1%.

 

[alan1]

"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."

Which group are you closest to?

Quick analysis says the rich.

Is that something you're proud of?

You asked a question, I answered it. It just is.

You have yet to prove your claims though.

 

[Intense]

How about encouraging Philanthropy?


A NETWORK OF GLOBAL CEOs
Committed to corporate philanthropy.
The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy leads the business community in raising the level and quality of corporate giving. CECP is dedicated to:

Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy

 

[Intense]

BALTIMORE (CBSNewYork/AP) — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated has $350 million to his alma mater of Johns Hopkins University, the bulk of it intended to expand its research on such cross-discipline issues as global health and urban revitalization.

With the latest donation, Bloomberg’s lifetime giving to his alma mater has soared past $1 billion.

University officials announced the commitment late Saturday and said they believe Bloomberg, who amassed his fortune creating the global financial services firm Bloomberg LP, is now the first person to give more than $1 billion to a single American university.

Bloomberg Gives $350 Million To Johns Hopkins University « CBS New York

Give credit where credit is due.

 

[georgephillip]

BALTIMORE (CBSNewYork/AP) — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated has $350 million to his alma mater of Johns Hopkins University, the bulk of it intended to expand its research on such cross-discipline issues as global health and urban revitalization.

With the latest donation, Bloomberg’s lifetime giving to his alma mater has soared past $1 billion.

University officials announced the commitment late Saturday and said they believe Bloomberg, who amassed his fortune creating the global financial services firm Bloomberg LP, is now the first person to give more than $1 billion to a single American university.

Bloomberg Gives $350 Million To Johns Hopkins University « CBS New York

Give credit where credit is due.

"The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, according Oxfam’s report ‘The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all.’ It is calling on world leaders to curb today’s income extremes and commit to reducing inequality to at least 1990 levels."

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

Bloomberg's philanthropy doesn't begin to compensate for the increased share of global income his class has amassed over the last two decades. And the fact that Bloomberg's wealth comes from Wall Street's propensity for wealth extraction compared to wealth production makes his "giving" about as credible as John D Rockefeller funding the University of Chicago, IMHO.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Where are they?
Did they move to the Caymans?
What percentage of their earnings did they pay in taxes?

1. They are on TV shows saying they are broke and wish it had never happened to them
2. No
3. Probably a lot

 

[saveliberty]

The OP is nuts.

Poverty will not end with money alone. People will still make poor choices and starve, lose their homes, and the like.

 

[georgephillip]

Quick analysis says the rich.

Is that something you're proud of?

You asked a question, I answered it. It just is.

You have yet to prove your claims though.

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?

http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-01-19/annual-income-richest-100-people-enough-end-global-poverty-four-times

 

[alan1]

Is that something you're proud of?

You asked a question, I answered it. It just is.

You have yet to prove your claims though.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

So tell me? Do you live in a hovel with no modern appliances and give all your money to this organization? Or is it just those with more then you that should have their property and money taken by force?

 

[georgephillip]

You asked a question, I answered it. It just is.

You have yet to prove your claims though.

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."

 

[saveliberty]

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."

How about something georgephillip didn't do in this thread?

 

[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

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[alan1]

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."

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.

 

[georgephillip]

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

So tell me? Do you live in a hovel with no modern appliances and give all your money to this organization? Or is it just those with more then you that should have their property and money taken by force?

No, I don't live in a hovel or donate all my money to charity.
Now, you tell me if you think that each of the world's richest 100 people earned $2.4 billion last year without using the force of government?

"So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

"What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it.

"There are now about 6 unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of 'chronically unemployed' is absolutely soaring.

"There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone

22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America - Business Insider

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.