So, looks like it's actually going to happen: the wealthiest 1% of the world will actually own more money than the rest of the world combined. Worse still, the top 80 billionaires will in a few years possess more wealth than the bottom half of the world's population.
And Congress is bitching about Obama's plan to tax the poor, oppressed rich.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
The stat is a bit misleading though. To be in the top 1% you have to have assets worth £1.3m. I know several people that fall into that by owning and renting a handful of properties. They hardly live a life of opulence. Most of them simply make enough from their rented property to cover the mortgage of the house they live in and that's it.
I'm not saying rich people are evil (I myself come from an upper middle class family, and my dad probably qualifies as a bottom-of-the-ladder 1 percenter), but I do think we need to stop denying that the 1% of the 1% have more money than they need and aren't doing nearly enough to help the rest of the world.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Well, it is a numbers game. For anyone with a decent income, house, cars, and small investments (stocks, bonds, or real estate), they can hit that number.
The numbers work out like that because there are literally billions living in what most westerners consider poverty. So anyone who is very mildly successful in the western world gets into the 1%.
See, now you're getting there. If the whole world thought the Top .1% (I think it should be that and not .01%) should pay at least 50% of all income in taxes, it would be a "norm."
If you can lose two billion dollars of your net worth and suffer no change in standard of living beyond maybe cancelling your plan to buy a fifth private island, it's safe to say you have more money than you need.
The way that wealth works, even if a (truly) wealthy person doesn't dodge any of their taxes, they'll still be fine if you taxed 75% of their assets (note: I'm not advocating such a high rate of taxation, even for the ridiculously wealthy) whereas 75% taxation would literally drive working class and middle class people out into the streets.
I'd argue that anyone with over 50 million in the bank has more than they'll ever need. I'm not going to call for their wealth to be redistributed by force, but I think they could stand to lose a few million if it helps people who actually need it.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Jan 19th, 2015 at 07:24 PM
I see that, in regards to my first question.
Great points!
Way i see it though, if i were that rich, my priority'd be making sure my family generations down the road had the same advantage. Gotta take care of mine.
Doesnt mean i wouldnt be charitable, just that leaving a monetary legacy'd come first.
How's about my second question?
Really interested in what you think someone that rich is morally responsible for.
I think they should do what they can to help their community by creating/donating to reputable charitable organizations. I think one thing the government could do is to earmark tax revenue and give people a choice of where they want their taxes to go. Lots of Conservatives bristle at the idea of "their money" going to fund public abortion clinics and that sort of thing, but it might help encourage people to volunteer more of their assets to the government if they had a guarantee of how their money might be spent.
In my case, I hate the idea that some of the money I pay to the state of Florida might go to finance private prisons which make money off people's suffering and labor (essentially a modern form of slavery). It would be great if I could refuse to send money to private prisons but instead send that same money to more worthy causes.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
The WEF in Davos will surely be discussing about this Oxfam report.
Other relevant issues are China's slow economic growth (~7.4%; less than the double-digit expectation of the Chinese gov't) and the plunging prices of oil.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
This is not something that Repub. buck-shooter from Florida I know would say.
Anyway, it is of little consequence. Yes, the system has always been this way and less rigidity turns out has made matters worse in terms of disparity. Not necessarily oppression, but America's poor are starving unnecessarily. In fact, this whole monetary system is unnecessary but that is all because we can't listen to the experts because the experts do not react in time to implement policy because they actually have to know what they're talking about.
Anyway, human beings by nature cannot be any better than this, this is natural selection. However, one of the wealthiest billionaires has spoken out saying that we work too much. Yet what is he doing about it? What can he do? Nothing.
Anyway, a human cannot solve this problem any more than he can solve the problem in the middle east; but through grandiosity, I will. In time you will find that money will afford select individuals an exponential number of options in the form of human augmentation. That would prompt a holy war all on its own and its up to the mental cases like me who're unclouded by delusions of morality to stop jihadists and all this deluded nonsense from inhibiting what might be. If I can pull it off, become one of those who have all the wealth, to plot and scheme and find a way to save everyone even though that requires they change their ways.
In Watchmen was Ozymandias' plan moral? No. No of course not. But effective, and in the end liberating and necessary for our continued survival.
tl;dr - don't worry, place it in the hands of the qualified.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Jan 20th, 2015 at 07:03 AM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Conflating global stats and and national stats is indeed a bit misleading. Around the top 10% of the US (or 30 million people) actually fall into the top 1% of the world.
Which is not to say that social inequality hasn't grown, and that taxing rich people more isn't a great idea. I even think that it is in the best interest of the wealthy to keep social equality at a reasonable level.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 19th, 2015 02:44 PM
