The 1%
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633
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. 😐
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.
The top 1% of the 1% however.
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.
-obligatory stupid comment-
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I myself come from an upper middle class family
-actual questions-
Originally posted by Omega Vision
the 1% of the 1% have more money than they need
Originally posted by Omega Vision
aren't doing nearly enough to help the rest of the world.
Originally posted by jaden101
The stat is a bit misleading though. To be in the top 1% you have to have assets worth £1.3m.
That's it?
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%.
Originally posted by jaden101
The top 1% of the 1% however.
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."
Originally posted by riv6672
-obligatory stupid comment-I knew there was something off about you...
-actual questions-
How is that for anyone to say?
Why should they? Are they obligated in any way, and should they be looked at with disfavor if they dont choose to?
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.
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.
Re: The 1%
Originally posted by Omega VisionThis is not something that Repub. buck-shooter from Florida I know would say.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633So, 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. 😐
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.
Re: Re: The 1%
Originally posted by Oneness
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.
I am in favor of a 32 work week, and a 3 day weekend, but who wants a 25% cut in hourly pay?
Maybe the feds can pay people a $100 grand and say its up to you save it for your 25% cut in hours in the future. Think of all the cost savings of less fuel being used, just might clear out our air too.
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.