Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half'
Scroll to see replies
Original post by astutehirstute
Who said the left is the politics of envy? 
Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
Original post by 999tigger
Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
If poverty is really the issue (not envy) why attack these billionaires?
This thread is based on a report made by Oxfam laying into eight men. These individuals have made at least $60 billion worth of charitable donations:
1.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft: More than $27 billion dollars in charitable donations, some 48% of his net worth, saving some 6 million lives fighting malaria and polio.
2.
Amancio Ortega, founder of Inditex: More than $95 million in charitable donations.
3.
Warren Buffett, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway: More than $21.5 billion in charitable donations.
4.
Carlos Slim Helu, owner of Grupo Carso: More than $4 billion dollars in charitable donations.
5.
Jeff Bezos, founder, Amazon: More than $25 million dollars in charitable donations, invests hundreds of millions in not-for-profit ventures.
6.
Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook: More than $1.6 billion in charitable donations.
7.
Larry Ellison, co-founder, Oracle: More than $564 million dollars in charitable donations.
8.
Michael Bloomberg, founder, Bloomberg LP: More than $4.22 billion dollars in charitable donations.
Oxfam spends £300 million a year on charitable causes, so it would take them more than 150 years to spend as much on charity as the rich guys they condemn today.
Like I say it is all about envy of people richer than you (how unfair!).
Because these much vilified people do a hell of a lot more good in the world than Oxfam.
Original post by astutehirstute
If poverty is really the issue (not envy) why attack these billionaires?
This thread is based on a report made by Oxfam laying into eight men. These individuals have made at least $60 billion worth of charitable donations:
Oxfam spends £300 million a year on charitable causes, so it would take them more than 150 years to spend as much on charity as the rich guys they condemn today.
Like I say it is all about envy of people richer than you (how unfair!).
Because these much vilified people do a hell of a lot more good in the world than Oxfam.
This thread is based on a report made by Oxfam laying into eight men. These individuals have made at least $60 billion worth of charitable donations:
1.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft: More than $27 billion dollars in charitable donations, some 48% of his net worth, saving some 6 million lives fighting malaria and polio.
2.
Amancio Ortega, founder of Inditex: More than $95 million in charitable donations.
3.
Warren Buffett, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway: More than $21.5 billion in charitable donations.
4.
Carlos Slim Helu, owner of Grupo Carso: More than $4 billion dollars in charitable donations.
5.
Jeff Bezos, founder, Amazon: More than $25 million dollars in charitable donations, invests hundreds of millions in not-for-profit ventures.
6.
Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook: More than $1.6 billion in charitable donations.
7.
Larry Ellison, co-founder, Oracle: More than $564 million dollars in charitable donations.
8.
Michael Bloomberg, founder, Bloomberg LP: More than $4.22 billion dollars in charitable donations.
Oxfam spends £300 million a year on charitable causes, so it would take them more than 150 years to spend as much on charity as the rich guys they condemn today.
Like I say it is all about envy of people richer than you (how unfair!).
Because these much vilified people do a hell of a lot more good in the world than Oxfam.
It was highlighting wealth inequality 8 v 3.6billion. Poverty if you hadnt noticed has a very real impact on peoples lives. The 8 could have been anyone, but it was highlighting how out of balance it is on world terms, the consequences of which it has to deal with on a global basis.
Do you think poverty is an issue?
The article doesnt vilify them, its more about the issue of wealth distribution and world economics.
There will always poor people and rich people or middle class you pick the side and go to the side.If you are angry or jealous of the rich or think they are greedy you are not going to be rich.Anger and jealousy got no one anywhere
Original post by 999tigger
It was highlighting wealth inequality 8 v 3.6billion. Poverty if you hadnt noticed has a very real impact on peoples lives. The 8 could have been anyone, but it was highlighting how out of balance it is on world terms, the consequences of which it has to deal with on a global basis.
Do you think poverty is an issue?
The article doesnt vilify them, its more about the issue of wealth distribution and world economics.
Do you think poverty is an issue?
The article doesnt vilify them, its more about the issue of wealth distribution and world economics.
The article clearly does vilify them personally.
There is a real problem with the charitable sector nowadays and this sort of meaningless posturing neatly exemplifies it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/trust-charities-low-charitable-work-public
Stop the political campaigning (is this sort of stuff what your charitable donations are going on?) and get on with actually doing some good.
Like the rich people do, whom you shamefully seek to arouse anger, hatred and envy towards. To the tune of sixty billion dollars.
Original post by astutehirstute
The article clearly does vilify them personally.
There is a real problem with the charitable sector nowadays and this sort of meaningless posturing neatly exemplifies it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/trust-charities-low-charitable-work-public
Stop the political campaigning (is this sort of stuff what your charitable donations are going on?) and get on with actually doing some good.
Like the rich people do, whom you shamefully seek to arouse anger, hatred and envy towards. To the tune of sixty billion dollars.
There is a real problem with the charitable sector nowadays and this sort of meaningless posturing neatly exemplifies it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/trust-charities-low-charitable-work-public
Stop the political campaigning (is this sort of stuff what your charitable donations are going on?) and get on with actually doing some good.
Like the rich people do, whom you shamefully seek to arouse anger, hatred and envy towards. To the tune of sixty billion dollars.
Not the report that I read.It was pointing out the inequality and poverty brought about by world economics. They just happen to be some of the winners, whereas Oxfam works to deal with thos trapped in poverty.
Lol you are projecting when you accuse me of shamefully villifying and aimed at arousing hatred and anger.
I havent shamed and I havent villified. That would make you a liar.
I merely commented on what was in the press release.
Original post by Danny Dorito
A new report released by Oxfam has shown that the 8 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam.
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Amancia Ortega are 3 of the billionaires that make up the list.
There have subsequently been calls for a "fair share of tax" to try and reduce the gap. You can read more on the story here.
Gates and Zuckerberg have been rather philanthropic with their money, but do you think more could be done? Or do you think they've worked are for their money and the gap is out of their control?
What would you do to close the gap?
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Amancia Ortega are 3 of the billionaires that make up the list.
There have subsequently been calls for a "fair share of tax" to try and reduce the gap. You can read more on the story here.
Gates and Zuckerberg have been rather philanthropic with their money, but do you think more could be done? Or do you think they've worked are for their money and the gap is out of their control?
What would you do to close the gap?
This huge escalation of wealth amongst a very few is a direct and inevitable consequence of neoliberal tax policies that have allowed the very rich and the multinational corporations to pay less tax and to evade and avoid tax more easily. The sympathy all of our corrupt governments show to the very rich and their tax havens is not something any of us ordinary citizens want, but they get away with it anyway, because the political leaders fly to places like Davos and take their lead from the billionaire class and because they believe they can safely ignore the protests. They also have a tame media to support them, which itself is largely owned by offshored plutocrats like Rupert Murdoch, who share the same goals.
A strange, distorted, corrupt nexus has arisen between gangster billionaires in places like Russia and the ruling classes of Europe and America, to such an extent that the new President of the United States is in their pockets and is himself a minor oligarch.
Original post by 999tigger
Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.
Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.
Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.
Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.
If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
Original post by NI30241834
If they have worked hard for it and obtained their money legally i don't see a problem with this whatsoever.
They pay a very different tax rate to you and me. We have to pay taxes. For them, it's entirely voluntary.
Do you regard that as moral?
Original post by 999tigger
Not the report that I read.It was pointing out the inequality and poverty brought about by world economics. They just happen to be some of the winners, whereas Oxfam works to deal with thos trapped in poverty.
Lol you are projecting when you accuse me of shamefully villifying and aimed at arousing hatred and anger.
I havent shamed and I havent villified. That would make you a liar.
I merely commented on what was in the press release.
Lol you are projecting when you accuse me of shamefully villifying and aimed at arousing hatred and anger.
I havent shamed and I havent villified. That would make you a liar.
I merely commented on what was in the press release.
I was talking about Oxfam vilifying the rich not you!
Although thinking about it (I haven't read your posts in this thread, just your response to mine) I wouldn't be surprised if you had.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They pay a very different tax rate to you and me. We have to pay taxes. For them, it's entirely voluntary.
Do you regard that as moral?
Do you regard that as moral?
Yes i do think it's moral especially as they're less likely to use services such as state education and healthcare.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.
Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.
Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.
Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.
If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.
Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.
Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.
If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
Finally a sensible response. If you read the actual report by Oxfam, then you cna see the emphasis is on the economic system. That was the emphasis when I read it. I think their response would be they could come up with a system that produced less inequality, but you cna see their arguments in the report. The emphasis wasnt as people are describing though and considering thier whole aim is to tackle poverty, then being condemned for talking about it or raising it as an issue by TSR members is funny.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.
Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.
Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.
Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.
If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.
Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.
Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.
If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
We don't have to go to a Soviet system to have more fairness and a better, more productive, more growthful economy. The United States and Europe managed it quite happily for 50 years in the postwar consensus until neoliberalism took hold and the rich stopped paying their taxes. The marginal tax rate on the very wealthy was 70 and 80 percent in all western countries and it worked very well, recycling money into important social goals, pushing forwards technology and social progress and making the west inconceivably stronger than the Communist states.
Now we are trapped in low growth and high social dislocation with falling tax revenues and most western governments facing major crises across the board in healthcare and numerous other basic goods for humanity about which there used to be little dispute. Only now, under the weirdo extremism of the neoliberals are we dumping all of the things that made life worthwhile in our countries - everything from public amenities to good roads, from decent schools to proper healthcare free at the point of use - in favour of the right of some billionaires to have bigger and bigger yachts.
Original post by NI30241834
Yes i do think it's moral especially as they're less likely to use services such as state education and healthcare.
The corporations they run are big consumers of public services of all kinds.
Do you think that rich people don't drive on the roads we pay for, use the airports that our taxes subsidised for generations, drink the water laid down by publicly funded infrastructure projects or reap the benefits of publicly-funded science?
I would be fine with them not paying taxes if they were removed to Mars and stopped ruining our environment with their bloated yachts, private jets and bad driving.
Not saying the gap should be closed, however I hate the argument that the poor people complaining are just lazy and could be rich if they worked hard. It's just such a naive look at things, this world needs factory workers and other low skill jobs, not saying that they should be paid as much as a CEO however they shouldn't be exploited and underpaid for their work because their input is necessary. If everyone decided to work hard and become a businessman it wouldn't work.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They pay a very different tax rate to you and me. We have to pay taxes. For them, it's entirely voluntary.
Do you regard that as moral?
Do you regard that as moral?
When I read or hear lefties pointing the moral finger of blame at others I always wonder what they actually do themselves.
I am not saying that is the case with you, Fullof, I don't know you, but having worked in the charity sector myself, for a number of years, I am no longer surprised at the disconnect between virtual signalling words and actual deeds. I expect it.
It is almost as if the louder people posture the less they do, and the more they do, the less they posture.
I'm not being flippant, just other things to do and never even meant to get dragged onto this thread. The article I read was on the homepage. I doubt it involved that much research tbh and it has raised the issue, so getting people to talk about it is a success.
I think it raises an interesting point. to question how the economic system works.
I think it raises an interesting point. to question how the economic system works.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The corporations they run are big consumers of public services of all kinds.
Do you think that rich people don't drive on the roads we pay for, use the airports that our taxes subsidised for generations, drink the water laid down by publicly funded infrastructure projects or reap the benefits of publicly-funded science?
I would be fine with them not paying taxes if they were removed to Mars and stopped ruining our environment with their bloated yachts, private jets and bad driving.
Do you think that rich people don't drive on the roads we pay for, use the airports that our taxes subsidised for generations, drink the water laid down by publicly funded infrastructure projects or reap the benefits of publicly-funded science?
I would be fine with them not paying taxes if they were removed to Mars and stopped ruining our environment with their bloated yachts, private jets and bad driving.
There really isn't a problem with this they still pay more than the average person and use less services. If they avoid taxes then that's not necessarily bad because rather than giving money in taxes they tend to re-invest it into the economy creating cheaper products and employment for more people leading to greater tax revenue.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- How do I become financially successful with bad grades?
- why do people hate Taylor Swift
- Why do Northern universities have more northerners and vice versa for southern?
- Education
- a chirstmas carol essay- attitudes towards poverty
- Your Perfect Country
- Why is Man City hated so much?
- I am obsessed with a celebrity
- Why are young men so different than before?
- Old school mates making fun of me for going to uni
- Sunak to force English universities to cap numbers of students on ‘low-value’ degrees
- Free school meals to billionaire
- Environmental Science St Andrews
- Medicine
- Is it common to feel stupid at the start of A levels?
- Why is Lil Wayne now trash?
- Economics EPQ
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- School doesn’t give nines
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
