The Student Room Group

'World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth'

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
So much so that these rich people should be deprived of their money so that they cannot invest in the creation of even more poverty-busting industries, or charitable efforts? Bill Gates has personally contributed $28 billion to his charitable foundation, and attracted a further $16 billion from similar people.


I think this is a fairly poor justification of massive personal wealth, because obviously it depends entirely on the discretion of the ultra wealthy.

Thankfully, though, it isn't a necessary justification. Bill Gates could go out and spend $90bn on palaces and statues to himself and his position would still be unobjectionable. He made his money on the market, through free trade, and in the course of doing so made an enormous contribution to the expansion of overall human wealth. He didn't get where he is by annexing a growing portion of the pre-existing pie. He made more pie.
Breaking news: first world wealthier sub Saharan Africa
It's so weird because bootlickers always love to suggest that they personally could find a way to live on tiny amounts of money but have likely never actually been in a situation even comparable to what the poorest actually face.

Oh and also they really love to say "why don't poor people stop blaming everyone else for their problems" when economic mobility for the poorest is virtually 0 and those that are born into poverty will likely never actually see a way out of poverty without aid. Telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps only applies to people who actually have no barriers blocking them from realising their true potential, not to the working class who struggle to make ends meet despite working to their absolute limits. The only way to actually help the poor is to remove the barriers - which can't actually happen if parasites bleed excessive amounts of money into their own accounts and essentially refusing to help, although they physically could not spend the amount of money in hundreds of human life times and refuse to donate minuscule fractions of their wealth.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by elitethot
It's so weird because bootlickers always love to suggest


Really? Why, then, have none of those things have been mentioned in this thread?
Original post by Good bloke
Really? Why, then, have none of those things have been mentioned in this thread?


I was mainly referencing this:
Original post by Danny Dorito
A new report by Oxfam has shown that the worlds richest 1% get 82% of the wealth.

It blamed tax evasion, firms' influence on policy, erosion of workers' rights, and cost cutting for the widening gap.

You can read more on the story here.

What do you make of this? Does this surprise you? What could be done to resolve this?


This is somewhat misleading because the top 1% do not constitute the "super rich" or even the "rich". We often think of "The One Percent" as the top 1% in our (relatively wealthy) country, but if you look at it worldwide, it isn't too crazy. Investopedia states that earning just over $30k per year puts you in the top 1% of income. If you're talking about top 1% of wealth, you need about $750k net worth, but that's not exactly offshore-tax-avoidance-scheme territory.

The reason why the wealth gap is so large is because many people have very little in savings. Someone who earns £50k a year but spends it all during the year may have a good standard of living but a low net worth.
Sorry but people who actually try to defend the excessive amounts of wealth that the 1% possess are either bootlickers or rich people who have literally zero empathy for non-rich people.

Also, how are my points not relevant? You really have to actually clarify your reasoning before making dumb responses like this :/
Original post by Joe312
The way this title is phrased is kinda misleading.

It says they get 82% of 'the wealth' - as if money were a natural resource that grew on trees and they were taking more than their fair share.

Actually, they made their money by being smart in business creating products/services that people choose to buy from them in return for their life being made better for having that product/service.

If you want a world without super rich people, then you are wanting a world without computers, mobile phones, cheap electricity, etc.


oxfam figure is quite misleading, as people who dont work have 0 or little wealth ie children and OAP

Most of the world live in developing countries, where you need less to live on, so its not surprising a billionaire in London has more wealth than a country where most people earn $1000-2,000 a year

However your post is also false. There are alot of tax structures around the world, that allow rich people to pay less tax than the middle class. The USA just passed a tax bill that cut taxes for people earning over 250,000 by more percentage points, that thoose on low incomes.

Secondly, when the banks got bailed out, guess who it benefited ? the shareholder class.

That is before you get into all the price fixing in energy and technology that goes on, which also benefits the 1%.

Companies like Virgin, win multi million pound contracts, then provide a *****y service and employ people on 0 hour contracts, jobs previously done with full pay and good pension when it was run by the public sector. That is a subsidy for the rich

you dont need super rich people to have consumer items you mention. Perfectly possible for thoose things to exist with a more aggressive wealth redistribution tax on the shareholder class
I think Donald Trump once pointed to a homeless person outside Trump Tower and said something along the lines of: "You see this person? He's eight billion dollars richer than me".

The real problem is that most people just think "OH MY GOD THIS IS TERRIBLE" before realising what the numbers really mean. Statistical illiteracy at its worst.
Original post by elitethot
Sorry but people who actually try to defend the excessive amounts of wealth that the 1% possess are either bootlickers or rich people who have literally zero empathy for non-rich people.


Since you feel so strongly and your family is among the 1%, what are you personally doing to solve these problems? How many of Africa's poor will you be endowing this week?
Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Also, in poorer countries, the cost of living is generally lower. $1.90/day (the threshold for extreme poverty) in one of those countries, while appalling, still buys a sparse living. In the UK, even $19/day would be poor once you factor in housing.

Wanting money should never be bad, as long as it doesn't come at the cost of other people.
(edited 6 years ago)
its not all plain sailing though, can you imagine having that much wealth that you wouldn't know what do to with it? even having too much money can come with its complications

sounds like my idea of hell

yeah I get that people will say 'thats such a poor person thing to say' but in all honesty if someone with a magic wand said they could make me a billionaire I wouldn't honestly said no. I'd rather just have enough money to live comfortably (like a million pounds in savings, maximum) than be one of the richest people in the world. no thank you, not for me at all.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Someone else having money will prevent you from having money if they have all the money.

At the moment, we are not far off that situation. This is heading back to medieval times, when feudal barons controlled 98% of the wealth and everyone else was a pitiful serf working for them.


Oh please, quit that nonsense, Untill the local MP erects a fort saying that we are not far of feudalism is insane
Original post by goggleyed
its not all plain sailing though, can you imagine having that much wealth that you wouldn't know what do to with it? even having too much money can come with its complications

sounds like my idea of hell

yeah I get that people will say 'thats such a poor person thing to say' but in all honesty if someone with a magic wand said they could make me a billionaire I wouldn't honestly said no. I'd rather just have enough money to live comfortably (like a million pounds in savings, maximum) than be one of the richest people in the world. no thank you, not for me at all.


Same. If you're someone who likes to live well then its for you. Personally I find it pretty sad that people wouldn't consider themselves to be 'living comfortably' unless they were making over £100k a year. Its weird, I live pretty comfortably on £26k. My ideal salary would be £40k. No idea what I'd even do with 100k let alone a couple of million or billion.
The "top 1%" of the world is 75 million people. Just saying.

Probably includes all the homeless in Norway and Luxembourg.

That said, anyone earning the average wage (27k) in the United Kingdom is, by nature, part of the "top 1%" of the world. By income, anyway.

Anyone who owns a house - mortgaged or not - in the United Kingdom is also in the top 1% of the world by wealth.

If wealth and income was spread equally around the world, not a single soul in the UK would be better off materially speaking.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Someone else having money will prevent you from having money if they have all the money.

At the moment, we are not far off that situation. This is heading back to medieval times, when feudal barons controlled 98% of the wealth and everyone else was a pitiful serf working for them.


This is what champagne socialists want, people ^

Wealth being spread equally around the world would result in every single UK resident being deprived of assets, as we're all too wealthy, irrespective of your internal status relative to the UK as a whole.
Original post by LostAccount
This is what champagne socialists want, people ^

Wealth being spread equally around the world would result in every single UK resident being deprived of assets, as we're all too wealthy, irrespective of your internal status relative to the UK as a whole.


Wealth should be spread around though. It is common sense. The more people that are capable of spending the richer everyone gets.

The sad fact is that greed and selfishness destroy this idea because people secretly just want themselves to be doing well. They are the ones that would tell you that it is okay to go to any uni but secretly want to attend Oxbridge.

There are about 1 billion Africans and about 2 billion Asians. Assuming about 80% of them are able to attain Western-standard that is about 2.4 billion extra people capable of contributing to the world economy rather than depending on it.

This talk by capitalists is just greed shrouded in fake economics. Spreading the wealth is not bad. The US pumped in billions of dollars to Europe (called the Marshall Plan) after the 2nd World War, which improved the lives and livelihoods of millions of Europeans. If the Americans thought and talked like you do, you would probably wont have the ability to write this rubbish on your phone.
(edited 6 years ago)
You are probably refusing to acknowledge the impact of tax dodging which reduces the amount available to the public; skewed policy on housing which forces more people into rent and hikes the prices of the limited number available or even the outright actions of governments to reduce the amount of tax taken from the wealthier sets but then putting the burden on the poorer sets.

I acknowledge your point that some poor people should stop blaming the system for their situation, but many are victims of the system.

To your point, i think pouring money into a failing system is a good start. For example, if you have desparate needs such as food, clothing, shelter etc, the money helps with those needs; whilst planning for structural improvements in the system. It is why major charities do not give money to Governments anymore, but go directly to the communities that need the resources.
Reply 38
Avatar for gicu
gicu
6
Those charities are hypocrites, just like everyone in the game, everything is political these days. Look at the executive's pay and his private jet bill. If you what to be rich better do something to achieve it, rather than being a crybaby and pointing the finger to the rich. You have access to the internet, just by taking this into account and no other factor you have more opportunities now than those people who started building wealth decades ago.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Oh please, quit that nonsense, Untill the local MP erects a fort saying that we are not far of feudalism is insane


What on earth do local MPs have to do with it? They are about as important in the scheme of things as a peanut at a cashew convention. You should be paying attention to the global oligarch class, with their feudal apparatus of private islands (sometimes with actual castles), vast palaces, offshore arrangements, gangster hedge funds and control of political systems. From the US to Europe, from Russia to the Middle East, this is the new normal.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you