Are you part of the world's richest 1%? If you make more than 34k after taxes, you are.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:04 AM GMT
    Question - if Americans have been benefiting disproportionately in the last few decades, then should the UN tax Americans and redistribute it as well given that the inequality according to liberals results in instability and is "unfair"?

    http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/05/what-does-it-mean-when-americans-make-up-half-of-the-worlds-richest-1/

    When I read these numbers I was stunned. I had no idea that Americans make up fully one half of the world's richest 1%.

    When you look at the world's population as a whole, it only takes $34,000 a year per person - after taxes - to be part of the world's richest one percent. A family of four with after tax income of $136,000 would be among the world's richest.

    60 million people make up the world's richest one percent. And, according to world bank economist Branko Milanovic, half of them - or 29 million people - lived in the United States as of 2005.

    Another 4 million live in Germany. And the rest are scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia.

    None of the world's richest 1% live in Africa, China or India - statistically speaking.

    Although places like China and India are seeing economic growth, and people there are getting richer, they're starting from a very low base. This also means the emerging middle class in these countries isn't the same as the middle class in developed nations. No cars. No retirement plans. They don't own their own homes.

    Milanovic says people in the world's true middle live on around $1,200 a year.

    Which means even the poorest 5% of Americans are richer than two-thirds of the entire world. Something to think about.

    While the Occupy Wall Street movement targets the so-called 1% with protests in New York, Los Angeles, Denver and Washington.

    These numbers give one percent a whole new meaning.

    Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    The U.N.
    Tax.




    Your family must be so proud.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidQuestion - if Americans have been benefiting disproportionately in the last few decades, then should the UN tax Americans and redistribute it as well given that the inequality according to liberals results in instability and is "unfair"?
    Only if the cost of living goes down enough to keep your credit rating out of the gutter, which is damn near impossible under 50K/yr.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:21 AM GMT
    Upper_Cdn saidThe U.N.
    Tax.




    Your family must be so proud.


    Not sure what my family has to do with it but you still post some of the stupidest comments and one can only pity you as you flail about wildly in an attempt to make sense of the world icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:24 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn saidThe U.N.
    Tax.




    Your family must be so proud.


    Not sure what my family has to do with it but you still post some of the stupidest comments and one can only pity you as you flail about wildly in an attempt to make sense of the world icon_wink.gif


    Do you think the U.N. has the power to tax?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidWow. That conflation supersedes every other trolly misleading article you've ever scraped off a Republican's toilet seat. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm curious - why do you think that? Do Americans not owe it to the rest of the world for the resources they've consumed?

    Do you think the UN has the power to tax?


    I've presented a hypothetical. I know it does not. There are those however who want to give laws and legal authority to decisions as passed by the UN or other supernational organizations power over what happens in the US. But the question stands - should Americans be forced to redistribute their wealth to the rest of the world? Is the inequality untenable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:32 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidWow. That conflation supersedes every other trolly misleading article you've ever scraped off a Republican's toilet seat. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm curious - why do you think that? Do Americans not owe it to the rest of the world for the resources they've consumed?

    Because there is no world government dictating taxes or building infrastructure.

    Nations are the largest governing bodies. Nations need to ensure their individual societies work. And the imbalance in the US (and Canada) is becoming untenable to the majority of its citizens. That's been a very precarious position for nations to be in (in the past and even in the last few months.)


    But it's all relative - as you must admit. I don't believe that it's become untenable but if that were the case, why shouldn't the US also be obligated to redistribute its wealth to other nations? I mean we are all human are we not? We all co-habitate the earth and we all consume her resources - and the US by this definition consumes considerably more than its fair share.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidWow. That conflation supersedes every other trolly misleading article you've ever scraped off a Republican's toilet seat. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm curious - why do you think that? Do Americans not owe it to the rest of the world for the resources they've consumed?

    Do you think the UN has the power to tax?


    I've presented a hypothetical. I know it does not. There are those however who want to give laws and legal authority to decisions as passed by the UN or other supernational organizations power over what happens in the US. But the question stands - should Americans be forced to redistribute their wealth to the rest of the world? Is the inequality untenable?

    phrased that way, your question is valid.


    let's agree on some defn of wealth for the purpose of this tho for ease. wealth could be capital, resources skills and labour.

    I do not think Americans) (or Chinese, or any other naton, for that matter) should be forced (or required) to redistribute their own capital wealth. Other forms of wealth we need to exchange in order to achieve technological progress .
    The requirement is for nations individually to create a suitable environment to allow that exchange.

    the U.N. was not conceived as a governing body, but as a convention assembly. It can ask its members to take collective action, but it is neither a nation unto itself (like the Vatican) or a legislative body like the EU. It is rather a standing global conference. A permanent aassembly of global ambassadors.



    Government is most effective closest to the ground. A global government would be highly inefficient without total control that extends right into every member nation. Such massive bureaucracies inevitably must be broken up into smaller units again.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 6:13 AM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidWow. That conflation supersedes every other trolly misleading article you've ever scraped off a Republican's toilet seat. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm curious - why do you think that? Do Americans not owe it to the rest of the world for the resources they've consumed?

    Do you think the UN has the power to tax?


    I've presented a hypothetical. I know it does not. There are those however who want to give laws and legal authority to decisions as passed by the UN or other supernational organizations power over what happens in the US. But the question stands - should Americans be forced to redistribute their wealth to the rest of the world? Is the inequality untenable?

    phrased that way, your question is valid.


    let's agree on some defn of wealth for the purpose of this tho for ease. wealth could be capital, resources skills and labour.

    I do not think Americans) (or Chinese, or any other naton, for that matter) should be forced (or required) to redistribute their own capital wealth. Other forms of wealth we need to exchange in order to achieve technological progress .
    The requirement is for nations individually to create a suitable environment to allow that exchange.

    the U.N. was not conceived as a governing body, but as a convention assembly. It can ask its members to take collective action, but it is neither a nation unto itself (like the Vatican) or a legislative body like the EU. It is rather a standing global conference. A permanent aassembly of global ambassadors.



    Government is most effective closest to the ground. A global government would be highly inefficient without total control that extends right into every member nation. Such massive bureaucracies inevitably must be broken up into smaller units again.




    You've just talked around yourself. First in most cases like Canada in the US liberals almost insistently argue that programs need to be centralized - and when they talk about taxes on the rich they refer first and foremost to federal taxes. Second you don't speak at all to the income disparities between American citizens and the rest of the world.

    What makes it morally ok for the income disparities to exist in the US versus the rest of the world but not so much within countries? Are you making an argument that in fact the US deserves the economic wealth that it has and that it does not come from resources that it takes from others?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:20 PM GMT
    This post just shows you that the bottom 48% in the USA need to start paying their fair share in income taxes. They are selfish, greedy, and care nothing about the poor in this world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidYou've just talked around yourself. First in most cases like Canada in the US liberals almost insistently argue that programs need to be centralized - and when they talk about taxes on the rich they refer first and foremost to federal taxes. Second you don't speak at all to the income disparities between American citizens and the rest of the world.

    What makes it morally ok for the income disparities to exist in the US versus the rest of the world but not so much within countries? Are you making an argument that in fact the US deserves the economic wealth that it has and that it does not come from resources that it takes from others?

    What you demonstrate is not only do some on the left assume double standards, but they are too clueless to comprehend your pointing out their inconsistencies. Not surprising because many of the left's followers demonstrate only superficial thought, echoing slogans and talking points with little reflection behind them. Their leaders know this, and take advantage.

    To be fair, there are also sheep on the right who similarly demonstrate slogans with little core back-up, and only a few of the thinking fiscal conservative still post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    Haven't you already made this argument riddler?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:21 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidthere are also sheep on the right who similarly demonstrate slogans with little core back-up


    This is the best description of the conservaposse I've ever seen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:28 PM GMT
    So I guess the bottom 99% in America should count its blessings?

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    To the OP: You posted this same topic last year.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1918450/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    i%2Bam%2Bthe%2B1%2525.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 5:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidthere are also sheep on the right who similarly demonstrate slogans with little core back-up


    This is the best description of the conservaposse I've ever seen.

    Depends on your definition of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 6:17 PM GMT
    Doesn't take into account the relative cost of living, either. You can do a lot more with a lot less $ in other places.

    Should we examine ridiculous acts of wastefulness e.g. the article in the news today about the billions squandered on unfinished, abandoned projects in Iraq? Sure.

    Should we consider using our tactical ability to feed everyone on Earth with what we're already producing (and largely wasting)? Sure.

    But that would not require individuals to be taxed down to a level of income comparable to the developing world (all things being relative, you couldn't survive here on what they can thrive on there).

    It would require eliminating waste, re-prioritizing aid, mandating corporate responsibility and investing wealth rather than sitting on it.
  • vintovka

    Posts: 588

    Jan 06, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn saidThe U.N.
    Tax.




    Your family must be so proud.


    Not sure what my family has to do with it but you still post some of the stupidest comments and one can only pity you as you flail about wildly in an attempt to make sense of the world icon_wink.gif


    Do you think the U.N. has the power to tax?



    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidQuestion - if Americans have been benefiting disproportionately in the last few decades, then should the UN tax Americans and redistribute it as well given that the inequality according to liberals results in instability and is "unfair"?


    Could you rephrase the question so that it makes some sense? I don't mean that in an ugly way, I just can't understand the question. As another poster pointed out, there is no "World Government". What do you mean by "Americans have been benefiting disproportionately"? Over other nations? Sure! What's the question?
  • mstevens

    Posts: 89

    Jan 06, 2012 6:44 PM GMT
    Communism does not work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 6:48 PM GMT
    Because you fail to consider people's purchasing power relative to their income...

    Also according to the section you posted there's apparently no rich-ish people in Japan, Australia or Canada...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 7:01 PM GMT
    This is a good example of drawing inaccurate conclusions with factual data and statistics.

    While the numbers may be accurate, there are many other considerations as well as information that may be critical to creating a more accurate picture. For example, How much money someone makes is only relevant to the cost of living where they live. You could be living in my region of California and make $150000 (US dollars) a year and not be able to afford a house. Someone in Africa or parts of Western Asia could make 90% less and afford a nice sized home and property.

    Many of the most expensive homes (exceeding 10 million dollars US, in the USA are owned by foreign nationals. So they may live here (statistically), but they aren't US citizens, they are 'guests' that are treated that way because they have the financial resources and clout to get around the legal citizenship issues that the less well off have no opportunity for.

    If your going to refer to the top 1% in the world, then you ought to also define not just how the numbers of people are distributed by nation, but also how the actual money is distributed. (For example, if just under half of the 1% [29 million out of 60 million world wide] live in the US, it doesn't say anything about the distribution of the wealth within that 1%. Your presuming, by your statements, that half of the 1% of money is also in the US. I'd be willing to bet that the US came in 3rd or 4th place at best.)

    Your statements may be altruistically stated (even if they are old statistics) but don't use the "Fox News" reporting method (which I'd rather refer to as a highly effective and profitable propaganda machine - but that's just IMHO) of presenting half the information to make an often highly inaccurate statement based on an agenda rather than truly looking at the whole picture.

    Granted, there is plenty of money in the US and it distribution within the country is appalling, it doesn't serve the intelligent so much as the greedy. If you keep the argument within the context of the US (or any other country/region) and then look to local solutions that can spread out rather than global blame and scapegoating, you may come up with a genuine step in the direction of 'life and living equity' and not just compare wallets.

    I know that I'm no where near the American 1% but turn away the opportunity to be in it. Absolutely not. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the unfortunate, I prefer to help them when I can. But, if had the opportunity to be in the 1%, you can bet that I'd turn my oligarch influence towards those causes I saw as just, educational and self sustaining. (Steps off soap box.)
  • allatonce

    Posts: 904

    Jan 06, 2012 7:02 PM GMT
    Rodcet_Nife saidi%2Bam%2Bthe%2B1%2525.jpg


    BAHAHA it's funny because it's true.

    ...if Batman were real.
  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Jan 06, 2012 7:03 PM GMT
    Terrible idea. By taking away the profits that allow our economy to grow, you would shut down the industrial engine of the United States, which in a global economy is a major reason why much of the world is enjoying some economic prosperity.

    If everyone just made enough money to get by, and gave the rest away, no one would have money to invest in a new business. To create a new product. Even within the US, the top 10% of income earners (both individuals and corporations) create a huge chunk of the jobs that support the other 90% of the country.

    We all know Communism is not effective. It has been proven over and over again. Societies are successful when their brightest and most innovative people are rewarded for their hard work.

    Who_Is_John_Galt_oval_sticker.png