MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty
By artappraiser on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 8:50pm |Al Jazeera, Jan .20, 2012
The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.
The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.
The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.
The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week [....]
URL:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html
- Add new comment
- 879 reads
Comments
What Oxfam doesn't see is that if all the rich people in the world gave all their money to the poor, the money would be used up in a few years and there would be no more forthcoming(unless we think other people would amass wealth for the sole purpose of giving it all away).
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 8:27am
Oh come on Aaron, that's a ridiculous critique. The article doesn't say "all the rich people" but the top 100. It doesn't suggest giving "all their money" but just that one year's earnings could end extreme poverty four times over. Theoretically they could keep their wealth of billions of dollars that far exceeds their yearly earnings, increase the tax on just the earnings i.e. their yearly income, of these 100 people by 25% and end poverty forever.
I'm not saying I support that idea but that would be a fairer take on the Oxfam report. But surely we could do something about tax havens and tax investment income and capital gains at standard rates. That would go a long way toward solving some of the problems with inequality and lack of funds for investment and social programs both here and abroad.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 3:14pm
But they would have to give up one years earnings every year in order to end extreme poverty and they're not going to do that. Forcing them to do that would remove their incentive for making all those zillions in the first place.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 4:21pm
Well no. The statement, if one accepts the report, is that one year's earnings for the top richest 100 people would end extreme poverty 4 times over. So 25% would end extreme poverty for one year.
Assuming that those top 100 people pay about the same rate as Romney, 14%, an increase of 25% would give them a tax rate of 39%. The current tax rate for non investment income is 39.6%.
There is some argument whether a top rate of 39.6% on investment income reduces incentive. Some say yes, others, like megabillionaire William Buffet, says it would not.
Of course as AA pointed out, its just agitprop and its more complicated than that. It doesn't take into account disease or population increase that would come if large numbers of children didn't starve or what it might cost to deal with just normal everyday type poverty. etc.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 6:15pm
Well, the headline here is agitprop for sure, but if you click on the "a new report" link (which isn't the report, but a press release about it,) you'll see that it's mostly Al Jazeera's spin on it that's doing that, picking that point out. That's not to defend Oxfam along the lines they are trying hard to do nuance, this is obviously a PR effort. I just thought that as a PR effort, it was newsworthy, good to know about. They are trying to get focus on the change in equality in the last two decades, and that they are targeting Davos.
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 3:31pm
Yeah, I should have noted that it was 25 percent of their income; a mere 60 billion according to the report. Probably some of them are paying more than Romney. Perhaps we could give all their tax money to the poor and still have enough revenue for other expenses; it would take a lot of research to calculate it.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 6:44pm