dagblog - Comments for "Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty"

Yeah, I should have noted

Aaron Carine — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:44:00 +0000

In reply to Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

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.

Well no. The statement, if

ocean-kat — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:15:34 +0000

In reply to But they would have to give

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.

But they would have to give

Aaron Carine — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:21:21 +0000

In reply to Oh come on Aaron, that's a

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.

Well, the headline here is

artappraiser — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:31:59 +0000

In reply to What Oxfam doesn't see is

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.

Oh come on Aaron, that's a

ocean-kat — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:14:45 +0000

In reply to What Oxfam doesn't see is

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.

What Oxfam doesn't see is

Aaron Carine — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:21 +0000

In reply to Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

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).