SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:43PM
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.
The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.
That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.
Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.
"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Only 1% of World's Population Grabbed 82% of all 2017 Wealth
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 261 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:16PM (8 children)
I'll give it a try to answer that one.
Since it is easier to sell that than the actual "the poor will get the tax breaks" - which is the intent.
The reasoning basically is that the poor needs more support to even the playfield to make everything less stratified - but actually pointing out to the poor that they're poor never goes over well so it is easier to market it as "taxing the rich".
If this is a good thing or not depends on your personal beliefs, if the main object is "all for me" then it is insane, if the main object is "all for all" then it doesn't go far enough.
(btw, norway uses a model similar to the one proposed (all nordic countries uses different models - but has the same overall theme))
Depends on what you measure, quantity - yes, quality - no. Having enough to give a comfort above the basic need (without entering luxury) tends to provide a decent average.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:44PM (7 children)
And this goal has some innate quality that makes forcing one man to work for another's benefit okay? We used to call that slavery and slavery is immoral no matter how comfortable the slave.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
> makes forcing one man to work for another's benefit okay?
No one is forced. The rich person could take all of their money out of investment and stop working.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:11PM (2 children)
Not buying it. This is only acceptable to you at the moment because most prefer not to. The minute that changed you'd be demanding taxes on cash holdings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:25PM
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:45PM
> you'd be demanding taxes on cash holdings
Please don't accuse me of writing things I never wrote.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:31PM (2 children)
As I wrote in the next paragraph - if it is a good thing or not depends on your beliefs.
But sure - let's run with your ad absurdum, this would mean you also are against any and all taxes and conscription-style military service.
And how did you get to "/forcing/ one man to work" (and driving that to slavery?)? The man is allowed to accept less pay, give money away, do another job or even working less or not at all (neither of which was/is included in slavery).
The system has dimininishing returns simply enough - so past a certain point you'll mainly just do a job for the joy of it (relative to other activities).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)
Yes, I am. I'm also a realist though and realize the former is unlikely to happen, so I'm willing to accept progress towards perfection rather than demanding perfection.
Thought it needed no explaining but if it does I will. When you take the product of a man's labor you have effectively said to him "your labor during this period was not for yourself but for me". Call it retroactive slavery or theft or whatever you like but do not call it moral.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:33PM
Ahh, you being completly against taxes leaves us at an impasse and we can't never really understand each other's point of view on this subject (with that being said, it is nice arguing with you). Personally I consider taxes to be useful, guess that is a sideeffect of the benefits that gives you over here (sweden).
Out of curiousity - how would you fund stuff like roadconstructions, enviornmental agencies, powergrids, police, fire departments, food and water standards and such?
Slavery is something completly different then, and is a bad rethoric.
Theft - depends on how you see taxes, from your POV it is theft from my POV it is sane.
It is moral (really, look up what the word mean) - if it is good or bad however depends on which moral you apply.