World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over

The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.

“The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process,” while the income of the top 0.01 percent has seen even greater growth, a new Oxfam report said.

For example, the luxury goods market has seen double-digit growth every year since the crisis hit, the report stated. And while the world's 100 richest people earned $240 billion last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 a day.

Oxfam is a leading international philanthropy organization. Its new report, ‘The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt us All,’ argues that the extreme concentration of wealth actually hinders the world’s ability to reduce poverty.

The report was published before the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, and calls on world leaders to “end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last 20 years.”

Oxfam's report argues that extreme wealth is unethical, economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.

The problem is a global one, Oxfam said: "In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens. In China the top 10 percent now take home nearly 60 percent of the income. Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South Africa, which is now the most unequal country on Earth and significantly more [inequality] than at the end of apartheid."

In the US, the richest 1 percent's share of income has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20 percent, according to the report. For the top 0.01 percent, their share of national income quadrupled, reaching levels never seen before.

“We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” Executive Director of Oxfam International Jeremy Hobbs said.

Hobbs explained that concentration of wealth in the hands of the top few minimizes economic activity, making it harder for others to participate: “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favor.”

The report highlights that even politics has become controlled by the super-wealthy, which leads to policies “benefitting the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies.”

“It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite,” the report said.

The four-day World Economic Forum will be held in Davos starting next Wednesday. World financial leaders will gather for an annual meeting that will focus on reviving the global economy.


http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/

Disgusting. No other word for it. How vile and souless.

 

Viva La revolution

 

Something has to give.

This is just sickness.

 

It is one reason why I believe the wealthiest should be paying wartime tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

$60 billion will not end world poverty...

 

In US, all that may be required is an investment in the general welfare and let a positive multiplier effect do the rest.

 

Go on then ...how would that work?

 

It merely requires enough political fortitude to require wartime Tax rates, even for a War on Drugs; not our current regime of cognitive dissonance regarding "social" spending that may have nothing to do with the general welfare.

 

Well, what are they?

I've not been involved in any wars this week, so I'm a bit rusty as to what the 'rates' are.

 

A negative income tax would end poverty as we know it just listen to Milton Friedman and with a negative income tax we could abolish welfare,social security,food stamps all of that.

 

Let's assume a ninety percentile; merely to ensure our elected representatives are not going to saddle us with boondoggles and generational forms of theft.

- - - Updated - - -

Unemployment infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts, and the only way to abuse it is by actually having a work ethic.

 

and the US government confiscated enough tax money to stifle the economy and ensures the poor will always be poor

 

Only if they try to balance the budget; we already know the private sector can't spend enough to get out of a recession as evidenced by the Great Depression.

 

Sorry, Jack...

Trickle up economics doesn't work without poverty.

 

I agree that Capitalism is always willing to subsidize more poverty for free under any form of it.

 

Those 100 people earning 240B$, spent or invested their incomes someplace in the World Business Community, even if as charity. Those investments created jobs or wealth for millions of workers, or to the smaller investors through dividends. Total cost to the society......ZERO.

The US Government (not counting State/Local) alone collecting revenues of slightly more than 10 times that 240B$ (2.4T$), borrowing an additional 6 times that 240T$ or 1.4T$, producing few jobs, no dividends. Total cost to the society 3.8T$. Putting these figures into perspective over 25% of US GDP went to the US Government.

I would think those 100 people are more interested in the most possible people, than a Government that changes face every two years, with motive or reason to do what's best for that "most people".

 

Our elected representatives are supposed to provide for the general welfare of our States and republic.

 

Promote and provide have different meanings, then what it takes to promote in one SOVERIEGN STATE, have little in common, with others. Think about this, when you vote for your Senator or LOCAL District Congressman, is he/she suppose to vote for their District/State (Constituent) or for the party agenda?

 

You know, if you weren't so (*)(*)(*)(*) lazy and so dependent on the government for your existence, you could be one of those 100.

 

I'd say in most cases it should be :

Viva Evolution .


More often as not , revolutionist s prove to be just simply - revolting .


..

..

 

Should not the general welfare of the State or the Union be a first priority?

 

For local Governments yes, States in some cases, but the Federal first priority is and always has been SECURITY of the Union/Nation.

My point this thread, was those 100 people do more (promote) for the general public welfare for free, than the Federal does, while charging us nearly FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. If American's their also paying the majority of taxes, which can't be taken from them if they had not earned it....

 

If they wanted, there would be enough of everyone else, to literally take their wealth, if we wanted to.

What could they do? I mean, if there were literally tens of millions, all across nations.

Sure, they could have the cops etc on side, but even they would get overwhelmed at those numbers, and would likely swap sides.

 

Our federal Congress is delegated the general powers to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

Of course to just take it would mean killing them and taking it, they're not just going to hand it over if you ask nice.

So once thats all spent we start killing the next 1000 (im guessing it would take that many to have as much as the top 100)?

Then kill the next 10,000, 100k, 1m, 10m - 100m?

Lefties and their socialist commi ways.

“It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite,”

Agree with this, but capitalism is the only way not the murderous socialist path.

I guarantee if you look at the top 100 they generate their wealth via their growing globalist corporations, not from wages earned. This is why tax system is totally rooted, the super wealthy arent stupid enough to earn in wages so they're more than happy for people to continue with their class warfare tax rich programs.

If we really want to change the system making it fairer then change how we look at things. Tax companies on the sliding tax scale and individual wage earners on a low flat tax