It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Rich List. How does your income stack up to the rest of the world?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Global Rich List

If you have an annual income of only $10,000 dollars, you are in the top 14% of the world.

Bringing it up to $40,000 you are in the top 3% of the world.

Most people know at least one person who has an annual income of $100,000. They are in the top 0.66% of the world's richest.

If you are making $2,000 dollars annually you are still in the top 18% percent of the world. I doubt anyone is on ATS with that low of an income.

What makes it right for people in the top ten percent to have such a great existence compared to the other 90%? Just something to ponder.




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Definitely puts things into perspective.

Thanks for exposing the blatant disparity of the global empire:

www.globalrichlist.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
In many countries, things are cheaper than here so they don't need a higher income.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
also puts into perspective exactly what free trade and enterprise can do for a society without governmental overcontrol.

we are a lucky few in this world, but we are also on the leading edge of development, despite our sometimes backwards ways



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Those numbers cannot be accurate.

I am 25 years old, and I make around 30,000 annually. This is among the lowest income out of everyone I know. Infact, 30k isn't enough for just one person to live, and I live in canada. So basically, every single person in this country, must make at least 25,000 a year, just to surivive here. Renting an apartment or even a room is going to cost a minimum 500 per month. That's already 6,000 for the year, and thats just basic living without food or any other expenses.

But this doesn't only apply to canada. People need to make this much money in other countries as well. Usa, australia, U.K, Most europe countries. Even mexicans make a decent amount of money.

I do realize there are a lot of third world countries, and its terrible. But you're saying 90% of the world is in poverty? I would say more like 60% or even 50% is in poverty. Even that number is disgusting, I agree. But I cannot see 90% of the world being like this.

Whats even more discusting, is there is no need for poverty in this world. If the rich would just share the resources with the poor, there is more than enough to go around the world. But because the rich are greedy and corrupt, the poor suffer, and it will always be this way. Humanity is a cruel race, and when we do get wiped out, it will be well deserved.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


The U.S. has some 700 military bases in foreign countries -- the wealth of the North is directly inverse to the poverty of the South.

It's not a "free market" -- it's corporate-state welfare be it military or agribusiness. Here's how it works -- I have a B.A. in international relations and this is my staff op-ed while at the U of MN Daily -- researched as I finished my masters degree:

MAR. 2, 2000 – EDITORIAL/OPINIONS
———————————————————————————————————————— Cargill: Our taxes, global destruction

Minnetonka-based Cargill is often noted as the world’s largest private corporation, with reported annual sales of over $50 billion and operations at any given time in an average of 70 countries. The “Lake Office” of Cargill is a 63-room replica of a French chateau; the chairman’s office is part of what was once the chateau’s master-bedroom suite.

A family empire, the Cargills and the MacMillans control about 85 percent of the stock. Not only the largest grain trader in the world, with over 20 percent of the market, Cargill dominates another 12 sectors, including destructive speculative finance, according to “Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies,” by Brewster Kneen.



Taking advantage of the capitalist speculative collapse of 1873, Cargill quickly bought up grain elevators. After vast cooperation with the state-sponsored railroad robber barons, central grain terminals averaged extremely high annual returns on investments of 30 to 40 percent between 1883 and 1889. Cargill hired a Chase Bank vice president to secretly help the corporation through the Depression, writes Dan Morgan in “Merchants of Grain.”

“There are only a few processing firms,” and “these firms receive a disproportionate share of the economic benefits from the food system,” states William D. Heffernan, professor of rural sociology at the University of Missouri. Details of Cargill’s price manipulations at the expense of farmers worldwide was documented in the classic study, “Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity” by Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins. They report that Cargill has had a history of receiving elite government price information that should be told to U.S. farmers.

That secrecy, along with tax-subsidized market control, enables Cargill to buy from U.S. farmers at extremely low prices and then sell abroad to nations pressured under the same destructive elite corporate control. See the Institute for Food and Development Policy’s Web Site at www.foodfirst.org....



Between 1985 and 1992, the legal entity called Cargill received $800.4 million in tax subsidies via the Export Enhancement Program, a continuation of the infamous “Food for Peace” policy, writes Kneen. Promoted by Hubert H. Humphrey and instituted as PL 480, food became a Cold War tool, i.e. “for Peace.” If we can induce people to “become dependent on us for food,” then “what is a more powerful weapon than food and fiber?” Humphrey declared, according to “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies” by Noam Chomsky.

Actually, most of the nation recipients of tax-subsidized Cargill food dumping were, and are, net exporters of food already — policies imposed by colonial trading patterns. The food (for Peace) has been bought cheaply by neocolonial regimes, and then sold at a huge discount on the local market — in Somalia, for example, at one-sixth of the local prices. Many examples of these misguided policies can be found in “Betraying the National Interest: How US Foreign AID Threatens Global Security by Undermining the Political and Economic Stability of the Third World,” by Frances Moore Lappe, et al.



Cargill’s undercutting wipes out the local farmers’ self-reliance, while the revenues (going to the elite) are tied to required purchases of U.S. weapons, writes Chomsky, citing “The Soft War” by Tom Barry, 1988. But the main beneficiary of “Food for Peace” has been Cargill. Keen writes, “From 1954 to 1963, just for storing and transporting P.L. 480 commodities, the heavily subsidized giant Cargill made $1 billion.”

Indian lawyer N.J. Nanjundaswamy reports that a Cargill motto is, “One who controls the seed, controls the farmer, and one who controls the food trade, controls the nation.” Yudof’s recently stated support of federal foreign policy Title XII is another public promotion of the University of Minnesota-Cargill partnership’s raiding of sustainable agricultural cultures.



Cargill is such a damaging threat that in Dec. 1992, 500,000 peasants marched against corporate-controlled trade, and the irate farmers ransacked Cargill’s operations. Fifty people were arrested at the partially completed — and subsequently destroyed — seed-processing plant in Bellary, India. In 1996, 1,000 Indian farmers gathered at Cargill’s office and destroyed Cargill’s records. For more, see www.endgame.org...

Cargill has been doing bio-piracy, stealing traditional products. For instance, it used Basmati, a rice from India, as its trade name, and the company continues to be one of the main promoters of corporate-driven intellectual property rights. The U.S. Trade Act, Special 301 Clause, allows the United States to take unilateral action against any country that does not open its market to U.S. corporations.

The United States, for example, has threatened to use trade sanctions against Thailand for its attempt to protect biodiversity. A bill that has been before parliament in India and promoted by Cargill, “takes away all the farmers’ rights, which they have enjoyed for generations — they will no longer be able to produce new varieties of seed or trade seed amongst themselves,” writes Nanjundaswamy.

The research center, Rural Advancement Foundation International, found that “fifteen African states, among them some of the poorest countries in the world, are under pressure to sign away the right of more than 20 million small-holder farmers to save and exchange crop seed. The decision to abandon Africa’s 12,000-year tradition of seed-saving will be finalized at a meeting in the Central African Republic. The 15 governments have been told to adopt draconian intellectual property legislation for plant varieties in order to conform to a provision in the World Trade Organization.”

Cargill, with extensive funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, is also destroying the world’s largest wetland — the Pantanal, in South America — in order to dredge a channel that’s designed for convoys of up to 16 soybean- and soymeal-carrying barges, according to the Institute on Food and Development Policy.

Cargill has been on the Council of Economic Priorities’ list of worst environmental offenders. Mother Jones magazine and Earth Island Journal report that Cargill is responsible for 2,000 OSHA violations, a 40,000-gallon spill of phosphoric solution into Florida’s Alafia River, poor air pollution compliance and record-high releases of toxic waste.

With help from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy, located at www.poclad.org..., states have recently begun to respond to citizen pressure and revoke corporate charters. The assets of Cargill should be revoked, allowing the citizens of the United States to give farmers the benefits of fair trade instead of Cargill’s secretive policy of tax-subsidized global destruction.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
Those numbers cannot be accurate.

I am 25 years old, and I make around 30,000 annually. This is among the lowest income out of everyone I know. Infact, 30k isn't enough for just one person to live, and I live in canada. So basically, every single person in this country, must make at least 25,000 a year, just to surivive here. Renting an apartment or even a room is going to cost a minimum 500 per month. That's already 6,000 for the year, and thats just basic living without food or any other expenses.

But this doesn't only apply to canada. People need to make this much money in other countries as well. Usa, australia, U.K, Most europe countries. Even mexicans make a decent amount of money.

I do realize there are a lot of third world countries, and its terrible. But you're saying 90% of the world is in poverty? I would say more like 60% or even 50% is in poverty. Even that number is disgusting, I agree. But I cannot see 90% of the world being like this.

Whats even more discusting, is there is no need for poverty in this world. If the rich would just share the resources with the poor, there is more than enough to go around the world. But because the rich are greedy and corrupt, the poor suffer, and it will always be this way. Humanity is a cruel race, and when we do get wiped out, it will be well deserved.


The said thing is, the numbers are accurate. $30,000 dollars is a lot of money compared to the rest of the world. There are millions of people in places like India, Russia, America, and other places that make less than what you do. There are a billion people in China, and there income is in the thousands. It adds up to 90%. It shouldn't, but it does.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


You are absolutely wrong.
My step-father is on SSI and makes $8088 a year.
He lives in a "based on your income" apartment, so his rent is $117 a month.
The apartment has a dishwasher, central air, free cable, etc.
He lives just fine on this.

So I don't know where the hell you got your info from.
$25,000 is MORE than enough for a single person to live on.

And while you're talking about the rich helping the poor...if David De Rothschild gave every human on earth $250,000, he would still have half what he has now.
This is based on an estimated 6 Billion Humans.
* Edited to correct OP's $ listed.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by PublicDefenseCorp]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PublicDefenseCorp
 


So he's got over $6000 pocket cash? That's sick! SSI for what? Not disability -- just welfare? Otherwise it'd be SSDI right? Man get me some.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicDefenseCorp
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


You are absolutely wrong.
My step-father is on SSI and makes $8088 a year.
He lives in a "based on your income" apartment, so his rent is $117 a month.
The apartment has a dishwasher, central air, free cable, etc.
He lives just fine on this.

So I don't know where the hell you got your info from.
$25,000 is MORE than enough for a single person to live on.

And while you're talking about the rich helping the poor...if David De Rothschild gave every human on earth $250,000, he would still have half what he has now.
This is based on an estimated 6 Billion Humans.
* Edited to correct OP's $ listed.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by PublicDefenseCorp]


umm.. i don't know where you live or what you do, but here in Canada I can tell you $25,000 is crap and hardly enough for one individual to live on (comfortably live on I should say)... I don't know where the original poster who mentioned $25,000 lives, but if he lived in Toronto that salary wouldn't go far at all.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Supernatural
In many countries, things are cheaper than here so they don't need a higher income.

Of course, because the house is smaller, and so does the food portion.

And the health care quality isn't as good either.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
If the rich would just share the resources with the poor, there is more than enough to go around the world. But because the rich are greedy and corrupt, the poor suffer, and it will always be this way.


So I take it you want prices of commodities to shoot through the roof if the rich distribute their monies? And then you're back to square one.






posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eldard
 





In November 1998 Time Magazine printed a series of articles entitled “Corporate Welfare”. The investigation leading to that report took 18 months. Time published the story over four consecutive issues of the magazine: November 9, 16, 23, and 30. The first part begins with an attempt to get ones attention: How would you like to pay only a quarter of the real estate taxes you owe on your home? And buy everything for the next 10 years without spending a single penny in sales tax? Keep a chunk of your paycheck free of income taxes? Have the city in which you live lend you money at rates cheaper than any bank charges? Then have the same city install free water and sewer lines to your house, offer you a perpetual discount on utility bills–and top it all off by landscaping your front yard at no charge? But then they burst your bubble: Fat chance. You can’t get any of that, of course. But if you live almost anywhere in America, all around you are taxpayers getting deals like this. These taxpayers are called corporations.


www.cps-news.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Try living in Los Angeles with $40,000 a year (non-illegal under the table earnings) and I bet you won't feel like the to 3% of the richest in the world.

Most of the top 5% live in uber expensive areas where only the top 0.03% can afford to live with any financial security.

Maybe if the "global rich list" came along with a "globally most expensive places to live" list as well as the "globally most taxed areas" list then there will be some correct perspective of this unbalanced global wealth.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Yay! I'm the 45,439,321 richest person in the world!!!



But as Wutone says.. it's all about buying power. Ya, I have money.. but after my bills are paid I have almost nothing. As the site even says, $8 can buy me 15 apples... or in a poor country 25 apple trees!!!

What I truly think this means.. is that I need to save up, for a few years.. really frugal like, every penny saved...

Then move to a dirt poor country, build myself a fancy hut and live like a King with a whole valley of apple trees!



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlynx
 



well combined we are in that top 0.66%... hmmm.... well i know one thing the taxes were high ...


I like how it shows what you can give away..... not any more. We got took a few to many times and we stopped it all unless it is local charity... not to demean the folks in other nations... but there is way to many people that get their hands on the money that is donated before it gets where it needs to be... so we stopped all of it...





[edit on 29-3-2010 by lilwolf]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


When I was in Costa Rica in 1992 for a semester certificate in conservation biology and sustainable development what did we find out:

The poor subsistence farmers are forced onto the steepest, most eroded soil so that Gringos get cheap coffee, bananas, palm oil, flowers, and timber.

So the whole go to the cheap land has already been done by the corporate-state elite -- and then it gets imported back here so we have "cheap" food -- only laced with pesticides, etc.

You may be able to buy apple trees -- but finding a place to plant them is another story. The poor are forced to invade the "protected" national parks which are for ecology, etc. So the rich can buy carbon credits so the rich can continue to have cheap energy for technology from metals that were stolen from huge open pits in the cheap land, etc.

Yeah it's real cheap if you got a bunch of thugs with weapons go in and take it -- oh wait that's how the West was developed:

www.amazon.com...

Ecological Imperialism: The biological expansion of Europe



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 




and the point of that was what? That with american money you can buy a lot of things.... or that because americans have money they are bad people?

We have a home in costa rica and we go there quite often with family and friends, so does that make us bad people? No it doesn't. Money changes people if they allow it to... but to have it does not make a person a bad person...



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I made 5,000 last year. Hmmm, that's not a lot at all and probably with 15% of the world.

It's really crazy when you think about it, especially living in America you just can't grasp how different the world is until you visit it.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicDefenseCorp
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


You are absolutely wrong.
My step-father is on SSI and makes $8088 a year.
He lives in a "based on your income" apartment, so his rent is $117 a month.
The apartment has a dishwasher, central air, free cable, etc.
He lives just fine on this.

So I don't know where the hell you got your info from.
$25,000 is MORE than enough for a single person to live on.

And while you're talking about the rich helping the poor...if David De Rothschild gave every human on earth $250,000, he would still have half what he has now.
This is based on an estimated 6 Billion Humans.
* Edited to correct OP's $ listed.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by PublicDefenseCorp]
Not if you live in Southern Ca. I didn't have a choice where I lived, since I was born here, but I would LOVE to know where you can find income variable apartments in California. Now that I'm in school for my bachelor's, those would be lovely to have.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join