World's richest one per cent to own more than the rest: Oxfam

Just doing my normal daily reading of various news sites, and I come across this headline stating that the world's richest 1 per cent will own more than the other 99 per cent of the population.

www.theage.com.au...

The world's richest 1 per cent will own more than the other 99 per cent by next year, Oxfam has warned.

The charity has highlighted growing inequality ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

A research paper suggests the wealthiest 1 per cent have seen their share of global assets rise from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent last year - with an average worth of $2.92 million each. The figure is on track to exceed 50 per cent this year.

Below the richest fifth, 80 per cent of the world's population own just 5.5 per cent of wealth - an average of $4166 each.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering," Oxfam executive director Winnie Byanyima said.

On a site as large as ATS, one comes across a quite divergent range of opinions, from those who believe in trickle down economics, to those who believe in distributing the wealth more equally. The question I would like to pose is, does a small percentage of individuals owning this much wealth benefit those of the lesser 99%? Can global inequity be reframed in other ways? For example, what percentage of the wealth is owned by the middle class, compared to the poorest?

As someone fortunate enough to live in a wealthy nation, and to have a reasonably good job, I have no problem at all paying my fair share of taxes. I earn a decent salary, and consequently am taxed at a higher rate. In Australia we have a decent social welfare system, and reasonably good healthcare, which is available to all citizens of the country. If the idea of trickle down economics is promoted with a right-wing government such as the current administration we have in Australia, does this contribute toward social inequity?

I see contrasting thought from those who believe deregulation is a way to create wealth. Perhaps they are correct, but often when I see individuals accumulating huge sums of money, I question if they are creating wealth, or merely redistributing it into their own pockets?

Thoughts ATS?

a reply to: cuckooold

Where did the money come from that the wealthy have?

Somebody had to pay them. Nobody gives money away unless they are spending it on something they want.

Only the government forcibly takes money from people.

Why is it important to you what other people have?

a reply to: Jamie1
I think he is more concerned with what other people don't have. Food, clean water, warm clothes, adequate shelter. Little things like that.

a reply to: Jamie1

I have no problem with people having wealth. I ask is it acceptable in a modern developed world for say someone like the Walmart family to have such obscene amounts of money, while some of their workers have to go on welfare? Is it acceptable to have substandard working conditions in the name of profit? Is it acceptable that workers are given 1 hour less than the legal requirement for them to accrue benefits from the workplace and be seen as a full-time employee.

I don't buy into the argument that workers have the choice to accept work or not, certainly not in times of economic hardship. I think there must be a balance, and some of those in positions of having extreme wealth and power like Rupert Murdoch, and Gina (pay them $2 a day) Rhinehart, advocate for the removal of conditions and penalty rates in order to justify putting more money into their already overflowing coffers.

Even in first world countries there are millions of homeless people going hungry every day when there is clearly enough wealth and resources to help these people.

Lol as long as the have nots keep believing the crap they are being told dont expect too much that way you wont be dissapointed.

Communism is in my opinion the best way meaning we are all the same no one is better than anyone else. . . . Well because thier not.

Trickle down economics is laughable, when you consider that those holding most of the wealth got it by criminal means and by shafting the other 99% in the first place. They are then hardly going to trickle any of that down to assist the other 99% as they need to be kept in debt and dependency on the state.

A question I always ask is, considering we are told all the time of the massive debts our governments are running, and the banking derivative market exposure, WHO exactly is all this money owed to?

The way the system works, or was set up to work, was by creating debt which, as time goes by and the capital and interest mounts, can never be paid off. The government can't even hope to pay it off, ever, as borrowing from the banks to pay it off also creates more debt on that capital plus interest. It's a scheme always doomed to failure on the part of those who participate.
Another question of course, is that if the global financial situation is so dire, with companies across the planet, large and small, closing down, banks being bailed out, countries having to borrow so as not to default on loans, then how on earth are that 1% able to not only weather the storm but massively increase their wealth? It doesn't really add up, unless there is something crooked going on. That of course though is the case as the whole banking system, the creation of money out of thin air, ever more risky trading platforms being created and public bailouts are now accepted as the norm.

Bottom line is that those in charge of the wealth will never relinquish their grip due to the control it gives them on a global scale. What the public need to do is elect people not controlled by that wealth and write off that debt used to control them. I mean, what are those 1% going to do?
The people of Iceland shook off that debt, refusing to accept that they had to bailout the banks, and seeking prosecution of those who profited from it and caused the issue. There is nothing stopping the rest of us doing the same and completely reforming the entire system. After all, it's better than allowing the bankers to lead us all into another world war to protect their debt control.

Do you have any numbers for the top one percent of the top one percent . I think those numbers will be even more staggering .

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Jamie1

I have no problem with people having wealth. I ask is it acceptable in a modern developed world for say someone like the Walmart family to have such obscene amounts of money, while some of their workers have to go on welfare? Is it acceptable to have substandard working conditions in the name of profit? Is it acceptable that workers are given 1 hour less than the legal requirement for them to accrue benefits from the workplace and be seen as a full-time employee.

I don't buy into the argument that workers have the choice to accept work or not, certainly not in times of economic hardship. I think there must be a balance, and some of those in positions of having extreme wealth and power like Rupert Murdoch, and Gina (pay them $2 a day) Rhinehart, advocate for the removal of conditions and penalty rates in order to justify putting more money into their already overflowing coffers.

Why worry about the Walton family? What type of life do YOU want?

What can you do to create ti?

Is pondering about the fairness or unfairness of anything helping you get the life you want?

Its so funny to see people try and defend the 1% super rich dirtbags.

Here Bane tells a tale of repression. . . . .

I wouldnt be suprised if it didnt happen someday. . . . .

Bill gates has his say aswell
Archbishop has his say too

news.sky.com...

a reply to: Jamie1

It's nothing to do with the life I want for myself, I do just fine thank you. The topic here is not what I want anyway, the topic is in the thread title!

However, when I see a people like Gina Rhinehart and Rupert Murdoch advocating for the removal of conditions that workers have fought long and hard for to be removed, I think it worth commenting and raising awareness. Murdoch has his influence, but he doesn't control the internet, not yet anyway.

www.abc.net.au...

Speaking in video posted on the Sydney Mining Club's website to discuss the recently signed enterprise migration agreement which will allow her to import 1,700 foreign workers for her Roy Hill Iron Ore project, Mrs Rinehart says Australians should not be complacent about the investment pipeline given that African labourers will work for less than $2 a day.

Here in Australia, if one gets sicks, one gets access to first world medical treatment, regardless of how much money one has in the bank. If I run into a bad situation losing my job and health, I can qualify for assistance from the government. I personally prefer to pay my own way, but it's nice knowing that if the # hits the fan, I can get help from the government.

The current administration in power in Australia are agitating toward what they deem to be 'wealth creation', but it is at the expense of working conditions and environmental legislation. I don't see a free-for-all where Commonwealth assets are sold off to the highest bidder (the Victorian Liberal government permitted environmentally destructive grazing in national parks) or World Heritage areas permitted to become waste dumps being in the public interest.

www.abc.net.au...

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has approved a proposal to dump dredge spoil from the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion in the marine park area

Greenpeace warns that any dumping of dredge spoil on the World Heritage-listed reef will be an "international embarrassment" and akin to "dumping

To destroy healthcare, the environment, and worker's rights, at the altar of wealth creation hardly seems the most positive forward thinking action that can be taken.

a reply to: cuckooold

You are wasting your time, jamie is a 1%er.

The system through lottery and luck worked for her.

That means everyone else is lazy and stupid thus deserves to starve in a hovel.

Never mind they are the ones working 60 hours a week making all the money she has happen in the first place.....she deserves it, because she is special.

Who cares if hundreds have to starve and suffer needlessly, she deserves more...how much more? More....no matter how many have to suffer for her to get it.

I mean they arent even people, they are poor, they dont deserve anything but working to exhaustion for slave wages.

Isnt that right jamie?

Why, while you and your kids are cold and hungry would you care what another has.

So what they have food, and heat, and security.....why would you want that?

You should be happy to keep stuffing more money they dont need into their pockets, so you cant have any.

What bothers me most is that these people pay less tax on their income than the rest of us.

Huge corporations export jobs overseas causing a lack of jobs, which leads to homelessness- my taxes go up to feed the homeless. Corporations get tax breaks, because they use their huge sums of money to simply buy control in our government.



With half the worlds wealth and power in the hands of 1% of the population, we're just that much closer to a tipping point.

a reply to: Jamie1

And they have you here on ATS defending and trying to get sympathy for the 1%. I do feel sorry for them that they need so much while their employees work 2 jobs or go hungry.

They all need to be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives and all the wealth distributed.

So what is the optimal amount of wealth they should own? How is it anyone's fault that they create or develop a business that makes them obscenely wealthy while providing jobs for countless other individuals?

So what if Bill Gates is worth $75 billion? How many tens of thousands of millionaires did he create? How many jobs did Microsoft create? Didn't he make your life better by providing you with technology that you can use that makes your life easier?

When I look around my city, I see all kinds community benefits that these billionaires have provided for general use through their donations... museums, libraries, universities, arts, non-profit organizations, etc.

My employer is hardly a billionaire, but I'd guess he is worth $20-30 million, maybe $50. However, he provides jobs for about 200 people that they would not otherwise have. I earn a very good living working for him because of the risk / investment he took to start a business at his kitchen table that is now grown to be one of the larger in my industry. He works his azz off everyday running the company.

a reply to: Edumakated

Some of us are old enough to remember when a job would at least pay rent and food. Something is terribly wrong. All through the sixties, seventies, eighties, the mantra "work hard" and you will achieve the american dream. The other mantra "plan your retirement". We did that for 40 years and now my pension is "criitcal" due to Wall Street Greed.

originally posted by: Edumakated
So what is the optimal amount of wealth they should own? How is it anyone's fault that they create or develop a business that makes them obscenely wealthy while providing jobs for countless other individuals?

So what if Bill Gates is worth $75 billion? How many tens of thousands of millionaires did he create? How many jobs did Microsoft create? Didn't he make your life better by providing you with technology that you can use that makes your life easier?

When I look around my city, I see all kinds community benefits that these billionaires have provided for general use through their donations... museums, libraries, universities, arts, non-profit organizations, etc.

My employer is hardly a billionaire, but I'd guess he is worth $20-30 million, maybe $50. However, he provides jobs for about 200 people that they would not otherwise have. I earn a very good living working for him because of the risk / investment he took to start a business at his kitchen table that is now grown to be one of the larger in my industry. He works his azz off everyday running the company.

I think the point that you are missing is not the wealth that people EARN through hard work, but the money that is made by illegal or immoral means that make these people super rich.

ID

I'm all for people busting ass, getting paid, and running a company.

When that company is run by a "board" of people who sit on ass and make decisions about how to make more money, it's gone wrong.
When that company can buy their way out of paying taxes, it's gone wrong. When a company of that size can get a city to pay them to open a store which bankrupts all of the local business owners, and then offer all of the people they put out of work minimum wage jobs to sell inferior imported products, it's gone wrong.

There's a balance to be had- and with a government that was not corrupt, we would have found it some time ago. It's all out of whack, now, with huge corporations making the rules. At this rate it won't be long before someone like Amazon just starts shipping people excess goods and docking your pay for the service