Skip to comments.
World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over
RT.com ^
| 20 January, 2013, 15:46
Posted on 01/20/2013 9:50:34 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: TaxPayer2000
I’m not falling for this..... obama administration is again pitting one group against the other.
41
posted on
01/20/2013 10:41:27 AM PST
by
malia
To: TaxPayer2000
Worlds 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over
The absurd claim above notwithstanding, in the infantile mind of the liberal, burning the Mona Lisa would keep a homeless person warm for twenty minutes. That's how the mental defectives we know as liberals actually think.
42
posted on
01/20/2013 10:45:24 AM PST
by
SpaceBar
To: TaxPayer2000
Do the math.
$240B / world population = $35.
The article describes “extreme poverty” as living on less than $1.25/day.
Another $35 per year won’t help.
Relegating that money to just 10% of the population at best raises them to about $2.25/day (or less). That still doesn’t help much: twice dang near zero is still dang near zero.
Not sure how they take that to ending global poverty 4 times over.
And I don’t see the author(s) giving up most of their income to others.
43
posted on
01/20/2013 10:46:23 AM PST
by
ctdonath2
(End of debate. Your move.)
To: fhayek; muawiyah
I simply cringe every time I see a proposal concerning how someone elses wealth is to be divied up. I see no positives to that way of thinking. Sorry, I just dont.
Same here. Sadly, that way of thinking is increasingly popular. It's no less idiotic. The "rich" can only do three things with their money: 1) Put it in the bank (good, they'll have more to loan). 2) Spend it. (good, they'll purchase goods and services that keep people working). 3) Expand a business with it (good, more jobs).
The idea that someone having a lot of money is a problem is absurd. And it's rooted in the foolish liberal idea that there's only so much money, that the "rich" took too much of it and that's not fair. Total nonsense.
44
posted on
01/20/2013 10:52:12 AM PST
by
youngidiot
(God help us.)
To: TaxPayer2000
OPRAH already proved you CANNOT END POVERTY BY GIVING PEOPLE MONEY! The big Lottery winners as a rule usually prove it true, also!
45
posted on
01/20/2013 10:59:07 AM PST
by
goodnesswins
(R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
To: TaxPayer2000
I am too worried about my family sinking into poverty to be concerned about global poverty, idiots!
To: youngidiot
i'm speaking only of how to divvy it up AFTER they're dead. I think it's best to hand it over to the relatives on the outside chance that they carry a gene that put to work can create vast fortunes with immense profits.
Better than just locking the family out and giving the bucks to the professional nonprofit oundation class ~ those people are all scum you know.
47
posted on
01/20/2013 11:10:11 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: JHL
Incidentally, if the $240 Billion were spent on poverty programs instead of Rolls Royces and other luxury items, what would happen to all the people who work in factories making those luxury products?Not a terribly good argument. Luxury products, by definition, are produced in small quantities and employ comparatively few people, as opposed to products intended for mass consumption.
I understand your point, but as a percentage of the total economy of the world luxury products are a small factor.
As I expect can be quickly shown by comparing the worldwide employee count of Rolls and Lamborghini to that of Toyota and Ford.
To: muawiyah
i'm speaking only of how to divvy it up AFTER they're dead. I think it's best to hand it over to the relatives on the outside chance that they carry a gene that put to work can create vast fortunes with immense profits.
Better than just locking the family out and giving the bucks to the professional nonprofit oundation class ~ those people are all scum you know.
Yes, but I maintain that it's none of our business what people do with their money, dead or alive. Let them leave it all to Communist if they so desire, we'll have that fight head on.
49
posted on
01/20/2013 11:12:37 AM PST
by
youngidiot
(God help us.)
To: TaxPayer2000
The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years Which doesn't keep pace with world GDP. Something the article doesn't want you to know.
IE, the rich are getting poorer compared to the rate of world growth.
50
posted on
01/20/2013 11:12:37 AM PST
by
mnehring
To: SpaceBar
During the midst of the Northern hemispheric weather anomaly that destroyed Northern and Western Europe after 535AD, people burned ancient rare books and other works of art just to keep warm ~ all to no avail. The Dark Ages ensued and it took that part of the world nearly a thousand years to recover economically to the levels they'd achieved when the Roman Empire ruled the region.
Burning a Mona Lisa to keep warm is sometimes the correct answer.
51
posted on
01/20/2013 11:13:34 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: youngidiot
When you are dead you have no business. You are dead. Time to take care of your own people even if you hated them in life. Why should they become a public charge when you have left billions behind.
52
posted on
01/20/2013 11:15:33 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: TaxPayer2000
Of course, you know the REAL solution that the Proggies have for the “excess poor”.
A bullet to the head and a ditch, some lime, and a bulldozer.
They could probably achieve THAT for $240 billion. . .
53
posted on
01/20/2013 11:18:25 AM PST
by
Salgak
(Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border. I **DARE** you to cross it. . . .)
To: muawiyah
I wonder how many of them were liberal 1%’ers?...
To: muawiyah
When you are dead you have no business. You are dead. Time to take care of your own people even if you hated them in life. Why should they become a public charge when you have left billions behind.
If they are a public charge, that happened long before my death. Simply mandating that those fools get money solves nothing. Most of them will cash it in for $1 bills and head to the nearest titty bar. To each his own.
55
posted on
01/20/2013 11:19:28 AM PST
by
youngidiot
(God help us.)
To: youngidiot
Titty bars deserve to exist ~ but life is for the living ~ not the dead.
56
posted on
01/20/2013 11:21:40 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: jsanders2001
Odds are good that by passing on inheritances to the 500 closest blood relatives, the largest fortunes will end up being managed by folks who are FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE than any of the professional foundation class.
What's good for Conservatism is good for America, and the world.
57
posted on
01/20/2013 11:23:44 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: The_Reader_David
If you’re experiencing it, it doesn’t matter if it’s mild or extreme poverty. But we’re nothing near the level of poverty that they suffer in 3rd world countries
To: TaxPayer2000
The rich could do LOTS of things if they wanted. But is this THEIR problem? Are they responsible fo the bad decisions of others? Hardly.
The taxpayers of the U.S. have been bilked out of BILLIONS of dollars for the war on poverty, drugs, etc,etc,etc.
Has it helped? You be the judge.
59
posted on
01/20/2013 11:26:59 AM PST
by
unixfox
(Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
To: TaxPayer2000
Hey!
LBJ’s war on poverty has spent $9 trillion and counting.
Yes, $9 trillion - those are tax dollars.
60
posted on
01/20/2013 11:30:07 AM PST
by
donna
(Pray for revival.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson