Delusional.
Lefties- righties- my oh my. Why is it righties, God fearing Christians for the most part, forget the teachings.
They say a society is judged by how they look after their weak, poor and ill.
Most of us have no problem helping the weak, poor, and ill.Lefties- righties- my oh my. Why is it righties, God fearing Christians for the most part, forget the teachings.
They say a society is judged by how they look after their weak, poor and ill.
0%. The top 1% will always equal 1% of our population, no more, no less.
Or do you mean at what rate is the wealth of the 1% growing?
What do you think? The middle class is disappearing. At one time increases in productivity equated to wage increases.
https://fortune.com/2015/01/19/the-1-will-own-more-than-the-99-by-2016-report-says/
The richest 1% of the population will own more than half of the world’s wealth by next year as inequality continues its relentless rise across the globe, a new report out Monday says.
The report, by the U.K.-based charity Oxfam, shows that the top 1% have grown their share of global wealth constantly since 2010. After dipping at 44% in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it rose to 48% by the end of last year and is poised to top 50% by the end of next year.
As a member of the top 10%, I can see why so many people never make it. The wife and I educated ourselves, sought out jobs that paid well, spent conservatively, and in only 50 years became "rich". We have a bit over $1M in assets, and about $150K in retirement income.
One of my siblings has about half that, which figures because she ran off 3 husbands and now remains single. The other 3 combined have next to nothing accumulated and just enough income to survive. How is it that in the same family, 2 are well situated, and 3 are very poor?
Part of the answer is their inability to make good choices in life. You can't spend more than you earn and get ahead. You can't blow your paycheck on beer and smokes and expect to have a savings account. You can't quit school, or decide that 12 years of school is enough. It isn't likely you can visit the "beauty" parlor and nail salon every week and have money to properly raise and educate your children.
The MAIN problem most of us have with getting "rich" is the person we see in the mirror.
That describes most of my siblings, and their adult children. Only a few are doing well, the rest are poor and subsidized by our taxes.
On my wife's side, out of 36, all but one are tax payers, some are already worth over a million, many more will be there in time.
My parents were poor, I started out poor. My wife's parents were poor, she started out poor.
The poverty cycle can be broken, if you really want it and are willing to work for it.
Or you can wait til the government gives it to you. What are the odds of that happening?
Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014, and that there was an increasing tendency for wealth to be inherited and to be used as a lobbying tool by the rich to further their own interests. It noted that more than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches, while 20% have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group which saw their cash wealth increase by 11% in the 12 months to March 2014.
These sectors spent $550m lobbying policymakers in Washington and Brussels during 2013. During the 2012 US election cycle alone, the financial sector provided $571m in campaign contributions.
You're doing well. Congratulations.
But, you're a long way from being one of the 1% owning half the world's wealth.
And the good choices that they made often include getting the most effective lobbyists to make certain that laws favoring their accumulation of even more wealth get passed.
Check this out:
So, if you want the power of real wealth, as opposed to just having enough to live comfortably, then you need to be in the right business and to have some effective lobbyists on your side.
...We have a bit over $1M in assets, and about $150K in retirement income....
Good thing our economy doesn't work that way. that is the whole point. no one can own 90% of our economy.Nope. You don't have a clue what zero sum means.
If the pool has X in it, if one person get's a larger percent of that pool, then someone else HAS to get a smaller percent of that pool. It's a mathematical law.
Just for example, maybe the pool has 1000 units in it, ten people share from that pool, The boss get's 21% (210 units), and the other nine get 9% each (90 units).
Now let's say that the next year the pool grows to 2000 units, if the boss decides that he is the reason that the size of the pool grew, and thus he is due a 1000 unit bonus on top of his 210 unit salary, he is then getting 60.5% of the pool, while the remaining 9 people can only average 4.4% of the pool - their percent of the pool shrank, even though the size of the pool increased.
People look at this, and see that the workers still got paid as much, so they assume that no harm was caused to either the workers or the macroeconomy by the increase in production/profits not being shared equally.
What they fail to realize is that unless the fruits of the increasing productivity is shared more or less equally between all income classes, demand will not keep pace with productivity. So in the second year, the company produced twice as much, yet the workers can't purchase twice as much, and the boss, who acquired all of the fruits of the increase in production (his income went up over 500%), is highly unlikely to purchase 500% more.
So in the third year, the company would likely find that they had an excess of supply, and they would fire workers as they don't need as many. Worker income would tend to be depressed even more because we now have excess workers, which of course results in even lower demand. Ultimately, there is only enough demand for one worker (the owner), and he is only producing enough to satisfy is personal need, because there are no customers.
At the core, is a global social justice agenda that "mysteriously" also forms the basis for many other global efforts, including the AGW agenda. Is there any wonder why the pushers behind "immigration" and these myriad of other issues are all the same groups and people?
Frankly, while it's alarming, it's also impressive. People have lost sight of what billions can do to manipulate and control others. I don't see it as a conspiracy, it's a very well funded, very sophisticated, global political/social effort. Rather amazing.
You're doing well. Congratulations.
But, you're a long way from being one of the 1% owning half the world's wealth.
And the good choices that they made often include getting the most effective lobbyists to make certain that laws favoring their accumulation of even more wealth get passed.
Check this out:
So, if you want the power of real wealth, as opposed to just having enough to live comfortably, then you need to be in the right business and to have some effective lobbyists on your side.
That's not even close to the type of rich we are talking about. I wouldn't define you as rich at all.
Impressive indeed....
Especially when you consider gw and the social reformation movement are one in the same.
When the Berlin Wall fell, the anti-American "peace movement" so heavily infiltrated and funded by the KGB had nothing to do. You will recall it was only a few years before that that Margaret Thatcher began financing gw research as a means of breaking the stranglehold of the coal miners in Britain.
Causes and operations changed to, Greenpeace was invented here in Vancouver, by the late 1980's Greenpeace was only active as a publicity generating organization, it sent is members to climb smokestacks and war at "corporate slavery" while their fight over the seas was largely ignored.
Did you know that this island of floating garbage doesn't exist? It was made up by Greenpeace who hasn't had an operational ship in about two decades. Their money goes to raise more money and pay salaries.
That's not even close to the type of rich we are talking about. I wouldn't define you as rich at all.
0%. The top 1% will always equal 1% of our population, no more, no less.
Or do you mean at what rate is the wealth of the 1% growing?
I am aware the Pacific Gyre has more to do with hyperbole than it does with facts. Along with Greenpeace, many "environmental" groups have been altered from their original mission. The Sierra Club is a great example of this. It exists today as a extremely well funded radical lobby group where the wealthy liberal elite can donate money and receive a tax write-off, but push a hidden Liberal/Progressive agenda through the usual suspects.
I advise people to google the names of all these various think tanks, websites, and special interest groups, but add Open Society Institute, or Democracy Alliance, or Tides Foundation and learn about the connections and global effort. It's really quite an interconnected enterprise.
At least someone understands math.
Middleground said:The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000.
That... is... awesome. We are so awesome at doing so many awesome things that you have to make $717K a year just to break into our top 1%. Go America :mrgreen: :usflag2:
That's a great assessment. and please, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited and a host of well-funded do-gooders are creating more harm than good. Years ago they funded a campaign to stop the annual wolf kill. They succeeded for three years before farmers, ranchers etc. sued the government to bring it back.
The meme from these "think tanks" is that over-fishing caused the collapse of the cod fishery. Yes, but not solely. The pressure on the Atlantic Seal hunt increased the numbers of by-the-ton eating seals while no one thought to reduce the harvest at the same time.
I hear "think tank" and I hear propaganda. I covered these dead beats for years, they draw a conclusion, like "minimum wage increases spending" draft some numbers to support it, get a whole bunch of friends to sign off on it, then "publish it" as a "research paper". It was a technique developed here in the 1960's and 70's when someone realized no petition in the history of Canada has ever been read by anyone remotely connected to government. I believe there is an abandoned mine north of Ottawa where they are kept for posterity.
It is an effective tool for the modern information age. We hear a neat sounding name like "Progressive Research", some numbers that are frightening and a simplistic conclusion. Talk show hosts needing to fill hours of air time eat up this crap, and the "stupid voter" who only gets the headline and a bit, accepts it as Gospel. It is "science" after all.
Funny, I feel rich...
WE have all we need and most of our wants...
Great wealth is a good thing if it is used to help others.
Otherwise, it is just a bunch of numbers.
Yes, only in America are there no top limits on what people can earn and many at the bottom have risen to the top through hard work, risk taking and no whining
Oh, we all do plenty of whining.
Yep. You notice they don't say that this disparity has grown worse than ever under Obama. They won't make the connection
Now, if Bush were in office, they would be all, Bush, Bush , Bush
But they can't wrap their heads around the truth of what you just said.
Facts make Liberals' heads explode, like this:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?