Study: Billionaires Could End Extreme Poverty 7 Times Over

[Elegiac]

I fail to see how capitalism is fully exploitative.

We've already established your historical knowledge doesn't precede 1939, mate.

I never said it's perfect, as no system is, but it's damn better than anything else produced. It gives anyone the opportunity to make a decent living. But hey, let's ignore anyone that's doing just well, and focus on the only the supremely rich. Fuck that business guy making a modest salary but staying afloat just fine, let's punish them because there are a few people who are extraordinarily rich.

Capitalism on its own does not give people opportunity; in a vacuum it is just a vehicle for increasing the gains of property owners while incurring minimal losses. What actually -does- increase opportunity is regulation to ensure that people are able to compete in the system and to encourage a high velocity of money.

So basically, the advent of the mixed market economy that characterises the developed world is what lifts people out of poverty.

[Tiwack]

But then they wouldn't be billionaires would they? /s

It's the pride in having more money than you could possibly spend while still not having to work another day in their life. Of course they do. You'd drive yourself mad if you had to sit around doing nothing all day every day. More always wants more. They pledge half their fortunes to charity yet they're well aware it won't make a dent in their economy because they'll still be making more than they could ever spend in their lifetime. To the point where picking up a hundred note from the street becomes a waste of time. So they setup their grandkids grandkids because why not? Free-rides never ruined lives did they? smh Trust these fools at your own risk. Truly baffling anyone would trust them more than each other or their own states and governments. Reap what you sow. Doomed to repeat history if we don't learn from it.

[breadisfunny]

Even if I had 5-10 million I would use a good amount of it to help those around me by getting them into self sufficient homes thus reducing the amount of money they need to use to survive increasing quality of life not having to pay for electricity and water.

woah there. we don't tolerate that kind of altruism round these here parts.

[Unholyground]

woah there. we don't tolerate that kind of altruism round these here parts.

There are actually laws in place in a lot of areas that prevent you from being self sufficient unless you are connected to provincial or state electrical grids in NA too, though you can work around with the right circuitry it is still annoying. I just wish our governments would take a sit back and realize that automation is making human labor needed less and less and something as simple as removing electricity and water bills as a burden would drastically improve quality of life for hundreds of millions if not more who may not be blessed with full time work or any work at all. Or just the fact that we have technology that can take housing to the next level.

[Zyky]

Like 50 years ago, 75% of the world was in extreme poverty. Now its like 9%. Hardly a failing economic model.

I'd like to see your proof on this, because I call complete bullshit. The world economy is getting worse and worse. The extreme poverty rate is growing in China, which the vast majority of 'wealth' is created. So I'd really like to see your proof before you spout more nonsense.

[breadisfunny]

There are actually laws in place in a lot of areas that prevent you from being self sufficient unless you are connected to provincial or state electrical grids in NA too, though you can work around with the right circuitry it is still annoying. I just wish our governments would take a sit back and realize that automation is making human labor needed less and less and something as simple as removing electricity and water bills as a burden would drastically improve quality of life for hundreds of millions if not more who may not be blessed with full time work or any work at all.

our government doesn't care about poor people. for the corporations by the corporations.

[f0rb1d]

IMO

It'll never happen.. but.. an income cap. It can still be ridiculously high, but less than the highest. Have it average over 2-5 years, at the end of the amount of time if (year/sum of that many years of income) you get a tax equal to the overage of income (force bonuses to count towards taxable income). [ to avoid siphoning money out of a corporation to pay for personal stuff, it should be then counted as taxable as a bonus but penalizes the company, tough to prove, but if ever audited.. would be spotted ]. The goal of this is to allow individuals to hold wealth but not be like royalty, where you hold wealth for multiple generations gaining income through purely investments. This might not seem fair. but population numbers should prioritized in taxes and not wealth.
These taxed overages could be then used to spend in healthcare or education or even utilities. They need to be broad services that affect everyone or it's bound to fail like minimum wage increases.

think of how many would be better off if they didn't have medical bills or student loans? There would be more disposable income to fuel the economy. Companies could have the ability to pay more to everyone if they didn't have to worry about medical insurance.

the idea that it would indirectly impact poverty from the middle-low outward.

This is per country that is.. to assist other countries is trickier.

[Deletedaccount1]

I'd like to see your proof on this, because I call complete bullshit. The world economy is getting worse and worse. The extreme poverty rate is growing in China, which the vast majority of 'wealth' is created. So I'd really like to see your proof before you spout more nonsense.

[pionock]

I'd like to see your proof on this, because I call complete bullshit. The world economy is getting worse and worse. The extreme poverty rate is growing in China, which the vast majority of 'wealth' is created. So I'd really like to see your proof before you spout more nonsense.

You mean where 400 million people have been raised out of poverty in China since they implemented free-market policies?

[breadisfunny]

You mean where 400 million people have been raised out of poverty in China since they implemented free-market policies?

you still haven't cited your sources.

[bufferunderrun]

IMO

It'll never happen.. but.. an income cap. It can still be ridiculously high, but less than the highest. Have it average over 2-5 years, at the end of the amount of time if (year/sum of that many years of income) you get a tax equal to the overage of income (force bonuses to count towards taxable income). [ to avoid siphoning money out of a corporation to pay for personal stuff, it should be then counted as taxable as a bonus but penalizes the company, tough to prove, but if ever audited.. would be spotted ]. The goal of this is to allow individuals to hold wealth but not be like royalty, where you hold wealth for multiple generations gaining income through purely investments. This might not seem fair. but population numbers should prioritized in taxes and not wealth.
These taxed overages could be then used to spend in healthcare or education or even utilities. They need to be broad services that affect everyone or it's bound to fail like minimum wage increases.

think of how many would be better off if they didn't have medical bills or student loans? There would be more disposable income to fuel the economy. Companies could have the ability to pay more to everyone if they didn't have to worry about medical insurance.

the idea that it would indirectly impact poverty from the middle-low outward.

This is per country that is.. to assist other countries is trickier.

you don't need to make a cap just laws that make competition fair those peoples usually make this much money by exploiting competition and creating a de facto monopoly, amazon for example have less costs than a similar large company with physical shops would have while providing less jobs, that should be compensated by an increased amount of taxes: you have less costs because you don't have physical shops? ok then pay more taxes because the profit you made is not corresponding to a benefit (jobs) for the community called country you operate within.

Customs should be imposed on the same concept if you import a good from a country were an employee salary is 150$ you should compensate the minor production cost to avoid unfair competition.

How an iphone produced into an american factory cost? 600$
How an iphone produced into a chinese factory cost? 150$

the difference should be the custom.

[petej0]

In the US for some reason, we associate wealth with virtue. People deserve to be wealthy because they allegedly work harder or are smarter. Well thats what the media tells us, while forgetting who owns and pays for all of the media.

There is no association with wealth and virtue. People dont deserve to be wealthy or poor. The people who are wealthy are wealthy because they contain one or more of the following: luck, work ethic, good at networking, etc...

So if billionaires are so wealthy where is all of the virtue? With the rise of extreme wealth where's the correlating extreme trickle down economics? Elon Musk has plans to disrupt drilling, transportation, and flame throwers. Where's his plan to disrupt poverty? That would be statue worthy.

The trickle down is not in the form of money being handed out to the poor. The trickle down is in the form of business expansion, if Jeff Bezos still operated from his garage he wouldnt be as wealthy but he wouldnt employ (directly or indirectly) as many people as he does. The trickle down is in the form of Research & Development, Think of all the people who will have a career thanks to Elon Musk branching into home battery & solar roof innovations. Not to mention self driving cars etc..

That all comes from the billions that these people and companies. Ever watch Shark Tank? These people loan out, invest in companies which in turn creates products and services for the rest of the world to use and consume. It doesnt just sit in some bank account. sigh....

[pionock]

@breadisfunny

http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/vi...=soss_research

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu.../#aa835227d7a2

Sorry, second edit: While I would never advocate for complete, unregulated capitalism, it's clear that free-market ideas along with smart regulation can raise people out of poverty.

[Darkeon]

I, too, agree that rich people should give their money away to others. Myself included, on the latter, of course.

[Tiwack]

While a start it's still millions if not a billion people with no freedom as a result of poverty opposed to a couple hundred people with more freedom than they know what to do with literally pissing away money because it's part of their billionaire style. If you're lucky you might get hit by the stream but it's more likely you'll be stood up so they can stay billionaires while putting on a good show...

[Elegiac]

That all comes from the billions that these people and companies. Ever watch Shark Tank? These people loan out, invest in companies which in turn creates products and services for the rest of the world to use and consume. It doesnt just sit in some bank account. sigh....

They only invest in productive enterprises when there is market demand that is generated by...wait for it...consumers.

Most of the wealth that exists just goes around in circles in the form of stock trading and speculation.

[JohnBrown1917]

So what I get from all this, is that capitalism is now good because its better than feudalism?

[Tiwack]

I, too, agree that rich people should give their money away to others. Myself included, on the latter, of course.

That implies equal and fair implementation of the rules! What are you, nuts?! /s

[LedZeppelin]

I'd like to see your proof on this, because I call complete bullshit. The world economy is getting worse and worse. The extreme poverty rate is growing in China, which the vast majority of 'wealth' is created. So I'd really like to see your proof before you spout more nonsense.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty read em and weep (or celebrate) kid

[Utinil]

The article is extremely flawed The majority of those profits are not in cash. They are in stocks. It would be impossible for these billionaires to liquidate that much stock, without driving the value down greatly. This would not only mean far less money to combat extreme poverty than the article claims, but would have drastic consequences for anyone else who is invested in the stocks (even indirectly as with mutual funds/401ks. Let me be clear, they could and should do a lot more, but the same could be said for most people living in first world nations. People always want to have the super wealthy, basically anyone doing better than themselves, to take up the mantle of responsibility, yet ignore that it only takes $31,000 to put you in the top 1% income in the world. That being the case how about we tax everyone earning above $30,000 an additional 10% after all that would still leave you much better off than the majority of the world?