• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

Delusional.

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?
 
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.

I don't buy into myths-be liberation theology or that rich lefties actually want to help the poor
 
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.
It is the lazy we have problems with. Lazy describes both my brothers and one of my sisters. I don't help them, it is like throwing money into the wind during a tornado....it is gone, gone, gone and nothing to show for it.
 
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?


Guess the question to ask is why do you care? How does a growing wealth for the top 1% affect you and your family? Is it your contention that is the fault of the rich that someone else in the lower classes doesn't become rich? Is it your contention that it is the rich's fault for personal choice and execution failures? Do you always judge others by your own beliefs and values?

How much should a worker make who doesn't show up for work, treats your customer badly, takes drugs, steals from you, and in general is working for you simply for a paycheck?
 
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.

There's a big difference between what people own and what they make in wages and salaries. A person is middle class if he has a decent income and can rent a home regardless of how much he owns. If he thinks to start saving then he will start accumulating wealth, but a lot of people don't do that very well.

As for the wealthy owning everything, it depends on what they do with it. Most of them are heavily invested in the economy, which benefits the rest of us. It's not like they sit on a pile of gold at home like Scrooge McDuck.

Scrooge McDuck.JPGNot what the wealthy do.

To whom does it make the most sense to entrust wealth for investment in the economy? To government bureaucrats? To academic pinheads? Or to the people that made that wealth or created it in the first place, who obviously do know how to invest wealth productively. To liberal teeth gnashing about the accumulation of wealth by the top 1%, I say that money is in the right hands.
 
Last edited:
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?

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:

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.

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.
 
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.

Why is this even an issue, who cares and how does it affect you? Great headlines that motivate and upset Obamabots but why you? Too many people spend way too much time worrying about who pays the taxes and how much they pay, why is that? Do you really believe class warfare is productive? Maybe of some of these so called poor people who are whining and complaining would get off their asses things might just improve in their own lives.
 
...We have a bit over $1M in assets, and about $150K in retirement income....

That's not even close to the type of rich we are talking about. I wouldn't define you as rich at all.
 
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).
Good thing our economy doesn't work that way. that is the whole point. no one can own 90% of our economy.

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.

you are getting closer to how our economy works but not quite there yet.

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.

and you just lost how our economy works.

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.

now you are just off on a tangent.

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.

it is a good thing our economy is not a company then. you almost had how our economy works but then lost it on a rant.

the money supply contracts or grows based up on the federal reserve.
if more money is needed in the system then the federal reserve allows for more money to enter the system.

so as the economy grows in size there is always enough money supply to keep up with the growth.
this means that it is not possible for the top 1% to own everything as if more money is needed the federal reserve will just release more into the system.


now if we were under the gold standard then yes I would be worried because the money supply can only be as much as what gold holdings you have.
so you are restricted by how much you can expand the money system.

this could lead to what you describe. however since the federal reserve can expand the money supply at will then it isn't possible.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I don't need great wealth or power....and we have more than enough to live comfortably. Our 2 homes are furnished on the cheap, no fancy stuff. We travel, help our kids (paid for their college and first used car and helped with down payments on their first house), and will help our grandkids. We donate to only a few charities, those who pay the executives a lot of money don't get a thing.
We donate secretly to a different family each year at Christmas and during the year sometimes at fundraisers for people with serious medical problems.
We have been fortunate and can afford to be generous.


Money hoarded does generate a lot of wealth, but also a lot of problems.
 
That's not even close to the type of rich we are talking about. I wouldn't define you as rich at 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.
 
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.

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.
 
That's not even close to the type of rich we are talking about. I wouldn't define you as rich at all.

Yep, if data breaks your argument, just reclassify the data. The same as the cultists do with AGW.
 
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?

At least someone understands math.
 
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.



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.
 
At least someone understands math.

So you are telling me 1% of the worlds population which includes women and children along with other non working people are equal to 1% of the top income earners? Are you sure you want to claim that someone understands math?

There are approximately 6 billion people and 1% of that number would be 60 million. Are you telling me that there are 60 million people making up the top 1%?
 
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... 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:

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
 
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.

Indeed. It's a fascinating study of propaganda and societal manipulation in the modern age. The front and center groups make claims about the evils of the rich, or whatever the bright shiny object is, and then surround the claim with learned research from thoughtful sounding groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Not mentioned is they own them. On and on it goes. And the target audience laps it up, and carries the torch, oblivious to how they've been played.

That's what they've done to California, and the blind gleefully assist in the dismantling of a once mighty economic powerhouse.
 
i am kinda waiting for the new medicare recipients to make california's budget explode

what too many overlooked in the bill, is that the 100% federal reimbursement only lasts a few years

and then it is reduced every year thereafter till i think it is a 90% reimbursement

with that many new recipients on the rolls, how much is that going to cost a state that is already in budget trouble

sacramento will not be a safe haven for politicians when that hits the proverbial fan
 
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.

Which is a great point!

No one really NEEDS tens of millions or hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to have a very nice lifestyle.

Now if they have that, as long as it was legally and morally acquired, I certainly have no ill feelings towards them, but there is no reason they can't afford to pay a good chunk of that in taxes, without harming their standard of living at all.

I get tired of the whiners and complainers who complain that they had to pay sooooo much taxes on their millions of dollars of income, especially when there are guys like you and me who live quite comfortably on a fraction of that amount.
 
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.
 
Oh, we all do plenty of whining.

What do you call it when you complain about how much someone ELSE pays in taxes or how much someone else has? Stop trolling as I know this is an act
 
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:






The robot's head didn't explode, it just melted down internally.

Watch the video again.
 
Back
Top Bottom