Home Non Cigar Related

Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

UK-based charity says the world's 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over. The world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years [EPA]

The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

'Global new deal'

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left."

Hobbs said that "a global new deal" is required, encompassing a wide array of issues, from tax havens to employment laws, in order to address income inequality.

Closing tax havens, the group said, could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.

In a statement, Oxfam warned that "extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
«1

Comments

  • RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Al Jazeera? My number one source for news!Regardless, if true...really makes you think.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Rain:
    Al Jazeera? My number one source for news!Regardless, if true...really makes you think.
    Well I realize it is not your ABC, CNN, CBS, FOX NEWS or other completley credible news source (LMAO) but if you check it out you may find that Alazerra is considered one of the most reliable and trustworth new sources on the planet.

    Also as you mentioned... if true it makes you think. This was the story. NOT the source. That reaction is typical of those who would discredit someone or something without actually saying anything which would lead to enlightenment.
  • RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Rain:
    Al Jazeera? My number one source for news!Regardless, if true...really makes you think.
    Well I realize it is not your ABC, CNN, CBS, FOX NEWS or other completley credible news source (LMAO) but if you check it out you may find that Alazerra is considered one of the most reliable and trustworth new sources on the planet.

    Also as you mentioned... if true it makes you think. This was the story. NOT the source. That reaction is typical of those who would discredit someone or something without actually saying anything which would lead to enlightenment.
    I looked at the source, then read the story. Not like I saw Al Jazeera and said "Oh, aren't those guys terrorists or something? Murica!!!" Moving on.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    No thats is not what I meant. I meant your comments regarding Aljazeera not being your usual news source as though they were not a credible source for news. In fact they are one of the most trustworthy news sources on the planet today. I know some people like to hear or read news that closely follows their own beliefs, but THAT is not news. Good or bad, nice or not news should be raw and honest. Let the veiwers decide the truth after they are given all of the facts in a raw, unfettered manner. That was my point.
  • RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Good or bad, nice or not news should be raw and honest. Let the veiwers decide the truth after they are given all of the facts in a raw, unfettered manner.
    Agreed.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Aljazeera was the first to accurately report on Benghazi. They also have a lot of propaganda. But, you have to read all viewpoints to get a clear understanding.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    And I agree with the article in that the uber rich have the lion's share of the world's wealth. Our present administration would have you believe its' the people that make $300k/yr.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    Alas the "war on poverty" has become a "war on the rich"! Brilliant! Increasingly I find myself thinking the end of sanity is near and the logical conclusion of this path the world (and the U.S.) is going down will be very ugly. The founders of our nation (U.S.) viewed property rights second only to life and liberty itself and now we are so willing to take from those who have by force if necessary, to give it to someone else.
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    I think it rather obtuse thinking for anyone to truly know what the founding fathers wouldve thought about many modern day issues. Gun control was about muskets to overthrown govt back then. Politics was about a king taking control over peoples lives...not billionares using their "influence" to effect elections. I mean, they wre quite clear about separation of church and state, and we've done a real bang up job with that one, right?
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    fla-gypsy:
    Alas the "war on poverty" has become a "war on the rich"! Brilliant! Increasingly I find myself thinking the end of sanity is near and the logical conclusion of this path the world (and the U.S.) is going down will be very ugly. The founders of our nation (U.S.) viewed property rights second only to life and liberty itself and now we are so willing to take from those who have by force if necessary, to give it to someone else.
    Um gypsy... did you read more into that article then intended? YUP, I think you did.

    Where did this article advance the notion that we should take money from these people to wipe out world poverty? While that would be a grand idea indeed, that was NEVER mentioned in the article at all. This was mearly pointing out how far out of scale things have become in the world.

    Maybe it's time for you to actually read and then THINK, and THEN respond to a thread like this one. It was intended for information purposes only Gypsy, no freak from the left is trying to take anything away from you, so relax.

    Besides unless YOU happen to fall into the top 100 richest people in the world... what is your beef? The really interesting thing for me about this article was that IF these people choose to do so, they could wipe out poverty in one blow and it would only cost them 25 % of their wealth. That would leave them 75% as well off and global poverty could be wiped out. Again, Gypsy I am NOT advocating this. It is just VERY interesting to see how far out of balance things have become and how easily and how little would really be required to fix things if we chose to do so. In either case, don't worry Gypsy... it won't cost you a cent.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    Are things really that much different? The only real difference is the scale on which it exists, the players involved and the technology used to deploy it. The founding fathers were very clear on property rights, liberty and weapons in my estimation. They botched it on religion by a lack of specificity.
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I LOVE IT! I thinks this is a great idea and needs to start here! I think the top 10 cigar owners (should we go with quality or quantity?) on the forums should redistribute their sticks to others who have less then... should we say...oh 50 sticks. If anyone needs my addy I sure can use the sticks.

    Sarcastic of course....This is CCOM not Mother Russia.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Vision:
    I LOVE IT! I thinks this is a great idea and needs to start here! I think the top 10 cigar owners (should we go with quality or quantity?) on the forums should redistribute their sticks to others who have less then... should we say...oh 50 sticks. If anyone needs my addy I sure can use the sticks.

    Sarcastic of course....This is CCOM not Mother Russia.
    Holy COW !!!! Two BOTL who can't or refuse to read and would rather go off on a tangent in a row!!!! Wow, maybe you should have someone else read that to you ...really slowly.
  • kaspera79kaspera79 Posts: 7,257 ✭✭✭
    Vision:
    I LOVE IT! I thinks this is a great idea and needs to start here! I think the top 10 cigar owners (should we go with quality or quantity?) on the forums should redistribute their sticks to others who have less then... should we say...oh 50 sticks. If anyone needs my addy I sure can use the sticks.

    Sarcastic of course....This is CCOM not Mother Russia.
    I am pretty sure I see the redistribution of cigar wealth happen here every day..
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    laker1963:
    fla-gypsy:
    Alas the "war on poverty" has become a "war on the rich"! Brilliant! Increasingly I find myself thinking the end of sanity is near and the logical conclusion of this path the world (and the U.S.) is going down will be very ugly. The founders of our nation (U.S.) viewed property rights second only to life and liberty itself and now we are so willing to take from those who have by force if necessary, to give it to someone else.
    Um gypsy... did you read more into that article then intended? YUP, I think you did.

    Where did this article advance the notion that we should take money from these people to wipe out world poverty? While that would be a grand idea indeed, that was NEVER mentioned in the article at all. This was mearly pointing out how far out of scale things have become in the world.

    Maybe it's time for you to actually read and then THINK, and THEN respond to a thread like this one. It was intended for information purposes only Gypsy, no freak from the left is trying to take anything away from you, so relax.

    Besides unless YOU happen to fall into the top 100 richest people in the world... what is your beef? The really interesting thing for me about this article was that IF these people choose to do so, they could wipe out poverty in one blow and it would only cost them 25 % of their wealth. That would leave them 75% as well off and global poverty could be wiped out. Again, Gypsy I am NOT advocating this. It is just VERY interesting to see how far out of balance things have become and how easily and how little would really be required to fix things if we chose to do so. In either case, don't worry Gypsy... it won't cost you a cent.
    I would argue it is happening every day at the behest of governments and others who wish to take from those who have wealth. No I am not in the top 100 or even the top 100,000,000. But taking from others is where we are headed, oh I am thinking alright. Thinking ahead that is. How long does it take to go from "what if" to "lets do it" whether they like it or not? A lifetime, a generation, a few years? I think we have seen this on a smaller scale in my own lifetime around the world by tyrants and political powerbrokers who do it in the name of the poor to simply enrich themselves. To think it will not or could not happen is naive. Our own politicians have floated the idea of seizing 401k money in my country. Many in the U.S. think we should accept tax rates in the 90% range for those who have large incomes, a practice that is not uncommon in some parts of the world already. Laker breath deep for a minute, I never said you were advocating anything brother. Just pointing out the pitfalls of what some think are lofty ideals that would end world suffering. The next logical question though is how long would those who received that great benefit of suddenly not being "poor" be able to maintain that status? Would not the same forces and circumstances that created it to begin with not re-emerge quickly? Short of creating Shangrila there will always be rich and poor. I suspect those who dream of such utopias are not the ones who would pay the price of it. By all means if someone can convince the top 100 to go along with this grand idea then I will support it.
  • bearbbearb Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭
    Is this not what the concept of a bomb is? perhaps it is not the ''top 10%" on here, but many generously re-distribute their bounty to others for no other reason that the feeling of sharing the wealth so to speak. some focus on newbies, some on vets to blow up their box in return...but as with most charity things i involve myself, money or time with...i get much more than i receive. obviously the motivation on this idea would be to help those in need, make the world a much better place...but perhaps actions like these would not have allowed these ppl to make this kind of money in the first place.
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LOL Did anyone care to read the "Sarcastic of course....and that this CCOM ....." People do it willingly... No? Ohh yea.... you didnt care to read that part.... I blame you
  • bearbbearb Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭
    If you wish to see where your income actually does put you in the world ranking, use this site: http://www.globalrichlist.com/ the results will probably scare you a lot...i would think a lot more of you are actually in the top 100,000,000 richest ppl in the world than you realize. Visit the site please...it is pretty shocking to most ppl!
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Vision:
    I LOVE IT! I thinks this is a great idea and needs to start here! I think the top 10 cigar owners (should we go with quality or quantity?) on the forums should redistribute their sticks to others who have less then... should we say...oh 50 sticks. If anyone needs my addy I sure can use the sticks.

    Sarcastic of course....This is CCOM not Mother Russia.
    Holy COW !!!! Two BOTL who can't or refuse to read and would rather go off on a tangent in a row!!!! Wow, maybe you should have someone else read that to you ...really slowly.
    My bad man... I dont agree with you.... so I am wrong? And I like how you basically called me slow....What do you have against people with disabilities?

    When you cant agree on a topic... just attack someone and degrade them..... The Liberal way!
  • bearbbearb Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭
    k....i m out of this discussion pleeeese! I forgot why i dont post on the non-cigar stuff. But please do visit that globalrichlist site...very interesting..and humbling to me atleast.
  • rzamanrzaman Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭
    This is an article about fact finding. I don't understand how it became so political. The truth about social science is, if the gap of the distribution of wealth widen up in an alarming level then there will be a social chaos. This theory has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism.
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was being sarcastic and trying to add levity to the discussion.... Then I was attacked and called "slow".... Meh......
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it was Mike T. that said it best. He said something like "You cant even joke around without someone attacking you."
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    rzaman:
    This is an article about fact finding. I don't understand how it became so political. The truth about social science is, if the gap of the distribution of wealth widen up in an alarming level then there will be a social chaos. This theory has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism.
    THANK YOU ! There was no reason for this to become political at all. It was posted as an information post. There are some on here who have to take things to a political arguement every time. There are some here who judge how they respond based on who started the thread. By that I mean that if so and so started this thread then I must immediately jump on and disagree with them.

    Fill your boots boy's. This place really ain't what it used to be. WOW.
  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    When asked for comment, the 100 richest people in the world said, "That's interesting. Now go f*** yourself."
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vision:
    I was being sarcastic and trying to add levity to the discussion.... Then I was attacked and called "slow".... Meh......
    Laker... would you like to comment?
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Vision:
    I was being sarcastic and trying to add levity to the discussion.... Then I was attacked and called "slow".... Meh......
    Funny how you feel attacked yet what you stated to my post was NOT an attack. Playing this he attacked me card is really weak. If you ridicule someones idea, then you should expect a response. To then whine about that response being an attack is lame. The reason I suggested that you have someone else read the article to you very slowly (I never called you slow, again your interpretation of my comments) was because based on your comments... you missed the whole point.

    Again I will state that this was intended for information only. I thought some here might like to know the scale of things. Obviously some here really DON'T appreciate that type of information being shared so they need to ridicule or belittle the information. This used to be such a KEWL place to share idea's. Now it just seems that some of us bring out the disagreeable side of others. Back to lurking for a while I guess. I will attempt to only post in the future, things which I am fairly sure should not cause controversy.

    So how 'bout them Sox eh? (**** shaking my head)
  • VisionVision Posts: 8,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    Vision:
    I was being sarcastic and trying to add levity to the discussion.... Then I was attacked and called "slow".... Meh......
    Funny how you feel attacked yet what you stated to my post was NOT an attack. Playing this he attacked me card is really weak. If you ridicule someones idea, then you should expect a response. To then whine about that response being an attack is lame. The reason I suggested that you have someone else read the article to you very slowly (I never called you slow, again your interpretation of my comments) was because based on your comments... you missed the whole point.

    Again I will state that this was intended for information only. I thought some here might like to know the scale of things. Obviously some here really DON'T appreciate that type of information being shared so they need to ridicule or belittle the information. This used to be such a KEWL place to share idea's. Now it just seems that some of us bring out the disagreeable side of others. Back to lurking for a while I guess. I will attempt to only post in the future, things which I am fairly sure should not cause controversy.

    So how 'bout them Sox eh? (**** shaking my head)
    Do you still not see the part about the SARCASM? I wasnt being serious at all. You post not to inform but to incite debate and name calling. Youre an internet tough guy who hates that his country is the US' 53rd state.... Right behind Mexico and Puerto Rico.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    So every dissenting opinion is personal, and nothing about that article was political until I made it so? An article sourced by Al-Jazeera, that calls for a "Global New Deal" mentions tax havens, tax laws, and income inequality? Please define "political" in your terms for me.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Vision:
    laker1963:
    Vision:
    I was being sarcastic and trying to add levity to the discussion.... Then I was attacked and called "slow".... Meh......
    Funny how you feel attacked yet what you stated to my post was NOT an attack. Playing this he attacked me card is really weak. If you ridicule someones idea, then you should expect a response. To then whine about that response being an attack is lame. The reason I suggested that you have someone else read the article to you very slowly (I never called you slow, again your interpretation of my comments) was because based on your comments... you missed the whole point.

    Again I will state that this was intended for information only. I thought some here might like to know the scale of things. Obviously some here really DON'T appreciate that type of information being shared so they need to ridicule or belittle the information. This used to be such a KEWL place to share idea's. Now it just seems that some of us bring out the disagreeable side of others. Back to lurking for a while I guess. I will attempt to only post in the future, things which I am fairly sure should not cause controversy.

    So how 'bout them Sox eh? (**** shaking my head)
    Do you still not see the part about the SARCASM? I wasnt being serious at all. You post not to inform but to incite debate and name calling. Youre an internet tough guy who hates that his country is the US' 53rd state.... Right behind Mexico and Puerto Rico.
    LMAO, now that is funny, and I don't feel threatened by it at all. You also mentioned Mother Russia in your post. That was not to ridicule... right? It is easy to say that you were only trying to lighten the situation or whatever but at that point there really was not a need to do that so I took it as an attack on the points raised in the article. These points were NOT my points they were someone else's and I felt that the C.Com and mother Russia comments were intended for me. Are you saying they weren't?

    As for your final comments in your last post... looks like I hit a nerve eh? LMAO you're funny.
Sign In or Register to comment.