Sunday 3 February 2013

World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over

AFP Photo / Ahmad Al-Rubaye
AFP Photo / Ahmad Al-Rubaye
The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.
“The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process,” while the income of the top 0.01 percent has seen even greater growth, a new Oxfam report said.
For example, the luxury goods market has seen double-digit growth every year since the crisis hit, the report stated. And while the world's 100 richest people earned $240 billion last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 a day.
Oxfam is a leading international philanthropy organization. Its new report, ‘The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt us All,’ argues that the extreme concentration of wealth actually hinders the world’s ability to reduce poverty.
The report was published before the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, and calls on world leaders to “end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last 20 years.”
Oxfam's report argues that extreme wealth is unethical, economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.
The report proposes a new global deal to world leaders to curb extreme poverty to 1990s levels by:
- closing tax havens, yielding $189bn in additional tax revenues
- reversing regressive forms of taxation
- introducing a global minimum corporation tax rate
- boosting wages proportional to capital returns
- increasing investment in free public services
The problem is a global one, Oxfam said: "In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens. In China the top 10 percent now take home nearly 60 percent of the income. Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South Africa, which is now the most unequal country on Earth and significantly more [inequality] than at the end of apartheid."
In the US, the richest 1 percent's share of income has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20 percent, according to the report. For the top 0.01 percent, their share of national income quadrupled, reaching levels never seen before.
“We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” Executive Director of Oxfam International Jeremy Hobbs said.
Hobbs explained that concentration of wealth in the hands of the top few minimizes economic activity, making it harder for others to participate: “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favor.”
The report highlights that even politics has become controlled by the super-wealthy, which leads to policies“benefitting the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies.”
“It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite,” the report said.
The four-day World Economic Forum will be held in Davos starting next Wednesday. World financial leaders will gather for an annual meeting that will focus on reviving the global economy, the eurozone crisis and the conflicts in Syria and Mali.
source :-  http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/

11 comments:

  1. It is high time that we did something to reverse this pernicious trend!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What absolute rubbish...

    $240b / 7b (current population) = $34 to each person globally in a year

    That's $0.09c a day, over 15x less than your extreme poverty number.

    There isn't enough money anywhere to end global poverty. The total stock of narrow. broad money and domestic credit totals $150 trillion. That's $21,000 to each man woman and child. Now, that may sound like a lot but you've just distributed every cent (even the digital ones) to everyone and I wouldn't have enough to afford a small flat in the UK.

    Communism / Socialism doesn't work because there just isn't enough to go around!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One rather large problem with your calculation... 7b people aren't in extreme poverty. The world bank estimates 2.7b are currently living in the "extreme poverty state" (under $2 a day). This number means that you could significantly increase the quality of life of these individuals. When your income is less than $700 annually, $90 bump is 12% increase. Eliminate poverty? no. Come close? possibly. I think the point to take away is that only 100 people made this amount.

      Delete
  3. Scott, was there any mention of communism / socialism? Dividing the $240b by the entire world population is not quite the correct base to work from. It would be good if you could broaden your thinking/rationalisation in an attempt to keep the super rich in their selfish position. Only those threatened by their insistence on holding power would have issue with the above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok, 2.5b people then - it still amounts to 40 days worth.

    Yes, no mention of communism or socialism, but an implication that 'sharing the wealth evenly' will fix the problem.

    Not really enough to eradicate world poverty four times over. I'm all for broad thinking, just not bulls**t stats.

    Also, you didn't comment on the fact that we only have $150 trillion in total cash on the planet and that is only $21k per person. Not really enough to go round don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One question: did you read the actual report?

      Delete
  5. math?
    1 billion in poverty
    claim above 240 billion will solve problem 4 times over...
    so 60 billion to solve poverty for 1 billion
    60 billion divided by 1 billion = $60.00 year = $5.00 per month = $1.25 per week = .18 cents per day.
    Now many places with poverty have too many people to supply them with food, now using oil to transport food etc... can you do that for .18 per day?
    take all that 240 billion instead of the 1/4 and you still have only
    $240 a year or less than a $1 a day...
    It's not that $240 billion isn't a lot, it's that 7 billion with 1 billion in poverty is a lot MORE!

    ReplyDelete
  6. the point of the report is that concentrated wealth is inefficient in the big picture, it doesn't "trickle down", ie, it doesn't go round as much in the economy because that scale of wealth is reinvested in capital which gives more wealth back to the capital owner, and so the very rich grow richer and richer. There is not enough of that wealth going into wages and consumption, so that the less wealthy (people on wages) can also experience economic growth and reinvest in smaller things and allow more people to experience growth. There's no suggestion in the report that money will be handed out to 2.7 billion people in extreme poverty. Not sure the arguments will go too far though if oxfam doesn't tell the mostly rich people in davos who probably want to get richer and will discuss this, how exactly an alternative model achieves better growth for the less wealthy and redistributes wealth more efficiently. not an expert but hope this is not too far off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So many haters commenting and trying to defend the people that buy 100 million dollar flats in New York....? I just don't get it. I think the final conclusion of this report and what to take home is that it is not at all well distributed. Same as the food that goes to waste every day being enough to feed most of the populations starving in Africa. Still some people decide to keep their hand on the sand and being raped in the hole...! Good job!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It'll be ok once Bill Gates has died and left his trillions behind!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I totally agree that wealth is distributed unevenly. It will be hard however to change that when you see people here defending the very trend of accumulating capital in the hands of the few. I try to imagine how I would feel if I was among the 1% of the people that have more money then they'll ever spend in the rest of their lives and that of their children. How many houses, horses, guitars, vacations, yachts, apartments and cars do I really need? How much food can I eat without jeopardising my health? How much electricity, gasoline and drinking water do I really enjoy as a quality of life? The sheer lack of taxes would make it impossible for me to distribute my wealth in an organised fashion. I'd rather pay it in taxes and try to influence the way it is spend through a democratic process than think of initiatives myself. The governments should specialise in that and that's what we'll be paying them for. Would I be willing to pay? Ask the leaders of your government if they'll be bold enough to make the decision and tax those wealthy few more than they tax the average Joe. They'll have to if any of this is going to change.

    ReplyDelete