Shop More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 26, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 264

The World's 100 Richest People Could End World Poverty 4 Times

:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Student Writer
[link]

The world's 100 richest people could end world poverty 4 times with the amount of money they earned last year.

What do people need all of this money for?

How much do you think would be a reasonable maximum wage? (Do you think millions or billions?)

Consider the context of the purpose of money in society. Doesn't everyone deserve to live a decent life? If there is totally enough money in the world to let this happen, why do we allow only a few people to have it all?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013
There's also the problem in that the value of money is relative. If you gave everybody $50,000, it'd quickly become worthless.
Reply
:iconnicolettethestrange:
Nicolettethestrange Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013
Money = power. They're never going to give up their power. Ever. Their kind stick together like the high school snobs whose names we knew and faces we recognised but never got to know any further past that because they never wanted to give up the popular fašade. The extreme wealthy in each country have power over the government and they'd never willingly surrender it. We've always had the ability to be able to distribute resources evenly and fairly but it's always just remained a theory that will most likely never become a reality due to the way the government has constructed society.

They want peoples quality of life to be exactly the way it is in any country. You only have to look at who gets paid the most in society to who gets paid the very least to understand the reason behind this, or look at who is currently at war and why.

It's all political at the end of the day.
Reply
:iconinfinitetolerance:
infinitetolerance Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
We don't need a maximum wage, just a higher tax on the wealthiest. It could act as a maximum wage though.

And, I really like your post.

I knew we could have free welfare for everyone, if we just taxed the rich.

I think I might make a thread and link to your thread in it.

Props!
Reply
:iconcreepye:
CreepyE Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2013
I think rather than a higher tax on the "ultra rich," we should just end legal loopholes that allow then to pay sometimes as little as 1-2% of taxes owed. You could realistically cut their taxes down to 10% and set laws in place that make them pay ALL of it and with the cut to 10% you would lessen the incentive to hire extensive legal teams for the sole purpose of finding tax loopholes.

Conservatives would hear: tax cuts.

Progressives would hear: Less tax evasion/more funding

Everyone wins.(Hopefully, make sure to yell in all caps if all you guys think this is childish or naive)
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2013
How are you defining "end"? I mean poverty around the world exists for a lot of different reasons. In the US(and other capitalist nations), poverty is due to a rather strange mathematical outcome that some people need to be on the bottom, out of work, while others need to be on the top. Poverty in Uganda is due to entirely different reasons.

So, how are they ending it? Are they using all their money to just give people food and shelter? Are they using it to fix governments and provide security through a lawful society?

In short: are they ending it in a temporary solution? One that will end as soon as they stop making that much money?
Or are they ending it in a permanent solution?

Ya know, teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish.
Reply
:iconkimsy2358:
kimsy2358 Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2013
Yes, but they could also buy the government. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Reply
:iconpoopgoblyn:
Poopgoblyn Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
And who is to say that the same world wouldnt' go back to being in poverty?

Throwing money at people who are poor isn't going to save anyone or anything in the long term. It is a short term solution that sometimes can even exasperate the problem.

Take for example all the food we are giving to these African nations at no cost. Sure, we are feeding starving people, and that's a good thing...But the massive increase in free-food is also driving down costs of locally grown food for the farmers. Which means those same farmers have to either grow more food to make a profit (which they frequently are unable to) or seek another way of working. This results in lowering the amount of food generated locally, while also increasing the amount of people who are now eat more than they produce (unemployed farmers).

It's not that we allow a few people to have it all. It's that we are fortunate enough to live in a country or a society that is capable of providing the infrastructure for people to be fairly affluent in comparison. Poorer nations suffer from a lot of problems, political strife, high level of political corruption, disease, lack of proper infrastructure, and many other social ills that do not give their people the tools and the means necessary to which to become affluent. We should focus on helping those nations deal with that first then just throw money at them thinking it's going to solve the problem.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What's keeping the price of food low is that the countries that import food from Africa are artificially keeping the prices low. The EU is a huge culprit in this - EU keeps subsidizing its own agriculture with unfair amounts, so that in order for the African farmers to be competitive they have to sell with low profits. Due to this, the African farmers barely get enough to buy food for themselves.

Without the food given to Africans as humanitary aid, people could not survive there.
Reply
:iconpoopgoblyn:
Poopgoblyn Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
In as much as that's bad, at least they are competing with food that has some value, as opposed to food that is worth nothing.

"Without the food given to Africans as humanitary aid, people could not survive there." People as a whole can and will survive in Africa as they have for thousands of years now. Many people will perish, yes. Food aid is a good thing temporarily, but without any kind of progress in their own infrastructure and their own agricultural development, it becomes a big big problem.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
>>> People as a whole can and will survive in Africa as they have for thousands of years now. Many people will perish, yes.

I guess those people just don't matter, then. How can you seriously sit there, living in your excessively wealthy country where you never have to wonder if you can get any food the next day, and tell me that it's ok that people die of hunger?

>>> Food aid is a good thing temporarily, but without any kind of progress in their own infrastructure and their own agricultural development, it becomes a big big problem.

It's a problem caused and maintained by western countries, so western countries should be responsible for fixing it as well. It's just an extension of colonialism, now they just get all of the oppression without any of the benefits.
Reply
Add a Comment: