Who are they:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

You're in the TOP 0.72%
richest people in the world!

apparently im the 1% and im only 25!

in addition, playing around with it, if you make more than $47,500 a year, you are in the top 1% world wide.

thats around $23 an hour with 40 hour work weeks if you are hourly.

The "1%" was never meant to be measured as a worldwide thing. A lot of Americans are in the top 1 percent of wealth in the world. What percentile are you in just for the u.s?

As a school teacher I'm at 3.75%. Great as a world citizen, but quite crappy as an American with a masters degree.

hehe. we won't ask why you felt the need to get a Master's degree.

The numbers would be shifted some, if adjusted to cost of living. Just because my absolute income is greater than someone in the 3rd world, it does not mean I have money to spare. Like that is interesting to see but not particularly meaningful.

You're in the TOP 83%
richest people in the world!

I got a masters degree because it was offered to me for free. I had considered getting one anyway, but who can pass up that sort of deal. Now that I have it, I appreciate the value of education more than ever. I had allowed my mind to stagnate for many years and didn't even know it. Going to school was a real wake up, and I'm glad I did it.

Legion, I hope you are not forced to eat clay like the back woods people of Appalachia. I have a guest bedroom if you need as long as you don't kill me and sell my cat.

Rothchilds are a family who are worth 500trillion...while the U.S is at 15trillion debt

just to give you percpective on what wealth actually means

im not saying they should share the wealth thats just a communist/socialist way of thinking (i was born in the USSR)

no1 should be taxed more than another just because they make more money, its something thats not done in a free society, especially the U.S.

how does that reasoning even work?
"you make more, so you should pay more"
its like if i go to the store and everything priced according to your income.

ill pay $3 for charmins tissue paper
but you should be charged $30 for the same thing

makes no sense!

although there are alot of laws that work the same way.
HATE crime laws
its sentencing someone longer for the same crime just because there was some sort of bias
what? a person who robs and kills a person with some money didnt do it with some hate for that person?
or wife/husband killing their adulteress spouse didnt hate him/her?
but if someone kills me cuz im a jew(which i am) they have to be more severely punished for their crime? that doesnt make sense nor is it fair even though this criminal doesnt deserve fairness
but then none of the other killers should deserve fairness either and if we dont show any of them fairness, we are fair to all of them!?

so back to 1% leave them alone let them make their money, let them be stingy if they choose to be, and if they decide to donate okay thank you, there shouldnt be a tax break for it, or some govt reward, they should do it because they want to, and if they dont, then o well.

hope i made any sense out of all that.

Thats pretty crazy, I dissagree with the thing

1% of 7 billion is a lot of people; it's not exactly an accurate method of rating people and things; somebody making poverty line in america could live in a relatively kinglike fashion for the same amount of $ in a number of third world countries; it's just that they'd be unable to make that if they moved there....

doubt that i'm willing to give up my A/C and hot water, so i could go live like a king in another country. plus i'm rather fond of that refridgerator dealy-bob.

Yes, I prefer cold beer

Vegita, you make an interesting case, but the reality is that laws can be written to look fair that are actually quite repressive to the lower income sections of society. There are no tax shelters readily available for the money earned by poor people because they need to spend it. When they do, they will pay sales tax.

This will never happen but consider a system that looks equally fair but the wealthiest people would fight tooth and nail to prevent this:

Raise taxes exclusively on property tax. If you are a poor person who rents their housing, you might only pay taxes on registered possessions. It would require a completely different system since possessions would need to be tracked and audited, but in the end those who had enormous wealth would pay an enormous amount. 0.1% of the Rothchild's wealth per year would have the US national debt paid off in 30 years. 0.1% of my wealth per year might buy a new motor scooter in 30 years if prices don't change much.

I guarantee 90% of the 99% would like that.

Property Taxes are the worst Tax, Property Tax means you are a Renter always as the entity of "The government" then own the land. As it is there is some great mis-conception on Property taxes, we all ( other then the person living in a cardboard box on the street) pay property taxes. If you are a renter that tax is just built into your rent to pay the landlord whom pays the government. If their is any tax that needs to go away it is the property tax as WE THE PEOPLE OWN THE LAND and should not be required to pay for it forever.

vs 99%?

Eliminating property tax doesn't give me any entitlement to land. Besides, I wasn't limiting property to land. I want to tax stock accounts, bank accounts, cars and other possessions as well. If you do not report it then it isn't legal to insure it for loss (i.e. you didn't legally own it).

Are you retaxing everyone assets every year?
Sounds like you will create high inflation, I will have to earn higher then the Tax rate to have a bank account, there by demanding higher interest rates, higher cost of money as well as all other cost ... So higher cost of doing business, or maybe I can find savings? as Will the TAXMAN stop by my department store and do Inventory for me?

Guess the cave dweller will do well.

so you want the govt to tax money they have already taxed initially?

no way the Rothschild have family have 500trillion cash. The worlds GDP is 69trillion. That would mean that they had as much wealth as produced in the last 8 years or so. They'd have enough wealth to own all the companies on all worlds stock exchanges. For example market cap of all companies on NYSE was 25trillion in 2006.

http://www.nyxdata.com/...p?mode=table&key=2213

Yes, I want the same money, same assets, same everything to be taxed every year. The amount of property wealth in the United States is so high that the tax rate would end up being quite low. Imagine the hedge fund manager worth 10 billion dollars who actually makes half a billion a year. Charging him 3% still allows his assets to grow by 200 million. I'd need more data, but honestly I think that tax rate is probably high. 1% might be adequate--every year.

I will be happy to pay my $1000. My parents would pay around $10,000, but I think it would still work for them.

So when you you count assets to you subtract debt? nad is that all debt like the kind that payed for last nights out partying debt?

If not then when does the House become mine the day I buy it, using almost 100% of the banks funds, or does the bank have to count that as their Asset and pay the tax untill I pay it off?
The same for a car, a Couch, TV, table, and the shot of tequila.
So the old people whom had their house for 40 years now worth a few hundred thousand, but they living on SS and some small pension will now be paying almost all of their income to taxes.
Oh and do we reassess some of those furnishings as antiques and start charging them tax on the now inflated price?

Yes, the bank pays taxes on the portion of your house they own. They are charging interest, so they can certainly find a way to make a profit.

Real estate is definitely taxed. Bank and stock accounts are taxed. Any possessions you report will be taxed.

So what is the incentive to report something as you possession? If you don't, you can't legally insure it nor will you have any legal recourse on recovering it if it is lost or stolen since it is not documented as yours.

So yeah, someone could break in your house and steal a shot of vodka you didn't report. House breaker did not commit theft. They are still held accountable for the break in.

Indeed it would be possible for a person to hoard material possessions they do not report and pay for their own security. I'm ok with that.

So is this voluntary , I only pay taxes on what I want to protect with insurance? or do I get the random visit by the IRS to inspect/count and make sure I reported all forks, spoons and my kids teddy bear? why a need for repeat taxes, just charge a sales tax based on the item not a hard formula to compute the tax at time of purchase for the life of the item. Sought of a reverse to the depreciation expense we already do in the current tax system, though since raising taxes on the item (creates a discouragment to spending, might recess or depress the economy) instead of the current reducing taxes in accelerated fashion(accelerated more with almost each rewrite to the tax code, to encourage spending).
our problem is that we have encouraged spending so much, to the point of encouraging negetive spending(credit purchases) that we have little room to expand the economy except by removing the capital needed to expand business infrustrcture investment never my having so many in the whole means most have little to fall back on during economic downturns.
Just as money in the economy is created when a loan is made. money stock deminishes when there is default on/ or write downs of loans.

Sales tax is repressive. It hits poor people hardest. If all you had was sales tax, the poor would just get even more poor. That's the whole point.

Believe it or not, the idea I have serves the rich in a long term way. By paying a regular portion of their voluntarily declared property (with the exception of land, housing, licensed cars, boats and planes) they get to maintain a system where they can prosper indefinitely.

If you keep poor people down and deny them medical care and ultimately food, eventually they take up arms and kill wealthy people. That's not ideal.

Even if the poor are successfully repressed by a well-run military, it's still a bad situation because gross domestic product goes way down. People who can't ever get ahead don't work any harder than they need to. Besides, if their needs for health care and education are not met, they won't be very productive even if they wanted to.

huh? hmm, maybe... depreciation pretty much makes it so i wouldn't have to pay any taxes on my junk.

My wife is in the top .001% of the world and the 107,565 richest person in the world. SWEET!!!!!

Glad she is a DOCTOR!!! LMAO

That seems rather unlikely. Doctors do alright, but I don't think quite that well.

The whole explanation of how sales tax "hits the poor the hardest" serves to illuminate the intellectual degradation that has brought us to the very discussion in the first place. We can begin things moving in the right direction by teaching economics (at a functional level) in high schools.

He is very right about sales tax so I am not sure why you would call that intellectual degradation...

Yeah. Sales tax is definitely regressive.

um, what's it matter if they can't afford sales tax? they're too poor to be buying stuff period. needs the welfare and food stamps just to eat.

Wait... Dibs, does that mean you agree that sales tax is regressive, or you just think that the poor deserve whatever they get?

why are you asking me questions after having only made 10 posts?
do you feel that you've contributed enough posts to these forums to be able to ask me questions?

hmmm,
Join Date: September 14, 2011
Posts: 10
Threads: 1
Last Login: 16.1 mins ago

Happy Anniversary!