Amazon.com Widgets

The world's 62 richest people own more wealth than the poorest 50% of the world's population combined. This is unjust and requires immediate action.

Asked by: bencoldham
The world's 62 richest people own more wealth than the poorest 50% of the world's population combined. This is unjust and requires immediate action.
  • Money is taken by the super rich people.

    Resources are taken away from poor people by the rich people. Poor people can not develop their economy without this resources, because they don't have enough fund to develop. Rich people spend little money to buy resources such as coal and oil, and the sell to citizen to earn more money.

  • The rich will keep on exploiting on the poor

    The rich will keep on exploiting on the poor Without the support of labour force from the developing nations, these companies couldn't be as successful as today. Farmers, miners, manufacture workers are being heavily exploited by the people above them. They keep on earning low salaries and have the least opportunities to break through from this poverty cycle. For example Chinese labour working the Microsoft factory needs to work for 15 hours per day, six or seven days per week, and only earning 34p per hour. If their salary cannot be risen the world's economy will continues to be unbalance

  • Inequality hinders economic growth.

    No one can doubt inequality means few opportunities for poor people. If only a few percentage of people own the most proportion of wealth, which is a current situation, the few people will accumulate wealth rapidly taking the opportunities of majority of people to earn money. This will even make some people difficult to meet their basic needs creating people who die from starvation.

    Absolute equality, of course, is not desirable either since some kind of inequality gives people incentives to work hard. However, if the inequality become too extreme, it can discourage or demotivate people as they will think no matter effort they put, they cannot get out of poverty. This can lead to slowdown of economic growth.

    According to IMF studies, if the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years. As this figure shows, the greater gaps between the wealthy and the poor, the worse the economy will be. Thus, immediate action to reduce the gap is necessary now.

  • Because it is dishonest

    If these rich people were making this money honestly, sure, I'd be fine with it, that's CAPITALISM, but they didn't, they made this money by ripping off poor people, stealing their homes, paying them a fraction of what they earned, instituting depressions, skipping out on taxes, swindling, cheating, lying, stealing, ect. Ect. Ect.
    Point being, this is not capitalism, what we had in the 40's and 50's, that was capitalism, THIS is FEUDALISM, NOT CAPITALISM.

  • The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer

    According to Oxfam the wealth of the poorest 50% dropped by 41% between 2010 and 2015. In the same period, the wealth of the richest 62 people increased by $500bn (£350bn) to $1.76tn. It is an unacceptable state of affairs that whilst some humans live in abject poverty and are struggling to make ends meet that others own more wealth than they could ever possibly spend. One possible solution to this problem is to tighten the tax laws and shut down tax havens that allow the worlds super rich billionaires to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

  • Wealth is distributed disproportionately

    There is no way that the 62 richest people in the world:
    a) contribute more to society
    b) work more/harder
    than the bottom 50% of the world. People should be compensated based on their contributions to society. These people exploit poorer countries for their labor and resources and destroy the opportunity for poorer countries and their people to reach the same status no matter how hard they work.

  • Incentive effect of generative income

    People might work harder in order to generate higher income and wealth. However, if the wealth of the richest 62 people is shared with the poor people, people will be reluctant to work, and they might not attend work. Furthermore, the rich people might have low incentive to work as well, since they do not have passion towards working.As a result, the economy will have a significant fall in output and the economic growth will decrease. The decrease in output can lead to scarce resources and worsen the poverty.

  • Absolutely ri - diculous.

    The fact that someone else has more than you is no justification for taking away what they have. If you truly believe in this "unjust" perspective of your neighbor owning more than you, then you would sell all that you have, including the clothes on your back and split it among the citizens of Malawi, where the average annual income is $815.

    Greed and spite is what is driving this "Robin Hood" style movement. Let's try emulating the successful instead of demonizing them. Our country is great at punishing financial success.

  • What you do in life makes your status, it should not be given

    The richest members of our global society are at this position through legal and entirely fair reasons. With an open market capitalist economy anyone can become a top member, with enough effort. The lowest members of the world are born into densely populated areas that have little to no future possible. It would be unjust to steal money from those who earned it and dispense it to those have done nothing.

  • Yes for education

    If the wealth can contribute to education of the poor,
    the initial poorest people could do more work sufficiently.
    They will earn more and decrease the inequality.
    Thus the situation can be treated from the root.
    This usage can make money do more than accumulating wealth in the bank or other places.

  • Yes for education

    If the wealth can contribute to education of the poor,
    the initial poorest people could do more work sufficiently.
    They will earn more and decrease the inequality.
    Thus the situation can be treated from the root.
    This usage can make money do more than accumulating wealth in the bank or other places.

  • Wealth cannot be shared

    Predators and preys. Dominant and recessive. Strong and weak. Wealthy and poor.

    They are natural characteristic of the society and ecosystem.
    Inequality started from the ancient survival game period and it still continues.

    Although the gap is getting bigger and bigger, always there is a invisible force of the chain that builds up current system.

  • No way Jose

    If there are 10 people in a work group :

    The top 2 hardest workers should give half of what they earned to the 2 at the bottom that did no work at all? If this becomes true, the top 2 people will stop working as well. The other 6 people are left to do the work of 10. They get smart and stop working as well.

    Now there are 0 people working in a 10 person work group. Redistribution fails every time.

  • While poverty may prove an issue, simple money shall not solve the crisis (hence scarcity- limited resources, not finances).

    It reminds me of a line from Margaret Thatcher:

    "What the honorable member is saying is that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."
    The issue is not the wage gap. The issue is the -total- income rates of all people. Charity is for poverty- not redistribution, or 'theft'.

    However, there is actually an advantage to the monopoly on money. A decrease in inflation. The value of the dollar goes down, and the poor are given more opportune living costs, given minimum wage (at least in America).

  • Reach people are rich for a reason

    People do not get rich randomly. Sure, luck and being born in right place is very important. But anyway, people get money for something (the fact whether you like the products they make is irrelevant). There is no such thing as money for nothing. Moreover, rich people pay more taxes. It's absolutely reasonable (and fair) for them to keep the resources they own now.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.