Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%

You're probably part of the 1 percent and didn't even know it...

EW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world's rich people. It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That's for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 -- the most recent data available -- about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/ec ... /index.htm

How do we fix this evidently unfair situation? First off I propose an Occupy the United States (OUS). Just as it's not fair that we have 1 percent of our citizens in this country holding the majority of the wealth, when you expand this to a global scale, this is horrendous. What can we do about it? A few suggestions.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-reco ... ealth.html

This may be an option...

But the idea that wealth in society ought to be balanced obviously goes back a lot further than that. In 1848, Karl Marx wrote, “From each according to his ability, To each according to his need.” A “From – To” statement of principle, like a mathematical formula, demands at its root a distributive, or in this case, “redistributive” property. The OWS crowd and Obama might differ from Marx on the means of the redistribution, but not on the logic behind it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... h-but-how/

I like this idea the best...

Seems that redistributing wealth would be an act of enlightened self-interest for those who have it, so that everyone could be housed, fed, clothed, and educated at a comfortable level and everyone would be happy, poverty would be eliminated, and the world's economy would become a smooth-running, well-lubricated machine in perpetuity.

Everyone would have a high standard of living, be well-educated, which in turn would spur innovation and invention, increasing the quality-of-life for everyone, and enhance creative new industries and technologies that would take us to the stars.

I mean, how many billions does one person need?

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 631023/pg1

But whatever means or methods we use to correct the balance of wealth distribution, it has to be done in such a way that will allow our altruistic politicians of the world to benefit most. Do you have any ideas how we can keep the United States from having a disproportionate amount of the world's rich people? After all, if you make 34,000 a year, you are now part of the worlds 1 percent and you should feel ashamed of yourself. If you supported OWS, please support Occupy the United States. With your help, we can make the world a more centrally fair place.

So what, we designed it that way. Can't you take one year of a typical pay for an American and pick dozens of other countries on the planet and live there on the same $ for a decade. A dollar is not a dollar, money buys you different things, and people value it differently. We artificially change it's value.

Only like 6% of the planet have a college degree, something like 1/3 of Americans do too. Not that it is the only indicator of wealth, but it is related. Education and learning, formal or not, is how we pass on our built knowledge and if you have more education you have more of the collected knowledge of all humans and thus can get more resources in your basket.

But one can live on $20k a year with a family locally, but we want nicer lifestyles (kids each need their own bedroom, I want a 1500 sf home, I want to buy all my goods in stead of growing them and making them, I want a cell phone and a car) so we say that you need $40k or something...point being we all live to excess around here (most of us anyway and likely 100% of the people on this board, just by the fact that they are on it).....how many tens of thousands of dollars do you need....I bet about the same number of billions that the billionaire needs. Just because your excess is only 10x, are you really better than someone who is 1000x.

Anyone out there doing the ulitmate in wealth distibution, not taking more than they need so there is opportunity for others...or will you only do that if mandated?

Popcorn Eater wrote: So what, we designed it that way. Can't you take one year of a typical pay for an American and pick dozens of other countries on the planet and live there on the same $ for a decade. A dollar is not a dollar, money buys you different things, and people value it differently. We artificially change it's value.

Only like 6% of the planet have a college degree, something like 1/3 of Americans do too. Not that it is the only indicator of wealth, but it is related. Education and learning, formal or not, is how we pass on our built knowledge and if you have more education you have more of the collected knowledge of all humans and thus can get more resources in your basket.

But one can live on $20k a year with a family locally, but we want nicer lifestyles (kids each need their own bedroom, I want a 1500 sf home, I want to buy all my goods in stead of growing them and making them, I want a cell phone and a car) so we say that you need $40k or something...point being we all live to excess around here (most of us anyway and likely 100% of the people on this board, just by the fact that they are on it).....how many tens of thousands of dollars do you need....I bet about the same number of billions that the billionaire needs. Just because your excess is only 10x, are you really better than someone who is 1000x.

Anyone out there doing the ulitmate in wealth distibution, not taking more than they need so there is opportunity for others...or will you only do that if mandated?

This is all besides the point. When I read this I was actually shocked. It never occurred to me to look outside my own little world. I felt good that I wasn't part of the American 1 percent, that I had a mission to get my fair share from other rich Americans. But now that this article has pointed out that I may not be much better then the American 1 percent, it makes me sick to my stomach. any one of us that makes 34,000 a year or more, we have a lot of explaining to do. Just about everything that was attributed to the American rich and all the points that the Occupy Wall Street brought up... well... when we look at it on a global scale, many more of us are rich... and something needs to be done about it.

You're little rant above does nothing to solve the problem.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: many more of us are rich... and something needs to be done about it.

I know what to do about it... Let's all work harder and get to 3/4 of the world's 1% rather than a measly 1/2.

Nobody that matters wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: many more of us are rich... and something needs to be done about it.

I know what to do about it... Let's all work harder and get to 3/4 of the world's 1% rather than a measly 1/2.

We cannot have individual liberty while many of our fellow world travelers are poorer than us. We are not really free unless we are not chained to the almighty dollar. Capitalism is designed to hold superiority over other human beings. This is against all human rights. Working harder and getting richer does nothing to address the problem. Most of us are richer than the rest of the world, and we must be Occupied. Something has to be done about this injustice.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: We cannot have individual liberty while many of our fellow world travelers are poorer than us. We are not really free unless we are not chained to the almighty dollar. Capitalism is designed to hold superiority over other human beings. This is against all human rights. Working harder and getting richer does nothing to address the problem. Most of us are richer than the rest of the world, and we must be Occupied. Something has to be done about this injustice.

We are already occupied. Just ask LaRaza.

The article has wellness measures mixed up.

The term "rich" usually is measured by wealth. However, the article seems to use income measures, rather than wealth measures.

It's not uncommon to be in an expensive location (say Abu Dhabi or Colorado) - and have what might appear to be "high income" - and not really have a dime to your name.

The USA spent a lot of time on the cutting edge of world economic development. We're the home of the industrial revolution, we invented the internet, and frankly, we remain (in spite of recent legislation) more free than most countries.

That said - I don't think this position (top in rich) is sustainable. China out-produces the USA, India out-innovates it.

bailey bud wrote: The article has wellness measures mixed up.

The term "rich" usually is measured by wealth. However, the article seems to use income measures, rather than wealth measures.

It's not uncommon to be in an expensive location (say Abu Dhabi or Colorado) - and have what might appear to be "high income" - and not really have a dime to your name.

The USA spent a lot of time on the cutting edge of world economic development. We're the home of the industrial revolution, we invented the internet, and frankly, we remain (in spite of recent legislation) more free than most countries.

That said - I don't think this position (top in rich) is sustainable. China out-produces the USA, India out-innovates it.

What does it matter... wealth, money, wages... if those of us that make 34,000 or more a year are half of the worlds 1%, then we are making too much money. Something has to be done about it. Didn't you learn anything from the Occupy Wall Street movement?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Didn't you learn anything from the Occupy Wall Street movement?

I learned that protests don't have to have a point in order to monopolize the media.

Nobody that matters wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Didn't you learn anything from the Occupy Wall Street movement?

I learned that protests don't have to have a point in order to monopolize the media.

I'm well aware that I'm not going to get any help from the conservatives here... I was hoping some of the compassionate and enlightened progressives on 285 Bound would have some answers for this problem. You conservatives are the cause of the problem, why would I expect you to have any real solutions.