General Discussion

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)

1. another faux analogy

Thu May 23, 2013, 04:07 AM

May 2013

but let's assume they "get" the 100 to give up 100% of what they have.

Will everyone agree, that 100% of the money will go to the lowest 10% and not stop somewhere in the middle?

It is ridiculous to think that if one gets rid of the 100 people talked about in that article,
that even one penny would make it to those in the lowest 10%

Please explain how it would? Because it would not. But I can see it makes a good soundbyte.

But show me a precise plan and then I would listen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over [View all] HiPointDem May 2013 OP

another faux analogy graham4anything May 2013 #1

tax the hell out of them and pay workers better, for starters. do you think that would help, oh HiPointDem May 2013 #2

No. You are talking about trickle down, proven to NOT work.plus graham4anything May 2013 #4

that's not trickle down, word salad man. that's fdr tax & jobs policy. HiPointDem May 2013 #5

The poorest don't pay any tax at all. And nothing taken out of a person not working graham4anything May 2013 #7

Go-go, Word Salad Man! HiPointDem May 2013 #9

So? No answers to actual questions, just mocking?. graham4anything May 2013 #16

Do you really, honestly think that is the implication of the OP? kristopher May 2013 #20

I really, truly, sincerely do believe that the OP is a faux analogy. graham4anything May 2013 #47

Don't divert the topic kristopher May 2013 #50

the OP says the title is the graph. So I am 100% correct. graham4anything May 2013 #51

you need to brush up on your trickle down fishwax May 2013 #54

Golly, here I thought hiring bridgeworkers and meat inspectors would benefit all of us. aquart May 2013 #6

Is this directed to me? I think you mean the OP, not me. graham4anything May 2013 #8

Your solution to global poverty is to increase taxes on the 99%? Fumesucker May 2013 #27

the small mom & pops already pay sales tax. Time to stop robbing them by shopping online graham4anything May 2013 #48

Who's "getting rid of 100 people"? n/t cui bono May 2013 #22

"getting rid of people" Democracyinkind May 2013 #32

If the 1% actually did what they claim to do "Create Jobs" liberal N proud May 2013 #42

Various report place the amount spent since 1964 ... Jim Levy May 2013 #3

Welcome to DU. May your mind open like a flower. aquart May 2013 #10

"Why do you feel entitled to sneer at a man...?" Jim Levy May 2013 #12

Yeah, because the US seriously tried to end poverty? Democracyinkind May 2013 #21

Maybe you're a lot richer than I Jim Levy May 2013 #25

"sounds" "feels" Democracyinkind May 2013 #29

Sounds like a made-up number to me Martin Eden May 2013 #45

Hey, it works gangbusters for corporations, war profiteers and pharmaceutical conglomerates. HughBeaumont May 2013 #39

yes, i think taxing & otherwise limiting the percent of global income the rich take & redistributing HiPointDem May 2013 #13

I read the OP twice ... Jim Levy May 2013 #17

Not even close. kristopher May 2013 #26

The subject of the thread is taxing INCOME, not ASSETS. Democracyinkind May 2013 #31

To add to the ohter points about what you missed in the article muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #49

You cannot solve a problem you never seriously set out to solve, either. Your math sucks, btw. jtuck004 May 2013 #35

You fail to comment on where that $9 - 14 trillion went. Handing cash to "jobs creators" ... Scuba May 2013 #37

This message was self-deleted by its author Progressive dog May 2013 #43

Since 1964, wow only 49 years, 2% a year Progressive dog May 2013 #44

Do you have a cite for that 9 trillion? DanTex May 2013 #55

The French Tried this in 1789 Jim Levy May 2013 #11

Post removed Post removed May 2013 #14

Thanks for the constructive criticism Jim Levy May 2013 #15

where is the argument i am supposed to rebut? you copy and paste 1950s anti-communist HiPointDem May 2013 #19

The French were Communists? Jim Levy May 2013 #23

No but... Democracyinkind May 2013 #33

FDR wasn't an isolationist, but Ron Paul is. graham4anything May 2013 #18

The french confiscated the assets of the 100 wealthiest citizens and redistributed it globally? Democracyinkind May 2013 #24

I said ... it didn't end poverty in France Jim Levy May 2013 #28

You're saying the French tried what the article lines out. I'm saying that's simply not true. Democracyinkind May 2013 #30

Revolution against a feudal aristocracy is trying to alleviate poverty Progressive dog May 2013 #46

Uh, you might want to re-check your information there... Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #56

. blkmusclmachine May 2013 #34

World Bank figures shows that there are still 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty. dipsydoodle May 2013 #36

So basically they can hang with $180 billion sfpcjock May 2013 #38

du rec. nt xchrom May 2013 #40

Redistribution lottery. sibelian May 2013 #41

k&r woo me with science May 2013 #52

Scarcity is an illusion. Fire Walk With Me May 2013 #53

Yep. We feed trillions of animals, get sick eating them, and 40,000 humans starve to DEATH each day. stuntcat May 2013 #59

kick woo me with science May 2013 #57

kick HomerRamone May 2013 #58