Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

19. That doesn't sound right.

Reply to edhopper (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:48 PM

Dec 2013

I don't know what the annual income of everyone in the world is, but I believe the highest annual income in 2012 in the US was CEO John H. Hammergren's $131 million dollars (salary and stock).

Assuming that's "in the neighborhood", 100 x 131 million dollars is about 13 billion.

Is my math off? Are there people with an ANNUAL SALARY that is that much over 131 million dollars that this number I've come to isn't even close, or has oxfam figured out how to end global hunger for only $13 billion dollars?

I could believe "net worth" but not "annual income".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yes, Making the Rich Poorer Would Make Everyone Else Richer [View all] xchrom Dec 2013 OP

I don't think it can be said too often: they'd still be rich. phantom power Dec 2013 #1

+1 Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #2

Imagine if Zuckerberg's wealth were cut in half overnight. Courtesy Flush Dec 2013 #6

1% of a billion is still one hundred million. I think that the numbers we talk about Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #8

<sigh> a perfect example ....... oldhippie Dec 2013 #12

lol - yep, exactly right . . . well said DrDan Dec 2013 #13

Indeed. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #15

Your math is off by a factor of 10. A hundred million is 10% of a billion. 10 million is 1%. nt Electric Monk Dec 2013 #14

See? Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #16

Can't really add much but I do want to express my disgust at conspicuous opulence. geckosfeet Dec 2013 #3

Ouch. That would hurt! 7962 Dec 2013 #5

Depends on how you spend it. Oklahoma, for example, has near the highest, if not the highest, number jtuck004 Dec 2013 #4

According to Oxfam edhopper Dec 2013 #7

That doesn't sound right. hughee99 Dec 2013 #19

Here is the Oxfam page edhopper Dec 2013 #20

Makes more sense. hughee99 Dec 2013 #21

still a eye opening example of edhopper Dec 2013 #22

But, to "the rich" one has to add the rich & undertaxed corporations BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #9

I think taxes should approach 100% of some multiple of minimum wage... hunter Dec 2013 #10

If the RICH were forced to PAY for the Wars, bvar22 Dec 2013 #18

The article doesn't match the headline. Igel Dec 2013 #11

Huey Long's amazing speech from 1934 CrawlingChaos Dec 2013 #17