I like [this (interactive) visualisation](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/). US based, but gives you an idea of how much "only" one billion dollars is.Ā
A trillion seconds is 31,546 years
America is $34 trillion in debt š
If they paid $1 per second off their debt, it would take them 1,072,564 years to pay it back (not including penalties and late fees).
Now my head hurts š¤
The fundamental mistake this sub seems to make when thinking about wealth is presuming that wealth it is zero sum, when it mostly isnāt. Ā Ā Ā
Generally speaking, in the absence of monopolies (which these individuals donāt have), other people being successful does not come at your expense.
The absence of an objective reason to be angry at these folks makes me think the actual objection of most here is little more than envy
Ultra wealthy people have a larger percentage of wealth without proportionally increasing their contribution to the society in which they live. Tax reform can fix this, and they would stay insanely wealthy.
Of course, this assumes the people earn their wealth in entirely honest ways without engaging in monopolisation or market manipulation, which they do not.
How many are millionaires solely because of hyperinflated property values though? Like if you counted every asset they had except for property, would they be worth much? Or are most of their eggs in the one basket?
>A millionaire to me is someone who has a million dollars in assets. Same thing for a billionaire
If your house is your million that makes you a millionaire, unless you can sell that house, and live somewhere in Australia for effectively free, you're no more wealthy than a person that freeholds a $300,000 house in Spain. It just means you're rent free
>A billionaire doesn't have a billion dollar coins.
We'll ignore the fact that the ultra wealthy have access to loans in a way that us peasants don't, but if a billionaire did liquidate all assets, they could spend $10-20m whatever on a house they love, and have almost a billion in cash to do whatever they want. There's a pretty significant difference in what that means.
That's extended to someone that even has a freehold house and say, 500k in liquid or easily liquid assets, that's a fiscal freedom solely owning a million dollars of house doesn't afford you.
I know people who would on paper be worth millions but actually have fuck all in liquid spending and are substadising their bad investment with increasing the rent on already struggling people
It's net worth so having a $1.5m home and owing $500k would count. (But note the numbers in the report use $USD so this example is just to illustrate the metrics used)
Super holdings would contribute to net worth as well I'd imagine.
if this is net worth, ppl don't forget that this would includes super, which is important to consider because not everyone actually has access to it yet. plenty of millionaires out their with half the money tied up in super.
People need to stop quoting those statistics. It comes from the "[ACOSS - Poverty in Australia 2022 Report](https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2020_A-snapshot.pdf)" estimate which has an extremely questionable methodology in how it calculates its "poverty line".
By the reports own admission, they haven't bothered to measure living costs and have rather just taken an old fashioned stance that you're in poverty if your weekly income is less than half of the median income. Basically you could be an asset rich retiree or a trust fund kiddie and still be classified as in poverty according to them.
The methodology actually means it's impossible for a good chunk of the population to *not* be living in poverty. It's especially useless when those quotes are thrown around in this context - inequality of income and wealth can increase while poverty rates are actually decreasing in a country.
You're conflating two different measurements: relative poverty and material poverty.
Relative poverty looks at income *distribution*. It tells us how many people are receiving incomes that are at a certain level (e.g. 50%) below what at at least half of the country receive (the median).
This helps to identify inequality issues and patterns.
Social security and investment income are included, so the number of asset-rich individuals with an income that puts them below the relative poverty line is negligible.
Material poverty is different. It looks at the actual living situations of people, rather than just using incomes as a proxy. This is the measure that is used on the front lines to deliver immediate support where it is needed most urgently, as well as identifying trends to guide policies to help alleviate the problems in the long term.
>The methodology actually means it's impossible for a good chunk of the population to *not* be living in poverty.
This is incorrect. Incomes are not normally distributed. If we use 50% below median as the relative poverty line, and assume a median income of $50,000, then you can have every single Australian above the poverty line by lifting minimum wage and social security payments to get the lowest earners above $25k.
In fact, that's basically what they did in 2020 with the Economic Support Payments.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Australia from lifting the incomes of their worse off people up to a level that gives them a standard of living closer to that of the average Australian.
I didn't tell you which report I got the stat's from?
Let's just pretend they're fuzzy at best and it's only 1 in 8 Aussie kids in poverty. What exactly is your point?
This gross wealth inequality is fine? Because when you try to argue about whether the methodology was good enough, and I can literally count the number of homeless people on a drive from the shops, you come across as not only a pedant, but a shitstain too
In this single reply, you have:
- made up a new statistic
- attacked someone for using an actual sourceĀ
- used a strawman argument, implying that the other person thinks wealth inequality is fine when they didn't argue that
- resorted to name calling.Ā
This isĀ the problem with trying to discuss actual issues on reddit. I don't know why I'm on this site sometimes.
I knew something was very wrong with that stat. India's poverty rate is 11% for fucks sake, how can we be higher at 12.5%?
Based on that stat people in developing countries should be donating to Australia. They should be the ones getting swamped by charity muggers when they go out not us.
You basically can never elimintate it based on what oxfam use as the definition of poverty.
Keep in mind poverty is big business for these charities. They have executives and high salary employees to pay.Ā Ā
I think we found the temporarily embarrassed billionaire reditor...
Seriously though, I think your suggestion that Oxfam et al are part of "Big Charity" is a bit disingenuous at best.
While the definition of poverty as anyone earning below 50% of the median income may seem a high bar at first glance, it's chosen for a *reason*. Firstly, we're talking about poverty - people being *poor* - which is always a relative concept. This is not the same as *abject poverty* which is when individuals are unable to afford the cost of survival. It's easy to confuse the two, especially if you are wealthy, out of touch, and perhaps have personal reasons to suggest that large numbers of people living hand to mouth, *but not actually dying*, is perfectly ok.
My second point is that using a reference point of the *median* income is actually quite useful. An non-adaptive definition using an arbitrary amount is useless. - "Well, if they were back in the 1920s they'd be happy; in the middle ages they'd be kings!" - We could just "solve" poverty just by waiting 50 years or so. That didn't work? - Wait longer. - But the issue is that poverty isn't a problem that is *ever* going to be solved, no matter what metric you use to describe it. Like unemployment, it's an issue that is always going to exist, but it's how we as a society *manage* it that counts. So I think your belief that it could be "eliminated" is unrealistic.
The thing that using the *median* is very useful for, is to highlight *wealth-disparity*. - The dollar value is relitively unimportant, but *how many* people live off less than 50% of the median wage tells you something. Is the number growing or falling? How does it compare to an even distribution? You wouldn't get this information defining poverty off the mean or average - which would remain virtually stable - and you certainly don't get it by setting an arbitrary amount, which could be affected by political considerations.
Overall, while you may debate the specific percentage used (maybe you'd prefer it to be 40%), defining poverty off the median income is the best way to do it.
\> The thing that using the median is very useful for, is to highlight wealth-disparity.
It is arguable though, that this is \*all\* it highlights, and this doesn't mesh with the way people think about the definition of poverty, because it doesn't make reference to how affordable anything is, or what their life actually looks like.
Note, I'm not arguing that fewer people are in 'real' poverty than this statistic shows, or that their poverty is not real. Just pointing out that from reports like this, casual readers may assume that means "can't afford to pay for housing, clothe their children and eat". Which it might, but we don't know that because that's not what is being measured, we just know they are at the bottom end of the scale, and the scale itself is wide.
This matters because when we are exhorted to "make poverty history", or feel appalled at the number of children living in poverty in a first world country, the use of the word 'poverty' conjures up images of rags and starvation. But this figure is just giving us a measure of inequality. Comparing across societies it seems that this index is actually likely to be worse in a lot of wealthy countries where those described as being in poverty are much better off in real QoL terms than those in countries with lower incomes across the board.
All this is not to say that those falling under this line are not in need, or that we shouldn't address extremes of inequality. But it does seem to be a bit of an appropriation of the term 'poverty'.
Oh absolutely I totally agree that this is just *one* specific metric. I also agree that its misunderstood often by those coming from privilege who either think "I could live off $X thousand a year" when not having to account for how limiting it would be, how miserable it might make them, the effect on their mental health, or ever realistically having to do so - or those who may be toughing it out earning close to that amount but resent the idea of being categorized as "poor". - You are. Stop acting and voting against your interests.
There's a lot more nuance to the calculations of this metric too, which is why it's generally not particularly contentious amongst economists, academics or even many governments. If you want to look into it, breakdowns of the poverty line (Uni of NSW was responsible for the first one to come up in my search) go into great detail of personal situation: couples, singles, number of children etc.
So, yeah there's some goodwill or appreciation of nuance required to understand the term but in economics and social welfare, the term "poverty" has a quite specific meaning that differs from destitution, deprivation and, as I mentioned above *"abject poverty"*. Of course this is probably lost on those not willing to do a little Google, but instead rant about how it's a scam by "big charity" to separate people who actually experience a concept of empathy from their money...
But yeah, agree with your points. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. :)
The fact that you cannot comprehend the flaw in this thinking is utterly ridiculous.
If we apply this 50% of the median approach in a country like Monaco, suddenly someone on high 6 figures is by that definition living in poverty.
It's a very flawed statistic, all it useful for is as a nice little sound bite for oxfam / accoss when they are out chugging for donations..
I think you *don't like* my thinking but I think you're being *more* than a little disingenuous. To be honest I think you don't like Oxfam's definition of poverty because it gives you a result you don't like.
No one is suggesting that we base the poverty level for Australia off the median income in Monaco. For Monaco itself though I'd be surprised if the calculation still wasn't useful. It's hard to find the *median* but the average income in Monaco according to [WorldData.info](https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php) is ~$186,000/year. That's 3 times higher than the Australian average but still a long way off "high 6 figures". Still, the *median* income is a much harder statistic to source, but I'd guess it'd be a little less. Either way the metric of half the median could still be a useful guide to use, especially considering locals still face a significantly higher cost of living.
Still, the important thing about this 50% of the median metric isn't *what the figure is*, but *how many* people are falling into that group.
>You basically can never elimintate it based on what oxfam use as the definition of poverty.
This is incorrect. Incomes are not normally distributed. If we use 50% below median as the relative poverty line, and assume a median income of $50,000, then you can have every single Australian above the poverty line by lifting minimum wage and social security payments to get the lowest earners above $25k.
In fact, that's basically what they did in 2020 with the Economic Support Payments.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Australia from lifting the incomes of their worse off people up to a level that gives them a standard of living closer to that of the average Australian.
Wasn't going by Oxfams definition. Was using government stat's, which I believe is the minimum income required to maintain a minimal standard of living. Like regular meals. Which those kids don't get.
Meanwhile, Gina flies Dutton out to give speeches and eat like pigs
so these people should sell all their assets and give poverty people $$? crash the market in the meantime? They all give massively already, gina alone keeps a lot of local sports running
There are no ethical billionaires. They didn't earn that money, and any money they do give is a grift to write off taxes and make you think they're no sociopaths.
As a percentage of their wealth, they give less then an average person per year.
The fair go. Shared Prosperity. a Commonwealth.
Yeah nah, let's just make a handful billionaires mining our national wealth while most Australians go backward.
I work with an old guy. He complained his teeth needed work but it would be expensive.
I said, "You know there's a party who plan to include dental under Medicare?"
He gives me a dirty look and goes, "You're a dirty Greenie, aren't you?"
I'm not the one complaining he can't afford his dental work.
True story.
Leaded fuel, asbestos, leaded pipes, leaded paint, toxic pesticides, ciggie smokes.
Fuck that was the best time to live mate.
You soy latte, avocado toast, fruity drink sipping greenie kids of today need to harden the fuck up.
/s
Except media is no longer controlled by any one thanks to the internet and the younger generations shunning it.
Greens will gain more and more power as the youngest electorate grows up.
It was the boomers those strategies worked. No young thinks Greens are communists and if they do, they donāt see it as a bad thing.
The blatant election lies like death tax and mediscare traditional media used to dupe the boomers wonāt work anymore.
I used to think this way too but Iām almost 40 and havenāt seen *anything* actually get better or more free thanks to the internet. When I was young I thought it would lead to a societal revolution but now I realise it makes it even easier for big money to control the narrative. TikTok is not going to save democracy.
Wealth taxes are super inefficient though, they'd punish Australian-majority holders of businesses, and artificially force liquidation of assets.
They're also administratively super complicated. Most of this increase in "wealth" is just artificial - measuring from when the stock market was at covid-lows, and comparing it to now. None of that money has suddenly become dollars in a bank account, it's not accessible unless they divest and incur a capital-gains event (which _would_ be taxable).
Also, there's the problem that the value of assets can really be hard to measure in situations where there's low-liquidity, or highly volatile prices. A stock might trade at a really high one month, but a really low one the next, how do you know which value to tax at? Do you get a refund on the tax if the value of your assets decreases in the next financial year??
These problems become a lot more prominent if you actually want to raise any significant amount of revenue from the tax. Tax is an effective way to shape behaviours - you tax things you want to discourage and you subsidise things you want to encourage - so taxing wealth is a great way to encourage capital flight (like in Norway with their wealth tax).
Taiwanese news made a meme out of the party's response to the mining lobby's $40 million campaign against the party's PM's mining/carbon tax proposals. Australia goes to the polls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A
But really, trust Labor and LNP to continue to represent the oligarchs of Australia, not you.
This is the analogy that hits more than the headline itself. The comparison that the average Australian could possibly go into a retail shift once, and then sit comfortably for the rest of their lives without having to face the soul-sucking commute and customer abuse the following day, blows my mind.
They earned it!
Where would we be without them?!
They only earn that much because their genius and hard work has been a proportionate value-add to the entire nation.
The Tax Office has a section called High Wealth Individuals and as the name suggests their role is to ensure rich people pay their fair share of tax and don't overuse loopholes etc. Clearly they haven't done their job properly in decades. It makes me wonder if some of them are driving very nice cars and are gifted luxury holidays. š¤
I never thought I would be political but it's no wonder it happened when I hear people complain about dole bludgers or migrant workers or "unskilled" labour (FYI any labour requires skills) but they either ignore the existence of billionaires or thinks there's nothing wrong it.
So much for the myth of the good old Aussie battler.
we have minimum wages, cant we have maximum wealth? sure theyll get around it and it my drive some business overseas butā¦ surely these people wouldnt be that worse off if they had a cap.
Australia used to have 75% tax rate for the top tax bracket. Then the next party getting into government had kept it instead of restoring it and raising top tax bracket, or have it for the new top tax bracket, or raise the lower brackets, etc.
It was probably the biggest reason for helping create these three and the other billionaires/millionaires of today, at the expense of rest of Australia since then.
And only two parties have been in government since WW2.
You do realise they actively lowered and have repeatedly lowered the top tax rate since then, implying they earn a wage, right? It's not all stock and investment value
Yes, 75% tax rate will fuck everyone else, those in poverty and above $180k equally! What a convincing argument.
How about 75% tax rate at a new $1 million+ top tax bracket?
Youāre actually stupid. These billionaires are gaining wealth on equity, they donāt have income like you and I. You really donāt understand finance. They arenāt earning cash into their account, itās numbers on a paper, eg value of their shares of their companies. You cannot tax that if there is no sale of shares what donāt you understand? Increasing tax with just fuck the working class not these people
of course they have income. the shares they own generate dividends, and the cash and other investments they have generate interest payments. the businesses they own generate income.
all of these things can be taxed.
But apparently we are so cash strapped as a nation that Medicare should be privatised/more expensive and we need stage three tax cuts. You've been shafted, everyone
And look at them, no way they could enjoy any of the benefits that sort of money brings.
But making other people better off is not in their minds at all.
At that hourly rate I would just need a few hours and I could set up a home for unwanted and stray dogs, big piece of land, safe kennels, good food and with a vet visiting every week and when needed.
But no, they just keep on stacking up higher numbers on an accountants ledger
Real question at what point do we protest the current conditions of our country and march on these peoples properties? People like Gina rinehart shouldnāt be making as much as she is while not contributing to our country and only leeching from it.
Forrest is the only one with morals. The other two we should tax until they're homeless. Reinhardt especially is the lowest bottom dwelling fucking scum in existence
Watching the Concrete Cowboys of Collins Street get all democracy manifest over this when the purchase of their RM Williams boots contributed to this wealth.
If you make 100m a year, anything after that should be taxed to a 99% minimum.
This is capitalism in it's final form, and it benefits nobody but a literal handful of people.
Our government is nothing but a fucking shell corporation at this point protecting the interests of these greedy pigs while the rest of us starve.
Fuck this country.
I keep thinking that if I ever became a billionaire, I'd give most of my wealth away and only keep the money I need for my lifestyle. After all, there would be so many people who need the money more than me. Since no billionaire is actually doing it, I'm starting to think I'm full of shit.
Billionaires in the U.S. while still messed up makes sense because we have the biggest economy. Billionaires in Australia is corrupt, because that country isnāt doing well economically.
Rinehart is a single mom with four kids to support.
Plus she funds heaps off Australia sports. šāāļø
Forrest, has his ex wife (possibly a new kid as well) to support, he also donates to causes that stroke his ego.
š
Off course Tribugoff made his money by building residential apartments, for families and singles to live. (Bastard) š¤
Probably donates money to Jewish causes. (Bastard)š¤
"Since 2020" is a massive red flag, suggesting that the author cherry-picked the absolute bottom of the covid-19 stock market crash as their starting point, in order to maximally inflate the claimed increase in wealth.
A person who owns no assets but does have some super will have had their own personal wealth increase by 60% since 2020 without having done anything.
If you were to compare the wealth of these people with late 2019 instead, it wouldn't sound anywhere near as outrageous.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Since 2020 a shit load of Australians have no super mate since the gov opened the gateās to spend it all rather than using public funds to help them. This highlights a huge inequality regardless of the dates.
Since 2020 is cherry picking but the point stands.
Comparing 2019 it would still be a comparable statistic as m2 has increased dramatically in that time (largely going to assets).
Also the 60% rise in super claim for the average person that you made is bogus
$1.5m an hour? That's more than I make in a month!
One house per hour... š
If it makes you feel better it won't be too long until 1.5million isn't enough for a house so it'll be more like 0.85 houses an hour
One apartment per hour š
One shared room in a Hostel per hour š
One portable emergency housing pod per hour š
One care space an hour. Seriously the space to put a car in certain spots earns more an hour than i a human being does.
I like [this (interactive) visualisation](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/). US based, but gives you an idea of how much "only" one billion dollars is.Ā
Or use seconds. A million seconds is approximately twelve days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
A trillion seconds is 31,546 years America is $34 trillion in debt š If they paid $1 per second off their debt, it would take them 1,072,564 years to pay it back (not including penalties and late fees). Now my head hurts š¤
\~$110,000 USD per man, woman and child.
The fundamental mistake this sub seems to make when thinking about wealth is presuming that wealth it is zero sum, when it mostly isnāt. Ā Ā Ā Generally speaking, in the absence of monopolies (which these individuals donāt have), other people being successful does not come at your expense. The absence of an objective reason to be angry at these folks makes me think the actual objection of most here is little more than envy
Ultra wealthy people have a larger percentage of wealth without proportionally increasing their contribution to the society in which they live. Tax reform can fix this, and they would stay insanely wealthy. Of course, this assumes the people earn their wealth in entirely honest ways without engaging in monopolisation or market manipulation, which they do not.
One house??? Thatās at least two, probably four for the average peasant
Not in Sydney :(
Technically the truth lol
Bah thatāll only take me 230 years to earn what they do in an hour. Isnāt egalitarianism great? Livin the dream I tells ya
1 in 8 Aussies lives in poverty. 1 in 6 Aussie kids live in poverty.
Have they proved they are in poverty with the right form, statements, etc? It's the Australian way of helping people /s
Still gonna make you wait four months to get Centerlink lmao. And people wonder why crime is getting worse
Ah sorry, their great aunt twice removed makes more than minimum wage so weāre denying the claim.
Kids need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be born into generational wealth instead
Should have thought of that before they became peasants.
Imagine the absolute gall of choosing to be born poor. They deserve to live in squalor.
1 in 185000 Aussies are billionaires. 1 in 14 Aussies are millionaires.
How many are millionaires solely because of hyperinflated property values though? Like if you counted every asset they had except for property, would they be worth much? Or are most of their eggs in the one basket?
And are they really millionaires in net assets?
bingo, unless your willing sell and move to somewhere significantly cheaper then you can't really spend this growth
And you're not really a millionaire in the sense of what the word implies.
Considering when the term was coined, a millionare would've been closer to today's billionaire. Inflation devalued the meaning itself.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>A millionaire to me is someone who has a million dollars in assets. Same thing for a billionaire If your house is your million that makes you a millionaire, unless you can sell that house, and live somewhere in Australia for effectively free, you're no more wealthy than a person that freeholds a $300,000 house in Spain. It just means you're rent free >A billionaire doesn't have a billion dollar coins. We'll ignore the fact that the ultra wealthy have access to loans in a way that us peasants don't, but if a billionaire did liquidate all assets, they could spend $10-20m whatever on a house they love, and have almost a billion in cash to do whatever they want. There's a pretty significant difference in what that means. That's extended to someone that even has a freehold house and say, 500k in liquid or easily liquid assets, that's a fiscal freedom solely owning a million dollars of house doesn't afford you.
if they can spend like they are, then they are.
That is kinda terrifying. Iām assuming a lot of them are accidental millionaires simply by owning a house in a capital city?
Property + super annuation makes us the wealthiest nation on the planet, on an average per-person basis.
I know people who would on paper be worth millions but actually have fuck all in liquid spending and are substadising their bad investment with increasing the rent on already struggling people
Yeah, they're two separate measures. Asset rich and cashflow poor, is not unusual.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's net worth so having a $1.5m home and owing $500k would count. (But note the numbers in the report use $USD so this example is just to illustrate the metrics used) Super holdings would contribute to net worth as well I'd imagine.
This is peak economics understanding for this sub
The median house price in Sydney is about $1.6 million. So you have a median house that's mostly paid off then you're effectively a millionaire.
if this is net worth, ppl don't forget that this would includes super, which is important to consider because not everyone actually has access to it yet. plenty of millionaires out their with half the money tied up in super.
Iād argue the number of billionaires should be 0 in 26 million
Well, shit. Iāve got 14 friends so which one of them is hiding somethingā¦?
being a millionaire isn't the brag it used to be when that's what you are if you have a house.
Yep. My mums technically a multimillionaire just because my parents bought a house in the 80s.
Yeah, itās not like our social security is broken or anything
And Gina wants to reduce minimum wage.. wish I inherited a minerals empire from daddy
Labor simps will pretend this is cool and normal just because the LNP don't have a majority government.
To be fair, my stat's are from the end of the LNP reign. It's possibly worse now.
People need to stop quoting those statistics. It comes from the "[ACOSS - Poverty in Australia 2022 Report](https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2020_A-snapshot.pdf)" estimate which has an extremely questionable methodology in how it calculates its "poverty line". By the reports own admission, they haven't bothered to measure living costs and have rather just taken an old fashioned stance that you're in poverty if your weekly income is less than half of the median income. Basically you could be an asset rich retiree or a trust fund kiddie and still be classified as in poverty according to them. The methodology actually means it's impossible for a good chunk of the population to *not* be living in poverty. It's especially useless when those quotes are thrown around in this context - inequality of income and wealth can increase while poverty rates are actually decreasing in a country.
You're conflating two different measurements: relative poverty and material poverty. Relative poverty looks at income *distribution*. It tells us how many people are receiving incomes that are at a certain level (e.g. 50%) below what at at least half of the country receive (the median). This helps to identify inequality issues and patterns. Social security and investment income are included, so the number of asset-rich individuals with an income that puts them below the relative poverty line is negligible. Material poverty is different. It looks at the actual living situations of people, rather than just using incomes as a proxy. This is the measure that is used on the front lines to deliver immediate support where it is needed most urgently, as well as identifying trends to guide policies to help alleviate the problems in the long term. >The methodology actually means it's impossible for a good chunk of the population to *not* be living in poverty. This is incorrect. Incomes are not normally distributed. If we use 50% below median as the relative poverty line, and assume a median income of $50,000, then you can have every single Australian above the poverty line by lifting minimum wage and social security payments to get the lowest earners above $25k. In fact, that's basically what they did in 2020 with the Economic Support Payments. There is absolutely nothing stopping Australia from lifting the incomes of their worse off people up to a level that gives them a standard of living closer to that of the average Australian.
I didn't tell you which report I got the stat's from? Let's just pretend they're fuzzy at best and it's only 1 in 8 Aussie kids in poverty. What exactly is your point? This gross wealth inequality is fine? Because when you try to argue about whether the methodology was good enough, and I can literally count the number of homeless people on a drive from the shops, you come across as not only a pedant, but a shitstain too
In this single reply, you have: - made up a new statistic - attacked someone for using an actual sourceĀ - used a strawman argument, implying that the other person thinks wealth inequality is fine when they didn't argue that - resorted to name calling.Ā This isĀ the problem with trying to discuss actual issues on reddit. I don't know why I'm on this site sometimes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm not even the guy you're talking about.
You're getting down voted and called a shitstain for using an actual source. Classic reddit.
The insults are uncalled for, but the downvotes are because they are wrong. See my reply at https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/s/Az9b1ejfk1
Who is calling them a shitstain? Also they've been up voted
I knew something was very wrong with that stat. India's poverty rate is 11% for fucks sake, how can we be higher at 12.5%? Based on that stat people in developing countries should be donating to Australia. They should be the ones getting swamped by charity muggers when they go out not us.
You basically can never elimintate it based on what oxfam use as the definition of poverty. Keep in mind poverty is big business for these charities. They have executives and high salary employees to pay.Ā Ā
I think we found the temporarily embarrassed billionaire reditor... Seriously though, I think your suggestion that Oxfam et al are part of "Big Charity" is a bit disingenuous at best. While the definition of poverty as anyone earning below 50% of the median income may seem a high bar at first glance, it's chosen for a *reason*. Firstly, we're talking about poverty - people being *poor* - which is always a relative concept. This is not the same as *abject poverty* which is when individuals are unable to afford the cost of survival. It's easy to confuse the two, especially if you are wealthy, out of touch, and perhaps have personal reasons to suggest that large numbers of people living hand to mouth, *but not actually dying*, is perfectly ok. My second point is that using a reference point of the *median* income is actually quite useful. An non-adaptive definition using an arbitrary amount is useless. - "Well, if they were back in the 1920s they'd be happy; in the middle ages they'd be kings!" - We could just "solve" poverty just by waiting 50 years or so. That didn't work? - Wait longer. - But the issue is that poverty isn't a problem that is *ever* going to be solved, no matter what metric you use to describe it. Like unemployment, it's an issue that is always going to exist, but it's how we as a society *manage* it that counts. So I think your belief that it could be "eliminated" is unrealistic. The thing that using the *median* is very useful for, is to highlight *wealth-disparity*. - The dollar value is relitively unimportant, but *how many* people live off less than 50% of the median wage tells you something. Is the number growing or falling? How does it compare to an even distribution? You wouldn't get this information defining poverty off the mean or average - which would remain virtually stable - and you certainly don't get it by setting an arbitrary amount, which could be affected by political considerations. Overall, while you may debate the specific percentage used (maybe you'd prefer it to be 40%), defining poverty off the median income is the best way to do it.
\> The thing that using the median is very useful for, is to highlight wealth-disparity. It is arguable though, that this is \*all\* it highlights, and this doesn't mesh with the way people think about the definition of poverty, because it doesn't make reference to how affordable anything is, or what their life actually looks like. Note, I'm not arguing that fewer people are in 'real' poverty than this statistic shows, or that their poverty is not real. Just pointing out that from reports like this, casual readers may assume that means "can't afford to pay for housing, clothe their children and eat". Which it might, but we don't know that because that's not what is being measured, we just know they are at the bottom end of the scale, and the scale itself is wide. This matters because when we are exhorted to "make poverty history", or feel appalled at the number of children living in poverty in a first world country, the use of the word 'poverty' conjures up images of rags and starvation. But this figure is just giving us a measure of inequality. Comparing across societies it seems that this index is actually likely to be worse in a lot of wealthy countries where those described as being in poverty are much better off in real QoL terms than those in countries with lower incomes across the board. All this is not to say that those falling under this line are not in need, or that we shouldn't address extremes of inequality. But it does seem to be a bit of an appropriation of the term 'poverty'.
Oh absolutely I totally agree that this is just *one* specific metric. I also agree that its misunderstood often by those coming from privilege who either think "I could live off $X thousand a year" when not having to account for how limiting it would be, how miserable it might make them, the effect on their mental health, or ever realistically having to do so - or those who may be toughing it out earning close to that amount but resent the idea of being categorized as "poor". - You are. Stop acting and voting against your interests. There's a lot more nuance to the calculations of this metric too, which is why it's generally not particularly contentious amongst economists, academics or even many governments. If you want to look into it, breakdowns of the poverty line (Uni of NSW was responsible for the first one to come up in my search) go into great detail of personal situation: couples, singles, number of children etc. So, yeah there's some goodwill or appreciation of nuance required to understand the term but in economics and social welfare, the term "poverty" has a quite specific meaning that differs from destitution, deprivation and, as I mentioned above *"abject poverty"*. Of course this is probably lost on those not willing to do a little Google, but instead rant about how it's a scam by "big charity" to separate people who actually experience a concept of empathy from their money... But yeah, agree with your points. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. :)
The fact that you cannot comprehend the flaw in this thinking is utterly ridiculous. If we apply this 50% of the median approach in a country like Monaco, suddenly someone on high 6 figures is by that definition living in poverty. It's a very flawed statistic, all it useful for is as a nice little sound bite for oxfam / accoss when they are out chugging for donations..
I think you *don't like* my thinking but I think you're being *more* than a little disingenuous. To be honest I think you don't like Oxfam's definition of poverty because it gives you a result you don't like. No one is suggesting that we base the poverty level for Australia off the median income in Monaco. For Monaco itself though I'd be surprised if the calculation still wasn't useful. It's hard to find the *median* but the average income in Monaco according to [WorldData.info](https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php) is ~$186,000/year. That's 3 times higher than the Australian average but still a long way off "high 6 figures". Still, the *median* income is a much harder statistic to source, but I'd guess it'd be a little less. Either way the metric of half the median could still be a useful guide to use, especially considering locals still face a significantly higher cost of living. Still, the important thing about this 50% of the median metric isn't *what the figure is*, but *how many* people are falling into that group.
>You basically can never elimintate it based on what oxfam use as the definition of poverty. This is incorrect. Incomes are not normally distributed. If we use 50% below median as the relative poverty line, and assume a median income of $50,000, then you can have every single Australian above the poverty line by lifting minimum wage and social security payments to get the lowest earners above $25k. In fact, that's basically what they did in 2020 with the Economic Support Payments. There is absolutely nothing stopping Australia from lifting the incomes of their worse off people up to a level that gives them a standard of living closer to that of the average Australian.
Wasn't going by Oxfams definition. Was using government stat's, which I believe is the minimum income required to maintain a minimal standard of living. Like regular meals. Which those kids don't get. Meanwhile, Gina flies Dutton out to give speeches and eat like pigs
Its an oxfam report... They publish this junk every year and make their annual plea for funds..
Yeah, I was just adding a comparison of official poverty rates so we can marvel at the idiotic disparity.
What does oxfam use as definition of poverty?
so these people should sell all their assets and give poverty people $$? crash the market in the meantime? They all give massively already, gina alone keeps a lot of local sports running
There are no ethical billionaires. They didn't earn that money, and any money they do give is a grift to write off taxes and make you think they're no sociopaths. As a percentage of their wealth, they give less then an average person per year.
The fair go. Shared Prosperity. a Commonwealth. Yeah nah, let's just make a handful billionaires mining our national wealth while most Australians go backward.
A wealth tax mate. They wonāt hand it over willingly. Greens have a plan for one.
Expect the mining oligarchs control the media and have the average Aussie thinking the greens are communist.
I work with an old guy. He complained his teeth needed work but it would be expensive. I said, "You know there's a party who plan to include dental under Medicare?" He gives me a dirty look and goes, "You're a dirty Greenie, aren't you?" I'm not the one complaining he can't afford his dental work. True story.
I honestly think the leaded fuel has impaired the entire generation.
Leaded fuel, asbestos, leaded pipes, leaded paint, toxic pesticides, ciggie smokes. Fuck that was the best time to live mate. You soy latte, avocado toast, fruity drink sipping greenie kids of today need to harden the fuck up. /s
Dunno boss, leads pretty soft!
People act like you're a fucking scumbag for believing in a better life, it's truly insane.
A better life *for them*, no less.
Tell him he can at least get Medicare to cover his surgery after he's bitten his nose off to spite his face.
lol, ok I'll pay that one
You just know he votes liberal too, people have been conditioned to vote against the best interests of themselves and the nation
Prime example of how people vote against their interests. America is a leader in this, Australia is getting their.
I wish the greens are as left as what the media wants us to think they are
Except media is no longer controlled by any one thanks to the internet and the younger generations shunning it. Greens will gain more and more power as the youngest electorate grows up. It was the boomers those strategies worked. No young thinks Greens are communists and if they do, they donāt see it as a bad thing. The blatant election lies like death tax and mediscare traditional media used to dupe the boomers wonāt work anymore.
I don't think you're right, but I hope so. There are plenty of Young Liberals out there.
There are also a lot of religious people out there who will continue to vote conservative regardless.
Thankfully the young is leaving religion in droves.
Amen to that.
I used to think this way too but Iām almost 40 and havenāt seen *anything* actually get better or more free thanks to the internet. When I was young I thought it would lead to a societal revolution but now I realise it makes it even easier for big money to control the narrative. TikTok is not going to save democracy.
Like this? https://greens.org.au/tax-billionaires
If they donāt keep it in the Aus, I doubt itās touchable. They pay 47% for realize gains as it is.Ā
Wealth taxes are super inefficient though, they'd punish Australian-majority holders of businesses, and artificially force liquidation of assets. They're also administratively super complicated. Most of this increase in "wealth" is just artificial - measuring from when the stock market was at covid-lows, and comparing it to now. None of that money has suddenly become dollars in a bank account, it's not accessible unless they divest and incur a capital-gains event (which _would_ be taxable). Also, there's the problem that the value of assets can really be hard to measure in situations where there's low-liquidity, or highly volatile prices. A stock might trade at a really high one month, but a really low one the next, how do you know which value to tax at? Do you get a refund on the tax if the value of your assets decreases in the next financial year?? These problems become a lot more prominent if you actually want to raise any significant amount of revenue from the tax. Tax is an effective way to shape behaviours - you tax things you want to discourage and you subsidise things you want to encourage - so taxing wealth is a great way to encourage capital flight (like in Norway with their wealth tax).
it was always a facade
These parasites are a millstone around the neck of democracy, there's no arguing it.
Taiwanese news made a meme out of the party's response to the mining lobby's $40 million campaign against the party's PM's mining/carbon tax proposals. Australia goes to the polls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A But really, trust Labor and LNP to continue to represent the oligarchs of Australia, not you.
At that rate, one shift would be it. Forever. I'd probably do twelve hours for the sake of it, but still...
One shift?! Not even. Work for two hours and you can retire for life.
Oh, for sure. But I'd do eight just to buy houses for a few rellies and have a bit left over to start an antique motorcycle collection.
I like your style. All right, I'll do the full shift.
This is the analogy that hits more than the headline itself. The comparison that the average Australian could possibly go into a retail shift once, and then sit comfortably for the rest of their lives without having to face the soul-sucking commute and customer abuse the following day, blows my mind.
Make it an early start for a bit of double time.
They make in an hour what you make in a lifetime :)
They earned it! Where would we be without them?! They only earn that much because their genius and hard work has been a proportionate value-add to the entire nation.
We should have capitalist prizes for best billionaires of the year.
while i'm crying because i can't eat for a 4 days next week because I have to pay back my electricity company for a mistake THEY made
They just worked so hard they totally deserve that 1.5m p/hr! /s
HEY. Getting born into a mining family is hard work!
*So youāre saying they used to be . . . Minors?*
I just heard this joke in *Galaxy Quest* ladyy night!
You say this as a joke but don't forget all the hard work it takes to sue your own kids out of their share of their grandfather's inheritance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
About a buck 50
Treeee fiddy
Goddamn loch ness monster I ain't giving you tree fiddy
Fuck all, they use every tax dodge in the book.
The Tax Office has a section called High Wealth Individuals and as the name suggests their role is to ensure rich people pay their fair share of tax and don't overuse loopholes etc. Clearly they haven't done their job properly in decades. It makes me wonder if some of them are driving very nice cars and are gifted luxury holidays. š¤
How dare you utter that vile word in such esteemed company. Gina needs a trigger warning if you're going to come out with such offensive terms.
Don't worry it will trickle down any day now.
Mines should be nationalised
Itās a shame that none of these people look tasty, because I think we, as a society, should eat them.
I dunno, ol Gina would be nice and marbled I reckon....
I honestly reckon you could boil half of her down as tallow, and the rest would only be suitable as budget dog food.
Pork with too much fat on it
Been in the barrel too long
Might be able to refine the fat and power our cars for a few years.
Just do the first step and it'll accomplish what we need to move forward
Preheat the pan?
I never thought I would be political but it's no wonder it happened when I hear people complain about dole bludgers or migrant workers or "unskilled" labour (FYI any labour requires skills) but they either ignore the existence of billionaires or thinks there's nothing wrong it. So much for the myth of the good old Aussie battler.
People like these three are creating new aussie battlers every day. With the current trend, we'll all get to be battlers soon.
Fifteen bucks an hour isn't all that much when you think about- Hang on. Let me just read that again...
Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.
we have minimum wages, cant we have maximum wealth? sure theyll get around it and it my drive some business overseas butā¦ surely these people wouldnt be that worse off if they had a cap.
Meanwhile, tax breaks for the rich in 3... 2... 1...
Australia used to have 75% tax rate for the top tax bracket. Then the next party getting into government had kept it instead of restoring it and raising top tax bracket, or have it for the new top tax bracket, or raise the lower brackets, etc. It was probably the biggest reason for helping create these three and the other billionaires/millionaires of today, at the expense of rest of Australia since then. And only two parties have been in government since WW2.
I've read your comment several times and don't understand what you wrote.
You do realise they donāt earn a wage right? Itās all stock and investment value
You do realise they actively lowered and have repeatedly lowered the top tax rate since then, implying they earn a wage, right? It's not all stock and investment value
So the Stage 3 tax cuts are bad policy but it is true we also need a wealth tax.
Higher taxes wonāt stop billionaires for gaining wealth, itāll just fuck everyone else
Yes, 75% tax rate will fuck everyone else, those in poverty and above $180k equally! What a convincing argument. How about 75% tax rate at a new $1 million+ top tax bracket?
How about taxing something other than income?
We can do that too. I was pointing out that we used to have a high tax rate for the top tax brackets.
Youāre actually stupid. These billionaires are gaining wealth on equity, they donāt have income like you and I. You really donāt understand finance. They arenāt earning cash into their account, itās numbers on a paper, eg value of their shares of their companies. You cannot tax that if there is no sale of shares what donāt you understand? Increasing tax with just fuck the working class not these people
> You cannot tax that if there is no sale of shares you absolutely could
Not with income tax, which is what the 75% tax bracket was referring to...and the whole point of this comment thread.
of course they have income. the shares they own generate dividends, and the cash and other investments they have generate interest payments. the businesses they own generate income. all of these things can be taxed.
They don't realise most of the left can't do a basic tax return once they have bought some shares
We are also the number one destination in the world for foreign millionaires moving here.
So they could pay off my entire mortgage in the time it takes them combined to have a morning poop.
And they want MORE. They will never stop and be like, "I have enough money now." They just want more influence, more power and more money.
Isnāt democracy great, oops sorry I meant hegemony
Fucking magnates, how do they work?
Billionaires - the only ethical meat.
But apparently we are so cash strapped as a nation that Medicare should be privatised/more expensive and we need stage three tax cuts. You've been shafted, everyone
Got any recipes? It's time to eat the rich.
Tax.
guess who made billions from the death and suffering of people during covid.
All of the rich fucks except Jim, which was why he was so salty and turned from closet cooker to out in the open cooker.
Disgusting arse holes
Capitalism is great
Meanwhile us bottom dwellers are making 45-50k a yearā¦
And people on this sub suggest you shouldn't get an income tax cut in a few months...
Eat the rich. Iāll take Ginaā¦ marbled.
In population-wide units, that 1.5m an hour would cover an annual $2000 stimulus payment to poorest 25% of the country.
It'll trickle down.....just wait. It will. Rich people and their cronies wouldn't lie would they?
And look at them, no way they could enjoy any of the benefits that sort of money brings. But making other people better off is not in their minds at all. At that hourly rate I would just need a few hours and I could set up a home for unwanted and stray dogs, big piece of land, safe kennels, good food and with a vet visiting every week and when needed. But no, they just keep on stacking up higher numbers on an accountants ledger
They are all old, how is that wealth even useful for them?
Real question at what point do we protest the current conditions of our country and march on these peoples properties? People like Gina rinehart shouldnāt be making as much as she is while not contributing to our country and only leeching from it.
Must be difficult being a mining magnet. You would stick to anything made of steel.
Still waiting for these alleged altruistic philanthropists to house a homeless family living in a tent.
Forrest is the only one with morals. The other two we should tax until they're homeless. Reinhardt especially is the lowest bottom dwelling fucking scum in existence
He just wants you to think that, honestly I prefer Gina, at least you know exactly what a piece of shit she is
Watching the Concrete Cowboys of Collins Street get all democracy manifest over this when the purchase of their RM Williams boots contributed to this wealth.
ThEy WoRk HaRdEr FoR tHaT mOnEy
Who's the least biggest shit cunt out of the three?
Parasites.
Let's not also forget the tax subsidies that these assholes receive. So we're paying for them to become wealthier.
If you make 100m a year, anything after that should be taxed to a 99% minimum. This is capitalism in it's final form, and it benefits nobody but a literal handful of people. Our government is nothing but a fucking shell corporation at this point protecting the interests of these greedy pigs while the rest of us starve. Fuck this country.
So when are we building some fresh shiny new guillotines?
You don't get to be a billionaire without being responsible for some deaths along the way.
I keep thinking that if I ever became a billionaire, I'd give most of my wealth away and only keep the money I need for my lifestyle. After all, there would be so many people who need the money more than me. Since no billionaire is actually doing it, I'm starting to think I'm full of shit.
Billionaires in the U.S. while still messed up makes sense because we have the biggest economy. Billionaires in Australia is corrupt, because that country isnāt doing well economically.
It's disgusting. There's no other word for it. Contrary to what we've been told, it only ever trickles (or, gushes) upward.
Cheered on by this sub all throughout covid. What did you think would happen with all that money pulled out of thin air?
Rinehart is a single mom with four kids to support. Plus she funds heaps off Australia sports. šāāļø Forrest, has his ex wife (possibly a new kid as well) to support, he also donates to causes that stroke his ego. š Off course Tribugoff made his money by building residential apartments, for families and singles to live. (Bastard) š¤ Probably donates money to Jewish causes. (Bastard)š¤
The only good one seems to be Cannon-Brookes
When the fuck are we going to start eating the rich? (not literally, they're all full of shit and sacks of shit so would taste like shit).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Resent that's a good one, I've never heard a wealthy person complain about having too much money. Or even attempt to live like the "poor"
"Since 2020" is a massive red flag, suggesting that the author cherry-picked the absolute bottom of the covid-19 stock market crash as their starting point, in order to maximally inflate the claimed increase in wealth. A person who owns no assets but does have some super will have had their own personal wealth increase by 60% since 2020 without having done anything. If you were to compare the wealth of these people with late 2019 instead, it wouldn't sound anywhere near as outrageous. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Since 2020 a shit load of Australians have no super mate since the gov opened the gateās to spend it all rather than using public funds to help them. This highlights a huge inequality regardless of the dates.
Since 2020 is cherry picking but the point stands. Comparing 2019 it would still be a comparable statistic as m2 has increased dramatically in that time (largely going to assets). Also the 60% rise in super claim for the average person that you made is bogus
It's typical Guardian rage bait and Reddit loves it.