You think $11 000 for everyone in the world would only be a modest improvement for those living in poverty?
That's what I said, isn't it? It's kind of pedestrian to have to quote
myself, but here it is:
BasketCase said:
Modest (and I mean very modest) improvement for people in Third World countries, and that's it.
See? There it is. Yes, I said modest, and I meant modest.
Most of the 3rd world has GDP per capita much less then $11,000, afaik. $11,000 is roughly Southeastern Europe level. GDP per capital of India is $3,100, for example. GDP per capita of DRC is roughly near $300.
Something for you, and Camikaze, and in fact everybody in here to think over: picture trying to live on $11,000 a year, and raising a child on $11,000 a year (remember, you and your kid
each get $11,000 a year). When people live in Southeastern-Europe conditions, it's considered a crisis.
Not that I advocate such a redistribution of wealth
.
Yup. I did a poll on CFC a few years back, and almost everybody who replied gave the same answer you did. It was particularly surprising on a (moderately) left-leaning web site such as this one. The problem is that the people of the Earth are not content with "their fair share". They want to catch up to the U.S., and that's mathematically impossible.
Yeah, because people have suggested that in earnestness within this very thread. Oh wait, no they have not. The idea is to tax the earnings of the wealthy, not their worth.
The former would result in less money for the rest of the world than the latter, i.e. less improvement for the world at large. I demonstrated that the latter doesn't provide significant improvement, therefore your idea sure as hell won't. <generic comment about having to point out the obvious>
So, it leaves me wondering (especially since Karalysia didn't answer my previous post): do socialists and communists actually want to redistribute the world's wealth for the betterment of mankind, or do they just want to screw rich people for fun???