did you know? the "few richest" just one percent of the families in the world, hold HALF the wealth of the world... at least in u.s the wealth is shared by many familys as i will explain. n
in america ten percent of familys, around thirty million people, share 76% of americas wealth as i will explain, so we know that the rest, 90% familys hold 24% wealth not just ten percent of the wealth as i have heard and read at bad websites which we must stop trusting.
those who are "fanaticly jealous" of the rich or who deny that communism faild, spread lies that the rich leave "so little" for everybody else, but at least in america the wealth truly is shared by many familys, so the democrats such as elizabeth warren is simply misleading people by hiding the "percentage number". so no "urgency" to follow nominee sanders who, same as nominee mrs.warren, is himself among the TEN PERCENT RICHEST IN THE WORLD and is not giving his own money to charity "an amount to drop below" the line to get out from that bracket.
worldwide there is a problem that wealth is not shared enuf like "wealth concentrated" among few people. at least america differs as above.
on the other hand "worldwide" includes the billions living under tyrany and warlords in africa so... we cant overthrow each of them. instead we must "define" the problem and then we can see that america is sharing wealth among many familys. then we can see that the problem worldwide is severe.
HALF the worlds wealth is controld by 1% as bbc publishd from a study. "bbc claimd that "worldwide" including some countrys that we cant check, the richest 1% of world has half the worlds money, leaving 99% of familys to share the other HALF of world wealth." this is far from the oft repeated propaganda that i hear n saw on opinon sites such as bad quora and bad yahoo that 90% people only has "ten percent money" kuz as reveald half is far from "only ten percent", the "poorer" 99% share half the worlds wealth not only ten percent kuz the phrase "as much as" simply means half.
NOTE: that same phrase could also mean "less than half" when hiding the percentage number as a bad democrat tryd to mislead people and as i will demonstrate.
still i claim that worldwide this is a severe problem that "half the wealth is concentrated among just 1% of the people" and they should share since they have so much... in contrast...
u.s differs. we see only twenty percent of american wealth is held by 0.1 percent of the richest so we can compute: 0.1% of 300 million population is same as one thousandth so 300 thousand pepl in around 200,000 familys share wealth. i mean "family" in contrast to separate citizens that could be in the same family some earn more than others yet the family is sharing the income so it seems more accurate to compare family units which share among themselves whether one earns more than another or the same.
the wealthiest 500 listed in forbes, dont have enuf money to balance the rest of the people in america nor even half of the people. in fact two of the richest listed in forbs, computer rich gates and stock rich buffit, each gave millions and each operate charity funds.
even the "richest 200 thousand familys own twenty percent of the wealth" far from half the wealth, based on tax returns which the irs inspects. we can contrast the worldwide problem of concentrated wealth: half held by just one percent, to america where even 200,000 richest familys are far from half the wealth.
the same tax returns can be adjusted "per capita" 0.1 percent of "people" scatterd among familys, only hold 15%, yet as above family shares among its members so i prefer familys and then the larger twenty percent is stilll far from half or 90% as i have heard. far from 90 percent. many people share the 90 percent wealth.
in the video "black knight rises" about batman, cat woman accused the wealthy of leaving "the rest of us with so litl" n i read n heard lies claiming "a few rich held 90%" wealth but as we see, even worldwide the "few rich 1%" hold half, far from 90%. in america the wealth is shared.
the richest 0.1% or 200,000 familys own 20% twenty percent of americas wealth far from even half and among thousands of families not just five billionares. it is entirely false to claim america has a problem sharin wealth as sanders and warren and other democrats claim at a time that they do not move themselves below the "richest" line.
the wealth in america is spread "so thin" that the ten percent richest is not purely millionares, but must include non-millionares. since we know that the 10% richest families hold 76% of americas wealth again far from 90%, and shared among 10% fmilys meaning 100*200,000=20 million familys, far from concentrated among "a few billionares", anyway... that leaves 24% for the "rest" 90% of familys from poorest up. if 90% hold 24, twenty four percent, then we can say "if 90% own 25% then the remainder richest ten percent own 75%" still far from 90 as the lies i heard n read,and revealing the deception of nominee warren exagerated, by targeting the ultra rich 0.1 percent which have less than 25%, only twenty percent so not "as much" but even combined many trillions less so her statement is far from accurate in this context the phrase "as much" is only 20% kuz not including the ten percent rich people that hold the remainder.... half the wealth 55%.
we can contrast in america 10% hold half in contrast to worldwide a few just 1% holds half so america is far better at sharing.
so we see that the wealth is shared and spread in america.
90% familys 25% money indicating spread n shared among 90%. not by family, "90% of people" own more wealth 29% but i prefer family units which share among the family.
10% americans 55% wealth not including the richest 0.1% people which means 200 thousand familys share 20% wealth. so the fact is america does truly share wealth now and in recent 50 years even as the rich become richer. as above a larger group ten percent holds half americas wealth but what about britian?
first we finish america, how many americans are the ten percent sharing 55%? 30 million people.
another different study showd top 0.1% only 15% of wealth but they separated familys.
"ten percent people" as above 30 million familys, share 76% not just "far from 90% money" as cat woman n quora and other liars hosted, to make us UNJUSTLY hate the rich, and shared by millions of familys, so these propaganda is only from jealous people for example warren despite her own wealth has reveald that she is jealous of that 0.1% while not moving herself below the line by giving HER money to charity. mrs warren you suck. complaining about wealthy go fix yourself.
we can be more precise than "around 25%". if we group familys, the richest 10% americans own 76% implying that 90% familys share 24% wealth showing the wealth is shared and not a mere ten percent but 24%.
now obviously... people not millionares have less wealth. that would be fake news to emphasize kuz "non-millionares are obviously "not millionaires" hence hold less. the problem raised in bbc is the "few" holding so much as above 1% of rich worldwide, outside u.s... think russia and saudi arabia and "bad" in this context, oil countrys and china... that is the problem. what about america? *the top ten percent include "non-millionares" so the gap between them and the poor is smaller gap since not all of the ten percent richest are "richer than the poor by far" the GAP is less.
that ten percent held 76% so we know that the rest 90% held 24% as above far more than just ten percent wealth.
the "bottom half" holds 1% money meaning 99% wealth is spread thinly among 50% or 150 million americans many many people so not concentrated. not the few wealthiest. i am among the poor but as long as the rich didnt steal i am not jealous. stats show that america shines morally in a world where the few 1% hold half of the world-wealth.
now britian. you are considerd "ultra-rich" in britan, in richest ten percent, if you have fifty thousand pounds... yikes that is not lots and far from millionare.
similarly if half are poor, that total "half people same" as "sixty two richest" then that does not mean half the wealth... as some were misled by nominee warren, but there is a third group, still the "other half" spreads the difference as above 20+20 leaves 60%.
the richest 0.1% americans have 20 percent that is far less than the 90% americans with 24% as above, the remainder is held by the ten percent rich in america and the same for britian.
bbc claimd that "worldwide" including some countrys that we cant check, the richest 1% of world has half the worlds money leaving 99% to share the other HALF of world wealth which is still far from ten percent wealth, so in that group, "as much as" simply means half.
in conclusion, ten percent american familys, considerd rich, is far from the wordwide inequality "problem" kuz in america the few rich meaning 0.1 percent only hold 20% wealth, as above, not 90% as hate mongers claim, n hosted by bad quora and bad yahoo, so we know they host silly non-facts and should not even read those websites.
worldwide, a study in 2018 showd 93 thousand u.s dollars is enuf wealth "to be richer than 90% of people worldwide". so i am poor but i dont see nominee warren nor nominee sanders that do fuss about the wealthy, moving themselves below this line... so they dont deserve support... in contrast wealthy trump does not hypocriticly make that fuss and trump DONATES his salary to charity.
at least in america many people share the wealth, which is not concentrated. africas billions are enslaved by their leaders, so charity would not really get to the familys.
another stat: "the wealth" is shared by 102 million americans who each hold over 93,000 dollars showing that many are sharing the weealth.
at least in america this reveald the bad prpaganda of nominee warren who hid the number "twenty percent" when in fact america does share wealth far better than worldwide. her wording hid "20%" using phrase "same as" misleading 50% when in truth the number is only twenty percent and truly many people share the wealth.
in america ten percent of familys, around thirty million people, share 76% of americas wealth as i will explain, so we know that the rest, 90% familys hold 24% wealth not just ten percent of the wealth as i have heard and read at bad websites which we must stop trusting.
those who are "fanaticly jealous" of the rich or who deny that communism faild, spread lies that the rich leave "so little" for everybody else, but at least in america the wealth truly is shared by many familys, so the democrats such as elizabeth warren is simply misleading people by hiding the "percentage number". so no "urgency" to follow nominee sanders who, same as nominee mrs.warren, is himself among the TEN PERCENT RICHEST IN THE WORLD and is not giving his own money to charity "an amount to drop below" the line to get out from that bracket.
worldwide there is a problem that wealth is not shared enuf like "wealth concentrated" among few people. at least america differs as above.
on the other hand "worldwide" includes the billions living under tyrany and warlords in africa so... we cant overthrow each of them. instead we must "define" the problem and then we can see that america is sharing wealth among many familys. then we can see that the problem worldwide is severe.
HALF the worlds wealth is controld by 1% as bbc publishd from a study. "bbc claimd that "worldwide" including some countrys that we cant check, the richest 1% of world has half the worlds money, leaving 99% of familys to share the other HALF of world wealth." this is far from the oft repeated propaganda that i hear n saw on opinon sites such as bad quora and bad yahoo that 90% people only has "ten percent money" kuz as reveald half is far from "only ten percent", the "poorer" 99% share half the worlds wealth not only ten percent kuz the phrase "as much as" simply means half.
NOTE: that same phrase could also mean "less than half" when hiding the percentage number as a bad democrat tryd to mislead people and as i will demonstrate.
still i claim that worldwide this is a severe problem that "half the wealth is concentrated among just 1% of the people" and they should share since they have so much... in contrast...
u.s differs. we see only twenty percent of american wealth is held by 0.1 percent of the richest so we can compute: 0.1% of 300 million population is same as one thousandth so 300 thousand pepl in around 200,000 familys share wealth. i mean "family" in contrast to separate citizens that could be in the same family some earn more than others yet the family is sharing the income so it seems more accurate to compare family units which share among themselves whether one earns more than another or the same.
the wealthiest 500 listed in forbes, dont have enuf money to balance the rest of the people in america nor even half of the people. in fact two of the richest listed in forbs, computer rich gates and stock rich buffit, each gave millions and each operate charity funds.
even the "richest 200 thousand familys own twenty percent of the wealth" far from half the wealth, based on tax returns which the irs inspects. we can contrast the worldwide problem of concentrated wealth: half held by just one percent, to america where even 200,000 richest familys are far from half the wealth.
the same tax returns can be adjusted "per capita" 0.1 percent of "people" scatterd among familys, only hold 15%, yet as above family shares among its members so i prefer familys and then the larger twenty percent is stilll far from half or 90% as i have heard. far from 90 percent. many people share the 90 percent wealth.
in the video "black knight rises" about batman, cat woman accused the wealthy of leaving "the rest of us with so litl" n i read n heard lies claiming "a few rich held 90%" wealth but as we see, even worldwide the "few rich 1%" hold half, far from 90%. in america the wealth is shared.
the richest 0.1% or 200,000 familys own 20% twenty percent of americas wealth far from even half and among thousands of families not just five billionares. it is entirely false to claim america has a problem sharin wealth as sanders and warren and other democrats claim at a time that they do not move themselves below the "richest" line.
the wealth in america is spread "so thin" that the ten percent richest is not purely millionares, but must include non-millionares. since we know that the 10% richest families hold 76% of americas wealth again far from 90%, and shared among 10% fmilys meaning 100*200,000=20 million familys, far from concentrated among "a few billionares", anyway... that leaves 24% for the "rest" 90% of familys from poorest up. if 90% hold 24, twenty four percent, then we can say "if 90% own 25% then the remainder richest ten percent own 75%" still far from 90 as the lies i heard n read,and revealing the deception of nominee warren exagerated, by targeting the ultra rich 0.1 percent which have less than 25%, only twenty percent so not "as much" but even combined many trillions less so her statement is far from accurate in this context the phrase "as much" is only 20% kuz not including the ten percent rich people that hold the remainder.... half the wealth 55%.
we can contrast in america 10% hold half in contrast to worldwide a few just 1% holds half so america is far better at sharing.
so we see that the wealth is shared and spread in america.
90% familys 25% money indicating spread n shared among 90%. not by family, "90% of people" own more wealth 29% but i prefer family units which share among the family.
10% americans 55% wealth not including the richest 0.1% people which means 200 thousand familys share 20% wealth. so the fact is america does truly share wealth now and in recent 50 years even as the rich become richer. as above a larger group ten percent holds half americas wealth but what about britian?
first we finish america, how many americans are the ten percent sharing 55%? 30 million people.
another different study showd top 0.1% only 15% of wealth but they separated familys.
"ten percent people" as above 30 million familys, share 76% not just "far from 90% money" as cat woman n quora and other liars hosted, to make us UNJUSTLY hate the rich, and shared by millions of familys, so these propaganda is only from jealous people for example warren despite her own wealth has reveald that she is jealous of that 0.1% while not moving herself below the line by giving HER money to charity. mrs warren you suck. complaining about wealthy go fix yourself.
we can be more precise than "around 25%". if we group familys, the richest 10% americans own 76% implying that 90% familys share 24% wealth showing the wealth is shared and not a mere ten percent but 24%.
now obviously... people not millionares have less wealth. that would be fake news to emphasize kuz "non-millionares are obviously "not millionaires" hence hold less. the problem raised in bbc is the "few" holding so much as above 1% of rich worldwide, outside u.s... think russia and saudi arabia and "bad" in this context, oil countrys and china... that is the problem. what about america? *the top ten percent include "non-millionares" so the gap between them and the poor is smaller gap since not all of the ten percent richest are "richer than the poor by far" the GAP is less.
that ten percent held 76% so we know that the rest 90% held 24% as above far more than just ten percent wealth.
the "bottom half" holds 1% money meaning 99% wealth is spread thinly among 50% or 150 million americans many many people so not concentrated. not the few wealthiest. i am among the poor but as long as the rich didnt steal i am not jealous. stats show that america shines morally in a world where the few 1% hold half of the world-wealth.
now britian. you are considerd "ultra-rich" in britan, in richest ten percent, if you have fifty thousand pounds... yikes that is not lots and far from millionare.
similarly if half are poor, that total "half people same" as "sixty two richest" then that does not mean half the wealth... as some were misled by nominee warren, but there is a third group, still the "other half" spreads the difference as above 20+20 leaves 60%.
the richest 0.1% americans have 20 percent that is far less than the 90% americans with 24% as above, the remainder is held by the ten percent rich in america and the same for britian.
bbc claimd that "worldwide" including some countrys that we cant check, the richest 1% of world has half the worlds money leaving 99% to share the other HALF of world wealth which is still far from ten percent wealth, so in that group, "as much as" simply means half.
in conclusion, ten percent american familys, considerd rich, is far from the wordwide inequality "problem" kuz in america the few rich meaning 0.1 percent only hold 20% wealth, as above, not 90% as hate mongers claim, n hosted by bad quora and bad yahoo, so we know they host silly non-facts and should not even read those websites.
worldwide, a study in 2018 showd 93 thousand u.s dollars is enuf wealth "to be richer than 90% of people worldwide". so i am poor but i dont see nominee warren nor nominee sanders that do fuss about the wealthy, moving themselves below this line... so they dont deserve support... in contrast wealthy trump does not hypocriticly make that fuss and trump DONATES his salary to charity.
at least in america many people share the wealth, which is not concentrated. africas billions are enslaved by their leaders, so charity would not really get to the familys.
another stat: "the wealth" is shared by 102 million americans who each hold over 93,000 dollars showing that many are sharing the weealth.
at least in america this reveald the bad prpaganda of nominee warren who hid the number "twenty percent" when in fact america does share wealth far better than worldwide. her wording hid "20%" using phrase "same as" misleading 50% when in truth the number is only twenty percent and truly many people share the wealth.
No comments:
Post a Comment