Oxfam rejects Singapore defense of low taxes
#41
11-10-2018 4:44 PM
starbugs said:
Just saw a good quote that I will paraphrase here:

"Inequality is easy to cure. Just take the riches away from the wealthy, then everyone can be poor."

We are at the extreme.
Ppl at the Ivory tower do not understand the real situation on the ground. They still believe they are doing a great job.
Let Sg rots, no eyes to see.
官以民为本,民以食为天
Quote
#42
Once again, Oxfam gets it wrong on global inequality and poverty

"Some people are concerned with inequality – that is, the ratio between the richest and poorest in any given circumstances. Me – I’ve always been more concerned about poverty, and how those at the bottom are faring. The poor’s gains and their spending power matters far more, I think, than reducing ratios; an effort which is more likely to result in a race to the bottom than it is to make anyone better off.

But regardless if your primary concern in inequality or poverty – you should be wary of Oxfam’s report, released today, which claims the eight richest people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 50 per cent.


Despite being an aid and development charity that is supposed to address the needs of the poor, Oxfam seems heavily focused on the rich, releasing an inequality report every year meant to "expose" an economic system (i.e. capitalism) as only beneficial to the lucky few at the top.

But every year, despite facing the same criticisms of their methodology, Oxfam rolls out the same, flawed statistics which are meant to produce headlines, without providing much else in the way of insight or usable data.

Using Credit Suisse data, their methodology – which adds assets and subtracts debt to make "net wealth" figures – implies that some of the "poorest" in the world are those with high debt levels. According to Oxfam, a recent Oxford graduate with £50,000 of debt in their name is going to be classified as worse-off, or poorer, than a rural Chinese farmer with no wealth, but no debt either.

This is not how any of us think of "poverty", nor should it be.

This is not how any of us think of "poverty", nor should it be. And the Oxbridge and Ivy League graduates of the world are certainly not the group of people we might think Oxfam would be spending its time campaigning for. But this is the only way Oxfam can come up with their staggering statistic of eight v. 3.6 billion – to put those in wealthy countries with high earning potential right alongside those who are actually living in absolute poverty.


This gross misrepresentation of world poverty fails line up with everything else we know about human advancement and income improvements.For the first time in history, extreme poverty is down in the single digits; decreasing from 37 per cent since the Cold War ended to 9.6 per cent. Here in the UK, inequality is actually falling – and is nowhere near the levels that Oxfam representatives have claimed previously.

But these facts don’t play nicely into Oxfam’s prescriptions for a better society – mainly further regulations on business and tackling high pay. These uninspired solutions assume that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game (it’s not) and that reducing wealth at the top directly translates to top-ups at the bottom – an argument that many of us have been waiting for years now to see a shred of evidence for. (Even the High Pay Centre, which runs the gimmick "Fat Cat Wednesday" and monitors high pay has admitted there is no evidence for this).


Those who are genuinely concerned about inequality should be the most frustrated by this report. If Oxfam were actually interested in comparing the incomes and wealth accumulation of workers in Bangladesh and India to workers in the UK and Canada, the debate around those statistics would at least be interesting and worthy to have. But their intentional use of aggregated net wealth certainly makes their efforts appear more political than anything else.

That does nothing to help the inequality campaign – and it does absolutely nothing to help the world’s poor."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01...y-poverty/
Quote
#43
Oxfam’s Logical Failure Over Inequality


"Oxfam is indulging itself in a little bit of backcasting. Actually, not just bits or gobbets but vast steaming piles of it. This is the practice of taking a result you like, then assuming back to what causes it. Then you construct an index - if you're going to propagandise - from your backcasting and you've a tool to berate all. Oxfam assuming - good little progressives that they are - that a high tax, high spending socio-economic environment is desirable, so they've constructed to insist that all should be doing this. ..."

http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/econ...nequality/
Quote
#44
11-10-2018 12:34 PM
finind said:
this is about being competitive?

so he is speaking up for the losers?

no wonder SG rank high in this

[Image: 86lM1AO.jpg]

Its sad that you sound like a 15 year-old with a golden spoon.

Poor people are called losers, no wonder P A P are really losers.

Just like dumb old man EXBB call lazy people losers, when he don't know what is hard working.

Also, like naïve senile Jac Lau Sai who always think himself as successful when he is a loser in life living in the 80s.
. . . . . {I love my country, does not mean I love the government party}
Quote
#45
11-10-2018 8:45 PM
Ola said:
Its sad that you sound like a 15 year-old with a golden spoon.

Poor people are called losers, no wonder P A P are really losers.

Just like dumb old man EXBB call lazy people losers, when he don't know what is hard working.

Also, like naïve senile Jac Lau Sai who always think himself as successful when he is a loser in life living in the 80s.

You have hit the nail on the head.....bulls eye........
[+] 1 user Likes debono's post
Quote
#46
11-10-2018 7:53 AM
p1acebo said:
Dumbfark, can a tenant sell a property he does not own? Think before you speak 245
The property was not truly sold
Effectively and legally the leasehold was transferred from one dumbfark to another greater dumbfark
It is that simple so please stop the smoke chatter
Quote
#47
Wasn't this circulating about out NATIONAL LOSERS?


Overpaid but mediocre results.




[Image: JrWNQYx.jpg]
. . . . . {I love my country, does not mean I love the government party}
Quote
#48
Laughing

Laughing


We have National Character Loser.


[Image: LWAFK79.gif]
Crazy Jac Lau having menopause like a dementia woman again?
Quote
#49
10-10-2018 7:37 PM
XXX said:
“Singapore’s harmful tax practices mean that they are eroding the revenue of other countries in the region and globally, revenues that those countries could be investing in schools and hospitals,” Lawson told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singa...SKCN1MK16V

oh yah hor...so now Oxfam sets spending budgets for neighbouring countries ? 50% Healthcare 50% Education 0% Military...

Oxfam making themselves sound more stupid then ever..
Quote
#50
11-10-2018 8:45 PM
Ola said:
Its sad that you sound like a 15 year-old with a golden spoon.

Poor people are called losers, no wonder P A P are really losers.

the forum is used to the way how loser like you argue. You never see the full picture, just pick on something and start making noise. Educating you is a waste of time. You are just like that retarded Lawson. Rolling on the flor laughing
Quote
Users browsing: 1 Guest(s)


Similar Threads
Similar Threads Author Replies Views Last Post
India : We recognise Oxfam report and have much room for.improvement sgbuffett 2 168 16-10-2018 8:18 PM
Last Post: Oops
Heng Swee Keat Oxfam misled... outcome is what matters sgbuffett 44 2,287 14-10-2018 10:58 AM
Last Post: debono
Swee Keat corrected the mistakes done by Oxfam Honestboy 10 474 13-10-2018 11:14 AM
Last Post: finind
Desmond Lee Oxfam is wrong. S'pore is an equal society sgbuffett 28 1,906 12-10-2018 8:59 AM
Last Post: Migrant

Forum Jump: