We need a Global Wealth Tax
How rich are the rich relative to the poor? If they had ten times the
wealth, no problem. It has always been that way. But what if the
ratio was a million to one? That's undemocratic power.
know when democracy has gone. Elections become a sham, and leaders
become increasingly incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt. Sound familiar?
The existence of just one billionaire -- a single person with the
wealth of a thousand millionaires, or a million workers with $1000 each
-- is a sign that democracy is on the way out. We now have 3000
billionaries, including three smiling centibillionaires (Bezos, Gates,
Zuckerberg). A centibillionare has the wealth of 100 billionaires or
100,000 millionaires. Capitalism may have its pros and cons, but
this is getting ridiculous.
we want our democracy back, we have no choice but to reduce the wealth
of the wealthiest. If we want peace, we
have to do that gradually and fairly. In a word: democratically.
Don't despair. It can be done. Big
changes have happened before. Our main task is to think clearly and
tell the truth.
In the anti-Nazi poem
"Alfabet" (1934), Bertold Brecht wrote:
rich man and a poor man stood and looked at each other. The poor man
said palely: "If I was not poor, you would not be rich". (Reicher Mann
und armer Mann standen da und sahn sich an, und der Arme sagte bleich:
"Wär ich nicht arm, wärst du nicht reich.")
Today, this is not true. The rich are now in a position to eliminate
poverty while remaining rich. By "rich" I mean a person whose income
and wealth are about ten times more than that of the average worker. In
a normal world, that would be a lot. If the rich are the top 10% and
the poor are the bottom 10%, a ratio of 10:1 used to be typical (more).
Eliminating poverty is one of the great challenges of our time. It is
important because every person has the right to life in freedom and
dignity. It is also important as a prerequisite for democracy. Poverty
can be eliminated globally in various ways. We need:
effective solution to tax havens is globally
harmonized wealth tax -- "global wealth tax" for short. GWT
is wealth tax that applies similarly in different countries so it
cannot be evaded by moving wealth to another country (capital flight).
law enforcement to stop multinational corporations exploiting the
natural and human resources of
developing countries (more).
A well-known example is Shell Nigeria.
more rational systems of welfare and income tax (more).
- An end to
international tax havens. The rich should at least pay tax fairly
according to existing laws. The EU is working on it, but progress is
global? In a
globalized world, we need a globalized approach. But national
still dominated by local and regional issues. The most important
issues are ignored as if the future (and our own children) did
not exist. Taxation is one of many issues that need to be considered
across national borders rather than solely within them.
Wealth taxes can be
direct or indirect. A direct wealth tax is
calculated from an estimate of personal assets. Examples are regularly
published by Forbes
magazine. Indirect wealth
include real estate taxes, inheritance taxes, transaction taxes, and
environmental taxes. Another
possibility is to tax stock exchanges, requiring every company
of its market capitalization (share value times no. of
shares) every year. While all of these
forms of wealth tax can play an important role, I will focus here on
direct wealth taxes.
How would a global wealth tax work?
Picketty recommended a progressive wealth tax
according to the principle that tax should be paid in proportion to the
ability to pay. The more money you have, the higher percentage rate you
would pay. While we admire and support Picketty's approach, we instead
recommend a flat
wealth tax on the following grounds:
- A flat tax
cannot be reduced by shifting wealth around (transferring parts of it
to friends and relatives,
hedge funds, or trusts, or other legal or illegal tricks). In general,
the rules for paying tax should be as simple and transparent as
possible, to avoid avoidance and evasion.
- The total
revenue can be calculated in advance, and can therefore be relied upon
by a government. The total wealth-tax revenue for a given country would
then be calculable directly from the total available wealth in the
(note that the wealth of a rich individual is often distributed across
more than one country) and the population (since the tax would only be
paid above a given wealth threshold, say 10 million Euros).
proposed tax would be collected within countries using existing
mechanisms, according to a global agreement. If wealth tax can work in
France, Spain, Iceland, India, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and
Italy, it can work everywhere. The global community (e.g. the G20)
agree at last to end global tax evasion; tax havens that did not
comply would face economic sanctions.
- Any global
wealth tax is better
than none at all. Establishing a simple global wealth tax for the first
time would be an
enormous achievement. On that basis, it might become reasonable to
consider progressive tax scales. One thing at a time.
All citizens would be
required to declare
their wealth, just as they now declare their income. Multinational
companies and individuals would assign their wealth to different
countries according to globally agreed criteria. Tax offices
would establish a budget for
investigating wealth declarations (e.g. 1% of
the 1% tax, or 1/10000 of the tax office's initial wealth estimate).
Undeclared wealth, when discovered, would be taxed at a higher
rate, say 5%.
methods for punishing tax evasion would apply and might include jail
sentences or loss of citizenship.
Why do we need a global wealth tax?
Every year, the wealth
gap gets wider,
but essentially nothing is done. The widening wealth gap is undermining
democracy, which is being replaced by
oligarchy, or rule by the rich (watch George Monbiot's brilliant 2020 video).
This is corruption
at the highest level.
- In the
USA, the UK, and Australia, recent election results
have been strongly influenced by Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
Monopoly laws should have stopped that from happening. Governments
could and should now be using existing legislation (or creating new
legislation) to break up media empires.
who legally facilitate massive profits for selected corporations (e.g.,
by relaxing environmental protections) may subsequently be appointed to
well-paid positions in the same corporations. This consummately corrupt
practice could be prevented by giving politicians a living wage for
life and prohibiting other forms of income.
progressing, slowly but surely, toward
economic, political, and environmental meltdown. These three aspects
are feeding on each other: the wealth gap is undermining democracy,
which in turn is inhibiting the sustainable energy revolution. The
worse global warming becomes, the greater will be the economic and
political consequences. The ultimate losers will be human beings, who
will die in hundreds of millions later this century as a result of the
failure of today's political, business and academic leaders to solve
this problem, especially in the Global South (more).
The deaths will in
general be caused by a combination of climate change, biodiversity
loss, and poverty. Poverty increases the
vulnerability of individuals and
families to problems of all kinds. Direct causes of
death will include hunger and lack of drinking water,
political unrest and violence (including wars over natural resources),
direct heat, unprecented storms, and migration.
often have links to the fossil-fuel industry, which is preventing
politics from getting climate change under control. In this case, no
less than the survival of humanity is at stake.
How would a global wealth tax be introduced?
have the opportunity to work together with wise billionaires. The
realize we are all in this together. Their existence makes the project
you are a billionaire. You want to spend a million dollars on a
project to end hunger. But even a million dollars won’t change
much, globally. If however 3000 billionaires paid a million each, the
project would have a better chance of success. You therefore support
change for example. Mitigating it costs a lot of money and wealth tax
is a good way to raise that money. In the end, billionaires will
benefit like everyone else. No matter how much money you’ve got,
there is no planet B.
and other reasons, many rich people are calling for wealth taxes (more
Their support gives politicians an opportunity to act. There are also many
realistic current proposals for new wealth taxes (more).
not a new idea (more).
But to avoid
capital flight, wealth taxes need to be introduced in many countries at
once, step by step:
countries already have wealth taxes (more). The basic
infrastructure needs to be established in every country, even if the
tax rate is relatively low.
people realise the potential of globally harmonized wealth taxes to
solve global problems, wealth tax will become an election issue.
Politicians will be elected on the basis of their talent as
international leaders, determined to negotiate global solutions.
- A group of
core countries will agree on the basic rules.
To get democracy
back, we need gradual coordinated change -- not violent
Within each country, wealth tax should be introduced gradually, to
avoid political backlash. The
initially be low, for example 1% of all capital per year. As
people get used to the tax and experience the benefits, the rate can be
increased. If this was done in many countries at the same
global number of billionaires would eventually stop increasing. If the
tax rate was increased even more, the number of
billionaires would gradually come down. That might mean a tax rate of
who do not comply and continue to offer low effective tax rates to rich
investors will be sanctioned. Since the culprits are usually smaller
countries, sanctions are politically realistic (more).
like a long shot, but amazing changes have happened in
history: the end of slavery, the vote for women, the universal
declaration of human rights. This time, we are talking about human
survival. The official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire is
"Live Free or Die", but what we should be saying is “Think Big or
Fake news, also known as
truth distortion or bullshit, is rampant in
the pseudo-serious anti-wealth-tax literature. Here are are some
Many have claimed that wealth tax doesn’t bring much revenue
Any kid with a calculator can see that this is nonsense. The wealth of
the rich is so enormous we can't imagine how big it is. We lose track
of the zeroes. If Bezos has $200 billion, then just 1% per year is $2
billion per year. That's a big boost in annual revenue for
any national government.
might as well argue that taxing me individually doesn’t bring
revenue to the government, therefore I should not pay. That is the
level of ridiculousness we are dealing with.
opponents may claim that rich people have special reasons to be
from regular taxation. In fact, taxation has always been based on
ability to pay, that is, income and wealth. The more you can pay, the
more you should pay. There is no other reasonable objective principle.
claimed that some people should pay less because of their other
contributions to society, you would immediately run into the problem
that such contributions are impossible to evaluate objectively.
If wealth tax is not bringing enough revenue, it’s not because
there is something wrong with wealth tax. It’s because the rate
is too low. The solution is to increase the rate, not decrease it. If
wealth tax is causing capital flight, the solution is global
harmonization. All of this is very simple, if not blatantly obvious.
The author of this
(with a perfectly straight face, it seems) that “the lion’s
share of the wealth of the wealthiest is in business assets that
produce economic growth, and forcing their owners to sell them to pay
taxes could hurt growth”. But we need stability not growth, and
trickle-down economics is known to be nonsense. You can stimulate the
economy by either giving money to the rich or giving money to the poor.
Both strategies work in different ways, and both also have important
disadvantages. These things are obvious. We are not doing rocket
I almost forgot the old lady argument. This one really tugs at the
heart strings. Imagine an old lady living in a house that she owns. She
bought it together with her husband, who is now dead. They worked all
their lives to pay for it. Now the government wants to tax it. How
unfair! The truth, of course, is rather different. First, a wealth tax
should only be applied above a rather high threshold, perhaps $10m, so
it would not affect our "old lady" unless she was particularly rich. In
that case, she could easily afford the tax anyway, or could use her
existing wealth to generate the necessary funds. Second, politicians
who advance arguments of this kind usually care only about the well-being of
their rich benefactors. Whether their benefactors are female or male,
old or young, makes no difference. Third, this is a
distraction. We should actually be concerned about the many "old
ladies" who have no capital and are struggling to pay the rent.
Honest economists do exist, and they can easily refute every
anti-wealth-tax argument, for example like this.
What we need now is politicians like Bernie Sanders to build a global
movement and focus on this issue.
The failure of mainstream economic
aren't economists complaining about the false arguments against
wealth taxes? Worse, sometimes qualified economists are the authors of
rising wealth gap is clearly one of
the few most important issues in modern economics. Yet
to my knowledge few economists are talking about it, as if they had no
idea what was
going on or had no
responsibility toward to the society that pays their wages (at least
for university professors).
LIke any academic discipline, economics is biased. The problem in
economics is especially acute for the simple reason that economics is
about money, and money corrupts. If you look for academic literature
about that problem, you don't find much. There is indeed a lot
of literature on economic ethics,
which in the broader scheme of things is regarded as a minor
subdiscipline within both economics and ethics.
Economics and ethics have always been related, for obvious reasons. But
ethical approaches to economics are still
presented as if they were novel (link)
-- "soft" economics for mediocre or desperate scholars. The academic
literature in this area (example)
is sidelined both academically and politically.
There is a strange lack of ethics within "economic ethics". I am no
expert, but I just searched for the word poverty within
the long Wikipedia page on economic ethics (September 2020) and could
not find it. Since most of Wikipedia is drawn from published sources, I
assume this is typical of relevant academic literature. Other
central concepts in economic ethics that are not mentioned on the long
page with that name include democracy,
sexism, racism, death, mortality, hunger. I'm serious: these
words are not even mentioned. Relevant words that do occur include
wealth, health, happiness, values, well-being, freedom, justice, moral,
beneficiary, scarcity, labor, ownership, monopoly, right and wrong.
Clearly, this is ethics for the rich world. The "bottom billion" --
people living below the poverty line -- are quietly ignored as if they
did not exist. Is the word "ethics" appropriate for such a biased
and implicitly racist or colonialist theory?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence is all around us. Poverty is
stagnating (every year three million children are still dying of
the same time as wealth is growing to unprecedented levels. The wealth
gap is hijacking democracy. The carbon economy must urgently be
replaced by a new sustainable energy economy. And here is the thing:
most economists are not talking about these, today's most important
I am not an economist, but from what I can see, the system works
Economists whose research is motivated by the desire to reduce poverty
and the wealth gap are regarded as "soft" and quietly marginalized by
conservative colleagues. Caring
about other people is too
embarrassing for a distinguished academic discipline. More important is
maintaining a veneer of scientific/mathematic respectability by means
of high-impact peer-review journals with high rejection
professorships (usually filled by men), and implicit sexism and
racism (or at least: androcentrism and eurocentrism). While all
academic disciplines suffer from such problems, the obvious
connection between economics and money makes economists more
susceptible to corruption of different kinds, from the subtle to the
Economists are not
the only ones failing to address these problems. People in general are
steadfastly refusing to talk about the simplest, most
obvious solutions to the biggest, most important problems. Perhaps the
ultimate causes are psychological: denial and victim
psychologists do not seem to talk about that, either, and if they do,
they fail to make the big political connections that would be necessary
to solve these problems. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I realise that I may have overstepped the mark with some of these
comments. The point is that progress toward globally harmonized wealth
taxes might happen more quickly if problems of this kind are brought
out into the open. If that is the case, the discussion will have been
change.org petition was written in 2012 and is now closed. The issues
and the urgency are unchanged. The complete
original change.org page, with commentary and explanations, is here.
Additional explanations are here.
Here is the original petition text:
To UN, IMF, World Bank,
G20: National governments cannot pay their
debts, a billion people are living in poverty worldwide, and urgent
warnings about climate change are being ignored. In all three cases,
the main problem is money. But the money is available - in abundance.
Economic globalisation and technological developments are making the
rich megarich. Worldwide, there are now over a thousand
US$-billionaires. As concerned citizens across the world, we call on
relevant global organisations such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, and G20
to negotiate a global agreement to tax all wealth - including all
companies, trusts, and wealthy individuals - at a single rate of about
1% per year, in addition to existing non-wealth taxes. Exceptions
should be limited to genuine non-profit organisations and individuals
whose assets are less than about US$ 1 million.
Since 2012, none of this has changed, except that the situation has
become steadily worse. In 2013, the problem and its solution were
Thomas Piketty in his ground-breaking book Capital
in the 21st Century,
with a wealth of historical data and economic theory. The book
attracted much more publicity than this petition, but in the end it
was also ignored.
Many people commented on the petition. A selection of comments is
Comments on petition
The following comments were entered to the change.org website. It's not
often that you receive comments of this quality after an open petition:
would be a relatively easy tax to collect, at least on the $12.3
trillion of cross-border financial assets that we at Tax Justice
Network estimate is
now parked in just 50 global leaders in international private banking.
Make it an annual withholding tax on "anonymous" financial wealth,
including criminal money, and devote the proceeds to multilateral aid
for climate change relief.
S. Henry, Sag Harbor, NY
supply of investment and excessive saving on a global scale. This
proposal will result in surplus savings invested into long term
Robbins, Cheltenham, UK
tax on wealth means that any individual on earth would have to
reimburse during its lifetime most of the wealth enjoyed privately.
That makes sense to leave this world having paid ones debt to the
community. I love this idea.
de Basquiat, Versailles, France
workable solution to a major economic problem. Those paying the tax
would hardly notice it, but it would make an enormous difference to
Sloboda, London, UK
levels of inequality are inhumane. We're entering a post-scarcity
world, yet our socio-economic systems resemble a gold rush that
inflicts suffering on a vast share of the world's population.
Bukaj, Warsaw, Poland
is the only
way to bring inequality, in the UK and globally, under control - which
we desperately need to do. It's just a bloody shame the richest people
in the world control much of the political spectrum as well as
economic, and even worse the majority of the world's press is either
owned by them or generally sucks up to them. Come on folks, we're going
to need people power for this one! Spread the word!
Stokes, Portsmouth, UK
governments had the guts to say to voters we need to tax you more.
Generally, voters are looking for a government that will reduce their
taxes, and increase their public services. They're dreaming. I am able
to pay a bit more tax. I'm not sure if this idea will work but it
should be seriously considered.
Parncutt, Hawthorn, Australia
for this group to gradually steal the resources of all humanity, to
profiteer from wrecking the environment, and to make our species
extinct. By paying fair share, it would release resources to pay for
the restoration of the earth, communities and the infrastructure of the
Marinkovich, Port Townsend, WA
rich poor gap
is a brake on human maturity. This will provide at least a palliative
for massive suffering., and hopefully lead on to profound cures for our
ailing sense of inclusive justice.
Challen, London, UK
such a tax is necessary to sustain peace between the industrialized
nations. Furthermore we won't have a planet to live on in a few decades
if we continue polluting our environment and doing nothing to preserve
Kastner, Graz, Austria
central cause of social dysfunction and a threat to democracy. Wealth
is NOT correlated to level of work or creation or contribution in
Wolf, Ann Arbor, MI
try to eliminate global
poverty and make for a more fair and just world
Ward, Englefield Green, UK
I want to
pay my debits and but
a house for my children.
Miranda Kekana, Pretoria, South Africa
is an issue that desperately needs solving!
Brame, Bury St Edmunds, UK
a great idea!!! I'm not rich but I would happily pay 1%
Davidson, Aldershot, UK
long as it's funded to benefit social programs I think almost everyone
Coats, Los Angeles, CA
schools are being starved of cash so that more money can trickle up to
those who already have more than then can possibly spend.... 2% would
be better - with the extra 1% devoted to implementing clean energy
generation across the globe
Dinwoodie, London, UK
believe in taxing the super rich. No one person needs a billion pounds
Gleeson, Manchester, UK
If the USA can print 7% of its GDP to save it's economy and the assets
of the mega rich then perhaps the entire world should be printing 7% of
it's GDP and the money used to address all sorts of social issues.
Currency depreciation would not occur if everyone agrees to print money
at same % of GDP. Likewise inflation would not be an issue because it
has been proven that inflation can be effectively controlled when a
central bank targets inflation and only inflation. This inflation
fighting policy was introduced in Australia in the early 1990's. By the
late 1990's many of the world's central banks had adopted this
inflation control policy and it has worked brilliantly through 2 stock
market bubbles and a property bubble.
creo en la justicia social.
Taguas Sanchez, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Reichen sollen sich angemessen beteiligen
beings are so destructive. I sometimes think we're a kind of plague,
that will scrub the earth clean. We destroy things so well that I
sometimes think, maybe that's our function. Maybe every few eons, some
animal comes along that kills off the rest of the world, clears the
decks, and lets evolution proceed to its next phase.”
Michael Crichton, The Lost World
clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't
got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have
the power to save ourselves.”
Kanitz, Stuttgart, Germany
global warming is real and we need to do something about it. NOW.
Calcagno, Montevideo, Uruguay
the poor and keep more and more people from going poor. The recession
we're facing now could go worse than the great depression or be just as
Paich, Loveladies, NJ
wealth gap is growing, but a more progressive tax than a single rate is
needed to diminish the gap.
Lawson, Raglan, New Zealand
need to care for the poor of whom there are millions. The rich do not
need our support.
Kirkby, Sheffield, UK
under debt - consider how the Venetians and their fiscal plans have
caused problems since the 1340s - read more in the Palmerston's Zoo
papers at Schiller.
used to be
laws for 7 year debt relief and 50 year write offs - not onstant debt
selling which hits the poor whilst the rich laugh and use it as a form
of eugenics by destroying individual health by stress, communities by
destroying local impetus in favour of big brother
Hepworth, Brighouse, UK
rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting ignored.
Macnamara, Perth, Australia
you have 100
cars in your garage you are not paying enough taxes or giving enough to
charity. I used to deliver pizzas, and I also know the vast majority of
wealthy individuals even tip poorly compared to normal or even less
fortunate people. I guess us reggos don't have that fire of greed
burning in our soul in a permanant state of unquenched desire.
Sandler, Atlantic Highlands, NJ
important that Americans know their Government are impoverishing
thousands of low-income Americans.
Marquez, Miami, FL
excellent petition about the most urgent issue of our time
lane, Hoganas, Sweden
the only way to a fairer economy
Gustavsson, Höganäs, Sweden
have to think of future generations.
Toivanen, Jyväskylä, Finland
they're criminals that must be condemened and also pay taxes.
Tuller, Buenos Aires, Argentinia
you have the ability to help (your are wealthy), then you have the
Leaper, Penzance, UK
equal incomes and to do at least SOMETHING about the incredible
injustice of the fact that some people DIE through lack of food while
others can afford mansions, luxury food, and all sorts of other
goodies; in many cases not even as a result of anything they've DONE
but simply because of who their family is which is hardly something
they have achieved!
King, London, UK
Boleloucky-Bolen, Vienna, Austria
increasingly "global" world, we should all take responsibility globally
- including the richest, the profiteers, the self-seekers.
Cary, Mishima, Japan
long-term financial melt-down is the result of the games played by the
rich with economies of the world (both of countries &
They can only do this because of their EXCESS wealth. It needs to be
redistributed to all the rest of us - and the world - whence it was
Hollingsbee, London, UK
change and enormous wealth disparity are both serious problems that
else is going to do anything?
wealth as a means of reducing poverty is an obviously sensible idea. In
these terms, poverty means having no access to proper toilet facilities
and is relevant to 40% of the planet's population.
Quiney, London, UK
of life on this planet is at stake. What a legacy to leave
Owen Davies, Egham, UK
lessen the gap
between rich & poor & to give poorer people the chance
decently with food, shelter & healthcare etc.
Coles, villefranche de Rouergue, France
children don't have enough food to grow their bodies and feed their
Neve, Birkenhead, New Zealand
policy needs more than just a bigger break with the economic and moral
assumptions of the past 30 years. It needs a return to the conviction
that economic growth and the affluence it brings is a means and not an
end. The end is what it does to the lives, life-chances and hopes of
people. ... The test of a progressive policy is not private but public,
not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening
the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all
through collective action. But that means, it must mean, public
non-profit initiative, even if only in redistributing private
accumulation. Public decisions aimed at collective social improvement
from which all human lives should gain. That is the basis of
progressive policy - not maximising economic growth and personal
incomes. Nowhere will this be more important than in tackling the
greatest problem facing us this century, the environmental crisis.
Whatever ideological logo we choose for it, it will mean a major shift
away from the free market and towards public action. ... And, given the
acuteness of the economic crisis, probably a fairly rapid shift. Time
is not on our side." (Eric Hobsbawm)
Fladischer, Leoben, Austria
understand game theory. Because I have children. Because humanity needs
a moral upgrade, and those for whom the current system works will not
change by themselves.
Soutar, Dalkeith, UK
suffering globally has to come to an end. It's immoral and it's
destroying our planet and its citizens.
Martin, Northolt, UK
not be required to fight starvation. Enough food to live should be the
right of every human. Like a good Samaritan law - if you can afford to
feed someone who is starving it should be your legal obligation to.
Murphy, Birmingham, UK
the world needs to share its wealth not just for the sake of the poor
but for the conscience of the rich.
Baughan, Dronfield, UK
has no value compared to life.
Odlum, Leeds, UK
am part of the 99%.
Elvidge, South Molton, UK
a very easy way to make an immense difference, if the relevant bodies
can be made to agree, - a big IF, but certainly important to try.
Williams, Crewe, UK
a 1% tax can help us to allocate monetary and material resources more
Kaup, Graz, Austria
transaction, even if I buy a single apple, I pay 10-20% taxes (depends
on product, country, etc). How come we pay taxes when it comes to
food, but people who own great sums of money don't [have to] contribute?
Brabec de Mori, Gratwein, Austria
Winkler, Graz, Austria
the right thing to do to help reduce the deficit.
Holder, Waco, TX
need the world in equlibrium.
Šfiligoj, Nova Gorica, Slovenia
because we need to make all that we can to tacke existing problems of
poverty and environmental disequilibrium.
Škerbinc, Ljubljana, Slovenia
want to see
hunger and poverty eradicated asap and for all time, and for every
person to have the necessities of life - in a word: JUSTICE!
Reinhard, Mangonui, New Zealand
Weltverbesserung unterstütze ich, auch wenn ich meine, jede/r
uns sollte zunächst in einem kleineren und
Kreise seine Kräfte einsetzen - hier ein konkretes Beispiel
Becke, Graz, Austria
I die I would like my grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same
beautiful world that we enjoy today.
Parncutt, Graz, Austria
Eder, Bogazici, Türkei
more may be in this position because others have less, because that is
the way the balance often works. We need address urgent problems of
poverty around the world and this is one simple way to do it.
Parkinson, Tonbridge, UK
is a long reasoning behind, but very briefly: because there is no other
way for peace and freedom.
Lenz, Markgröningen, Germany
will improve the quality of most people in the world.
Canizares, Harrisburg, PA
paltry compared to what the super-rich take from everyone and our
environment, it's a good principle. The only better way is to stop the
accumulations before they happen by shared ownership of everything!
Maizlish, Los Angeles, CA
overdue to flatten the playing field.
Macomber, Alfombra, Baru, Costa Rica
Boris, Bruniquel, France
Berthillier, 09400 Gourbit, France
Busser, Le Tampon, Réunion
Tagliaferri, Saint Denis Reunion, France
Everyone has to participate for a better world!
Saury, Toulouse, France
I have children.
Horgan, Kensington, MD
The opinions expressed on
this page are the
opinions. Readers who know and care about this topic are asked to
contact the author with suggestions for
improving or extending the content: parncutt at gmx dot at. Back
to Richard Parncutt's homepage