Worlds richest 1% to own more than everyone else put together

Graham_Devon

The worlds richest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population combined.

Currently, the top 1% owns 48% of the worlds wealth and are on target to own 50% of the worlds wealth by 2016. In 2009, they owned 44%.

Is this a problem? I have my views, and I'd say it is. However, I'm not entirely sure what can be done about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The worlds richest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population combined.

Currently, the top 1% owns 48% of the worlds wealth and are on target to own 50% of the worlds wealth by 2016. In 2009, they owned 44%.

Is this a problem? I have my views, and I'd say it is. However, I'm not entirely sure what can be done about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633

Well you could start the ball rolling by donating all of your wealth to charity I suppose - every little helps.

wotsthat

Is this a surprise?

3.5 billion people multiplied by F all = F all.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is this a problem?

Not necessarily.

Total wealth is not a zero sum game.

If the rich are getting much, much richer but the poor are getting somewhat richer as well, then everyone is getting better off and concerns about inequality are really little more than the politics of envy.

We went through many decades of exorbitantly high taxation on high income people, and indeed of wealth through high death taxes, in this country but the reality is the poor were much poorer in those days than they are today.

purch

If the 1% only owned 30%, would that mean that less people live in poverty, or would the Worlds total wealth just be smaller ?

Depending on the answer, you can decide whether or not it's a problem.

CLAPTON

most people are more concerned with income rather than wealth

danothy

How is this projected future materially different from what we have now where the top 1.2% or whatever has more wealth than the other 98.8%?

Carl31

Warren buffet apparently has about £38bn in wealth

ignoring whether or not its right for him to have it morally, what does one person do with all that? there must be a point where an individual gets to a level of wealth where money becomes pointless, they can afford to buy whatever they need no questions asked

Surely anything above this point is just waste, sitting around serving no real purpose

CLAPTON

Carl31 wrote: »

Warren buffet apparently has about £38bn in wealth

ignoring whether or not its right for him to have it morally, what does one person do with all that? there must be a point where an individual gets to a level of wealth where money becomes pointless, they can afford to buy whatever they need no questions asked

Surely anything above this point is just waste, sitting around serving no real purpose

presumably he invests the 38bn

are the things he invests in more wasted under his ownership that is under some-one else's ownership. If he owns shares in the supermarket, is the supermarket serving no real purpose?

antrobus

Carl31 wrote: »

Warren buffet apparently has about £38bn in wealth

ignoring whether or not its right for him to have it morally, what does one person do with all that? there must be a point where an individual gets to a level of wealth where money becomes pointless, they can afford to buy whatever they need no questions asked

Surely anything above this point is just waste, sitting around serving no real purpose

I'm not sure you quite grasp what is meant by 'wealth'. Warren Buffet does not have £38bn in US banknotes stored in a warehouse somewhere "serving no real purpose". He is worth £38bn because he owns a big chunk of Berkshire Hathaway which is a great big conglomerate type business that invests in all sort of things and owns a number of business such as Dairy Queen and Duracell.

People tend not to leave large chunks of wealth lying around. They tend to invest it somewhere to get a return. And do things like lend it to cash strapped governments to enable them to pay the bills,a nd that sort of thing.:)

movilogo

Total wealth is not a zero sum game.

If the rich are getting much, much richer but the poor are getting somewhat richer as well, then everyone is getting better off and concerns about inequality are really little more than the politics of envy.

If you watch "Super Rich and Us" in BBC iPlayer, you will realize wealth did not percolate from top to bottom. In fact, wealth moved from bottom to top - leaving rest of the population worse off while increasing the wealth of top rank in pyramid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xw4rw