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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

movilogo wrote: »

wealth moved from bottom to top - leaving rest of the population worse off while increasing the wealth of top rank in pyramid.

That may be the case in percentage terms, however in absolute terms, the evidence suggests otherwise.

For example, the middle quintile have become substantially better off over the last few decades.



Now does it really matter if the top 1% have seen their wealth or income increase by more than the middle? So long as the middle is also increasing, I'd suggest not.

If the poor get a bit richer, and the rich get a lot richer, everyone is still getting richer....

Middle income households a few decades ago would never have dreamed median household wealth today in Britain would be over £230,000.

lisyloo

The problem I have in measuring wealth is that generally as you get older you get wealthier (certainly if you're saving for retirement).
So being wealthier simply means your older and doesn't necessarily mean you're richer in the traditional sense.

robmatic

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

Wealth of approx. £500,000 puts you in the global top 1%, so presumably any solution will negatively affect the middle class of the UK.

PasturesNew

If the top 1% only owned 25% it'd mean the top 5% were sharing the 50% - and, to be honest, I'd still be no better off.

gazter

Someone hitting the benefits cap in the UK at £26k a year puts them in the worlds top 1%.

Carl31

antrobus wrote: »

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.:)

I know what wealth is. The fact he holds large quantities of assets doesn't mean he couldn't liquidate them at any point, or transfer his wealth to others

the point I'm getting at is, what's the point of holding 38bn? Surely there's billions of excess to his name that he or his family will never, ever spend, just making more and more. It just seems a bit pointless. Why not just have 5bn?

I'm just thinking out loud a bit. Think of how beneficial his fortune could be if some was released

CLAPTON

Carl31 wrote: »

I know what wealth is. The fact he holds large quantities of assets doesn't mean he couldn't liquidate them at any point, or transfer his wealth to others

the point I'm getting at is, what's the point of holding 38bn? Surely there's billions of excess to his name that he or his family will never, ever spend, just making more and more. It just seems a bit pointless. Why not just have 5bn?

I'm just thinking out loud a bit. Think of how beneficial his fortune could be if some was released

how would it be beneficial and to whom?

Generali

gazter wrote: »

Someone hitting the benefits cap in the UK at £26k a year puts them in the worlds top 1%.

Of incomes not wealth.

padington

Each pound people have to spend is like a small vote, it has power.

If you have a society where some people own a much much larger proportion of power in relation to everyone else, that could have an ill effect on our democracies. We could start seeing, for example, our politicians becoming increasingly subservient to media moguls, billionaires and cooperate interests.

Not there is any evidence of that at the moment though of course ...

On the other hand a large amount of obscene wealth does seem to have a habit of going full circle and ending up being given away to good causes before death.

Personally I would prefer this not to be optional.

Gangaweed

I can't see how anyone could reasonably say that this isn't a problem.

This is the most unequal wealth has ever been distributed. I'm all for free markets and privatisation and so on but this isn't what we have. In many places opportunities are closed to all but few privelided few.

Inequality is good for capitalism but taken too far it leads to a breakdown in the social 'contract' and that is bad for all of us.