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

padington

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

The rich judge themselves by their neighbours. They play 'keep up with the Jones's' . If someone else has a lot more, they feel slightly inadequate. Fortunatly for everyone else, one way to be Mr big is to leave an even bigger chunk to charity than the next man.

However that is still not addressing the growing problem of inequality of power. One way to resolve this would be to give poorer people more votes.

This would require a global government or tight international treaties to work, until then or something like it, our democracies will become increasingly at risk from overwhelming relative financial power houses.

A better solution would be to ensure we tax big business as well as we tax workers. Currently short term self Interest however is calling the shots (governments that leave loop holes 'Win' business) and so this is not being done.

We need to somehow change the rules of the game.

cells

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

how much of the value of the wealth of the rich is really wealth that can be distributed or even a "real" figure put on it???


for example the most expensive painting ever sold fetched a sum of $260m and is titled "The Card Players". How do you redistribute that and what is its true value? lets say the state confiscates it what is its value then? does it sell it, does it make photocopies and send everyone a copy? does it put it on show and how do you put a value on that?

in short i think a good chunk of the "wealth" owned by the very rich is just imaginary just a number.

cells

padington wrote: »

The rich judge themselves by their neighbours. They play 'keep up with the Jones's' . If someone else has a lot more, they feel slightly inadequate. Fortunatly for everyone else, one way to be Mr big is to leave an even bigger chunk to charity than the next man.

However that is still not addressing the growing problem of inequality of power. One way to resolve this would be to give poorer people more votes.

This would require a global government or tight international treaties to work, until then or something like it, our democracies will become increasingly at risk from overwhelming relative financial power houses.

A better solution would be to ensure we tax big business as well as we tax workers. Currently game theory however is calling the shots (governments that leave loop holes 'Win' business) and so this is not being done.

We need to somehow change the rules of the game.

much of the value of things that make the very rich very rich on paper is just imaginary and you cant take from it without crashing the value of the thing you are trying to take or redistribute

for example, art, what is the true value of paintings that change hand for hundreds of millions of dollars. lets say you tax it (which wouldn't be possible as it can be moved to another nation or hidden but lets pretend it can be done). What happens to a $250m painting which has a 2% annual tax on it so the owner needs to pay $5m a year to hang it on his wall? well the value would crash from $250m to maybe not even 1/10th of that. the fact that it is so highly valued is at least partly due to the fact that it isnt taxed


likewise with property, the most expensive house ever sold in the UK was a £250m pile. But its true value is its utility as housing which isnt worth £250m. Tax it at say 2% a year and its value plummets


assets should be valued as what can be extracted from them not what one silly rich person pays for it hoping that some more silly person will pay yet a higher price for it at a later time. I wonder how much wealth the rich own via that method?

padington

cells wrote: »

much of the value of things that make the very rich very rich on paper is just imaginary and you cant take from it without crashing the value of the thing you are trying to take or redistribute

for example, art, what is the true value of paintings that change hand for hundreds of millions of dollars. lets say you tax it (which wouldn't be possible as it can be moved to another nation or hidden but lets pretend it can be done). What happens to a $250m painting which has a 2% annual tax on it so the owner needs to pay $5m a year to hang it on his wall? well the value would crash from $250m to maybe not even 1/10th of that. the fact that it is so highly valued is at least partly due to the fact that it isnt taxed


likewise with property, the most expensive house ever sold in the UK was a £250m pile. But its true value is its utility as housing which isnt worth £250m. Tax it at say 2% a year and its value plummets


assets should be valued as what can be extracted from them not what one silly rich person pays for it hoping that some more silly person will pay yet a higher price for it at a later time. I wonder how much wealth the rich own via that method?

If tax erodes money and money is power and too much power in too little hands currupts, sometimes its a good idea to tax, just for that reason.

The trick is taxing people with bad form or anti social products more than others.

tkane

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

Billionaires and even multi millionaires don't work because they want to buy rolex watches and the latest yacht. It's more about the thrill and satisfaction you get out of 'achieving' whatever it is that you do. Spending power is a nice bonus but even then you only need a couple of million to live a life of total excess.

We shouldn't be too worried about people having 'wealth' of hundreds of millions and even billions - this is all invested in assets which in the end helps the wider economy one way or another.

The rich are getting richer but the poor are also getting richer.

padington

tkane wrote: »

The rich are getting richer but the poor are also getting richer.

..that's true but also what is true is the super rich are becoming relatively more and more and more super powerful.

... And what does power do ?

Pincher

"That compares with an average wealth of $2.7m per adult for the elite 1%."


US$2.7m = GBP1.79m


But the words "average wealth" would imply that people with less than £1.79m also qualify. Where I am in London, a four bed semi is over £700k. A grander house with a mature garden can easily cost £2~3millions. I wouldn't be surprised if there are widows around here who can't afford heating, but living in £2million houses.


So, what is the bottom threshold? £1.5m? £1m?


I might even scrape in, but I definitely can't afford to run a Range Rover.

PasturesNew

Pincher wrote: »

...I definitely can't afford to run a Range Rover.

And I've never even sat in one.

purch

PasturesNew wrote: »

And I've never even sat in one.

You've not missed much.

It has a similar effect on people to driving an Audi :eek:

IronWolf

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

If 1% of the world own more than the rest, don't you realise this means they can't all liquidate the assets, there is no one that can afford to buy them.

And Warren Buffett wants to own $40bn of Berkshire Hathaway stock because he wants to own the business and control it, you can't do that with only $5bn of stock which is less than 2% of the company. He isn't hoarding wealth, he owns a stake in a business that he has grown from a few $million to $370 Billion, that employee's hundreds of thousands of people and invests billions in expansion.

Warren Buffett is a very poor example for many reasons, inlcuding that he has pledged over 99% of his wealth to charity upon his death.