• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

    Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
    World leaders urged to act as anger over inequality reaches a ‘tipping point’

    Michael Savage Policy editor

    Sat 7 Apr 2018 13.08 BST
    Last modified on Sat 7 Apr 2018 23.10 BST

    The world’s richest 1% are on course to control as much as two-thirds of the world’s wealth by 2030, according to a shocking analysis that has lead to a cross-party call for action.

    World leaders are being warned that the continued accumulation of wealth at the top will fuel growing distrust and anger over the coming decade unless action is taken to restore the balance.

    An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030. Even taking the financial crash into account, and measuring their assets over a longer period, they would still hold more than half of all wealth.

    Since 2008, the wealth of the richest 1% has been growing at an average of 6% a year – much faster than the 3% growth in wealth of the remaining 99% of the world’s population. Should that continue, the top 1% would hold wealth equating to $305tn (£216.5tn) – up from $140tn today.

    Analysts suggest wealth has become concentrated at the top because of recent income inequality, higher rates of saving among the wealthy, and the accumulation of assets. The wealthy also invested a large amount of equity in businesses, stocks and other financial assets, which have handed them disproportionate benefits.

    New polling by Opinium suggests that voters perceive a major problem with the influence exerted by the very wealthy. Asked to select a group that would have the most power in 2030, most (34%) said the super-rich, while 28% opted for national governments. In a sign of falling levels of trust, those surveyed said they feared the consequences of wealth inequality would be rising levels of corruption (41%) or the “super-rich enjoying unfair influence on government policy” (43%).

    The research was commissioned by Liam Byrne, the former Labour cabinet minister, as part of a gathering of MPs, academics, business leaders, trade unions and civil society leaders focused on addressing the problem.
    Actor Michael Sheen, who is campaigning against high-interest lenders, supports the calls to rebalance global inequality.

    The actor Michael Sheen, who has opted to scale back his Hollywood career to campaign against high-interest credit providers, was among those supporting the calls.

    The hope is to create pressure for global action when leaders of the G20 group of nations gather for a summit in Buenos Aires in November. Byrne, who organised the first OECD global parliamentary conference on inclusive growth, said he believed global inequality was “now at a tipping point”.

    “If we don’t take steps to rewrite the rules of how our economies work, then we condemn ourselves to a future that remains unequal for good,” he said. “That’s morally bad, and economically disastrous, risking a new explosion in instability, corruption and poverty.”

    In a sign of the concern about the accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few, the move has gained support from across the political divide.

    George Freeman, the Tory MP and former head of the prime minister’s policy board, said: “While mankind has never seen such income inequality, it is also true that mankind has never experienced such rapid increases in living standards. Around the world billions of people are being lifted out of poverty at a pace never seen before. But the extraordinary concentration of global wealth today – fuelled by the pace of technological innovation and globalisation – poses serious challenges.

    “If the system of capitalist liberal democracy which has triumphed in the west is to pass the big test of globalisation – and the assault from radical Islam as well as its own internal pressures from post-crash austerity – we need some new thinking on ways to widen opportunity, share ownership and philanthropy. Fast.”

    Demands for action from the group include improving productivity to ensure wages rise and reform of capital markets to promote greater equality.

    Danny Dorling, professor of geography at the University of Oxford, said the scenario in which the super-rich accumulated even more wealth by 2030 was a realistic one.

    “Even if the income of the wealthiest people in the world stops rising dramatically in the future, their wealth will still grow for some time,” he said. “The last peak of income inequality was in 1913. We are near that again, but even if we reduce inequality now it will continue to grow for one to two more decades.”
    Topics

    #2
    On this being a problem, we probably agree. However, I doubt we'd agree on the solution.
    If society removes the incentive to create massive wealth, it will effectively lower everyone's wealth and standard of living.
    Much like communism, the equal distribution of poverty.

    Probably the best solution is eliminating cleptocracies, corrupt socialist(and supposed capitalist) governments.

    Personally, I would be all for 100% estate and inheritance taxes. And use those funds to eliminate all disincentive income taxes. Then we all start out on a level playing field, and are permitted to work as hard as possible, create as much wealth as possible in our entire lifetimes, and are rewarded by being allowed to keep it, reinvest and keep creating wealth. But society avoids long term monopolies, since all assets must be purchased all over again by the next generation, or by other entrepreneurs who may be far more capable if given the opportunity.

    Comment


      #3
      I am not sure how you stop this. Leaders of predominantly socialist countries who end up being dictators acquire great amounts of wealth. The ultra rich just move to jurisdictions with the lowest taxes. You can put punitive taxes on high income earners but doesn't really change anything? You end up with huge government beauracracies and the wealthy just leave. Certainly global free trade agreements over the last 30 years have made it easier to accumulate wealth. But I agree with AB5 if you eliminate that belief that you can grow your income or build a successful business you end up with everybody equally poor like Cuba. I don't agree on the 100% inheritance tax though!

      Comment


        #4
        Are You in the Top One Percent of the World? By Daniel Kurt | Updated February 2, 2018 — 6:00 AM EST
        SHARE





        The growth of income inequality has long been a hot topic around the globe, but it wasn't until the “Occupy” movement that the amount of wealth concentrated in the top 1% of society received so much attention.

        Indeed, it's an incredibly powerful club. According to Oxfam, a leading poverty-fighting organization, eight men own as much wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest in the world, and one in ten people survive on less than $2 per day. Still, the top 1% consists of a lot more than just eight people.

        This raises an interesting question: who exactly are the 1%? The surprising answer: if you’re an American, you don’t have to even be close to being uber-rich to make the list.



        Ranking by Income
        According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut. $32,400 amounts to roughly:

        30,250 Euros
        2 million Indian rupees, or
        223,000 Chinese yuan
        So if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top 1% worldwide.

        Figure 1. The percentage of global wealth owned by the top 1% surpassed 50% as of 2016.

        Source: Oxfam

        Ranking by Wealth
        The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:

        720,000 Euros
        49.8 million Indian rupees or
        5.3 million Chinese yuan
        Americans rank extremely high in terms of household wages – sixth worldwide, according to a 2013 Gallup survey – but not as high when it comes to median wealth. In fact, the 2017 Credit Suisse Wealth Report ranks the U.S. just 26th by this measure.

        There are a number of reasons for this disparity. One is that U.S. consumers tend to rely on credit more than their counterparts in, say, Europe. Credit card debt diminishes net wealth. The typical U.S. household carries a whopping $134,643 in debt, according to the most recent Census Bureau data.

        Even so, many middle-class Americans who have spent years paying down their mortgages and saving for retirement belong to the upper echelon of the world's wealthy.

        Pervasiveness of Poverty
        The bar to enter the top 1% wouldn't be this low were it not for the extreme poverty that so much of the globe endures. For example, an adult in India has a median wealth of $608 in total wealth, according to a report by Credit Suisse. The average wealth of adults in Africa is even lower at just $411.

        Compare that to the wealth of $49,460 for the average adult living in North America and $11,319 for Europeans. Now, the median wealth represents what most people have, the average will be much higher especially in countries where assets are so skewed toward the ultra-rich, like the United States. The average wealth of the U.S. wealthy is $344,692 per adult – this shows how much the few on top have, not just in the U.S., but globally.

        Making 1% Ranks in U.S.
        Who constitutes the 1% if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: you’d have to make $450,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) to make the cut.

        And to rank among the highest 1% of Americans by wealth? That requires net assets of more than $7 million, based on the latest Federal Reserve figures.

        The Bottom Line
        The term “top 1%” of global income may sound like an exclusive club, but it’s one to which millions of Americans belong. It’s a reminder of just how prosperous developed countries are compared to the vast majority of other people who share our planet.



        Read more: Are You in the Top One Percent of the World? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz5C81Q6Kww
        Follow us: Investopedia on FacebookClick image for larger version

Name:	daffys rich.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	10.4 KB
ID:	766378
        Last edited by mcfarms; Apr 8, 2018, 18:48.

        Comment


          #5
          Don’t worry, the carbon tax hoax is targeting that 1%. The engines of the economy.

          Comment


            #6
            Good grief, has no one played Monopoly?
            Govts attempt a slowing of process but ultimately catastrophe does the job.
            As a top tier per center addressing other to tier percenters (net worth compared to rest of world pop) on Wienerville. I for one do not feel guilty. I do not see the good in creating another leftie rallying cry like carbon.
            I do however, support withdrawal from the UN in part because of its cooky redistribution agenda.

            Comment


              #7
              It’s the wealth concentration of the richest .01% in the world that is concerning , and the small group within that that are calling all the shots .

              Comment


                #8
                Oh come on, this has to be fake news. I mean don't most on this list believe in trickle down economics? Surely Trumps tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy will reverse the inequality in no time. All 1%ers are going to voluntarily pay higher wages to their employees and reverse the capitalist trends. Is there anyone on this list that would not share tax savings with their employees?

                Comment


                  #9
                  If anyone disagrees with my assertion that we need to replace income taxes with inheritance taxes, consider this:

                  If we had done this soon enough, there would be no trust fund Trudeau 1 or Trudeau 2. They would have had to get real jobs just like everyone else.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    .....100% inheritance taxes?????

                    You must not have been a beneficiary, stand no chance of being one, have nothing to bequeath, or have children to will anything to.

                    Then everyone should only do enough to get by, accumulate no wealth or assets and roll into their graves penniless.
                    Sounds like a grand plan for personal and national prosperity, sounds alot like a welfare state to me. Sounds more punitive than the incremental income tax scheme we have now.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by farmaholic View Post
                      .....100% inheritance taxes?????

                      You must not have been a beneficiary, stand no chance of being one, have nothing to bequeath, or have children to will anything to.

                      Then everyone should only do enough to get by, accumulate no wealth or assets and roll into their graves penniless.
                      Sounds like a grand plan for personal and national prosperity, sounds alot like a welfare state to me. Sounds more punitive than the incremental income tax scheme we have now.
                      You nailed it farmaholic.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Farma you nailed it.

                        Why would anyone work get ahead if the day they die it all goes to the government.

                        Sounds like Russia and boy that worked good.

                        The men gave up working found it was more fun to Drink and party and do piss all than work the women worked to feed their family and the country didn't move ahead it went backwards.

                        So whoever thought up that stupid idea give your head a shake.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
                          If anyone disagrees with my assertion that we need to replace income taxes with inheritance taxes, consider this:

                          If we had done this soon enough, there would be no trust fund Trudeau 1 or Trudeau 2. They would have had to get real jobs just like everyone else.
                          Solution transfer everything while living.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by biglentil View Post
                            Solution transfer everything while living.
                            BL, I don't think the Grantor has to be dead for it to be considered an inheritance to your beneficiaries.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Its known as inter vivos transfer, happens all the time.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...