World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam

I’m far from being an SJW but articles like this actually make me feel sad.

We’re far from being rich, but I still make good money and we’re far more fortunate than most people. I’m always conscious of being grateful of what we have and I don’t begrudge people their wealth, but surely at some point people have enough money.

At some point we have to collectively begin to deal with this issue. Perhaps something like AOC’s 70% marginal rate?

What do others think?


I don’t think a 1% tax is enforceable worldwide,

with social media people already have as much exposure as possible already to issues worldwide,

and I honestly don’t see people collectively getting together to sort out problems when each country has its own issues that are getting worse and worse

I’d like to see a tax on extreme wealth! The more money invested in the stock market the more money you make. If you extrapolate this over the next 20 years it will only get more concentrated especially due to the tech giants.

I’m sure Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg would agree to this, they’ve donated 50% of their wealth to the Gates Foundation.

Guess it would have to be country by country before anything international was agreed :thinking:

The absolute worse methodology I’ve seen in any paper in my life, probably.
They actually place people who’s debt is bigger than their savings as negative wealth. It means that a random homeless guy with two pounds to his name is richer than all the doctors making six figures that are still paying their student loans combined. I think very few people would trade places.


And yet their wealth continues to grow at an accelerated rate, no doubt via tax loopholes and investment strategies and the like that the hoi polloi have no access to.

I won’t shed a tear for the over-moneyed.

Yes, they should be grateful, really. Life has never been better.

This is just lazy stereotyping. The current process is only increasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor, so anything must be better than the status quo. It’s not a bad thing to want to try and change things to help the many. My apologies for those folks who may have to have one less yacht.


That might work out with the people that are mentioned, and for a few philanthropic others, but the theories of trickle-down economics have largely not worked out. Using higher marginal taxes rates on the wealthy to offset the expense of low (or zero) rates for the poor, on the other hand, has been shown to be effective.


Whilst I agree with this, I think with globalisation the richer have found creative ways to avoid paying tax.

The first step to correct inequalities is to ensure tax is collected in the first place before upping taxes.


You probably meant this jokingly? But you’re actually right, life has never been better. We are richer and more well off than we ever have been. People have been pulled out of poverty more in recent years than any other time in human history.

So yes, life has never been better in that regard, and should only continue to improve.


Which we already do, the wealthy already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes.

1 Like

I’m presuming you mean the global “we”. I am no richer than I was 10 years ago, frankly. I have a job and a house (mortgaged) but I don’t have expensive holidays every year, don’t own a holiday home abroad, don’t have a massive pension pot waiting for me to retire, or own a top of the range car. If anything I have less money than I used to. Or perhaps it just doesn’t stretch as far as it did.

Of course. There have been significant reductions in the top marginal tax rates over the past few decades, though. This ultimately leads to governments raising indirect taxes, and those tend to disproportionately affect the poor.

People didn’t own houses or have cars, the fact that you do is a testament to the fact that more people today are being lifted out of poverty then ever have been.

Don’t take that as a statement that there is no one in poverty, but we need to be careful it to ignore the data that isn’t put in the news.

The fact that I have a house and a car is testament to nothing. I had both these things 10 years ago. My “wealth” has remained static.

I think your stats relate to those in absolute poverty being raised out of it. This is wonderful news, but TBH everyone should be entitled to safe shelter and food at a minimum.

The poverty I see on a daily basis, however, is friends with jobs having to resort to food banks. They didn’t have to do that 10 years ago. The rich are unaffected and, to use a sweeping brush, indifferent.

1 Like

People move in and out of the “top richest” lists all the time. It’s not a fixed set of people. I’m sure a lot of wealthy people didn’t start out that way. They built up their wealth over a long period of time, mostly using tools and methods they are available to most other people.
The only thing I’m concerned about is how to improve my own situation rather than trying to work out how to make rich people less rich.


The words “a lot” are sure doing some heavy lifting here. Do you believe the mega rich make use of ISAs and put their money in the Post Office, or do you believe they put their money in tax havens and use clever tax accountants to avoid paying anything they can avoid paying?

You are making an assumption that the two things are not linked. They are.


Easy to be tough on Capitalism by finding stats that frankly none of us are happy about. Whatever you think, global free-trade and capitalism have reduced the amount of people in extreme poverty faster and more effectively than anything we’ve seen before. Something needs to be done about the large corporations who are not paying their fair share of tax but be careful what you wish for - Venezuela is now a basket case.


Arguments about everyone being better off kind of miss the wood for the trees. It’s like saying that LGBT people have never had it so good. That might be true but it kind of misses the point, that there’s still a long way to go for them to have equal rights / treatment / opportunities etc.

Fewer people are in poverty, but that’s such a relative measure. If not being in poverty is a yardstick for success then we’re not really aiming very high.The vast majority of wealth generation is captured by an absolutely tiny proportion of the global population and that doesn’t seem sustainable.


Poverty as used in my example is not a relative measure, it’s an absolute measure. You might be thinking of relative poverty which has it’s uses but is by definition “relative”.

Arguments that don’t mention people being better off also miss the wood for the trees. It’s good news, the world is getting better, people are better off. That’s not the same thing as saying we can’t do more - of course we can.

Poverty is decreasing quickly and we can do more, I think these views can go hand in hand.

1 Like