rainman

Selected Society: The 25 Wealthiest Dynasties On The Planet Control $1.4 trillion

Recommended Posts

The numbers are mind-boggling: $70,000 per minute, $4 million per hour, $100 million per day. That’s how quickly the fortune of the Waltons, the clan behind Walmart Inc., has been growing since last year’s Bloomberg ranking of the world’s richest families. At that rate, their wealth would’ve expanded about $23,000 since you began reading this. A new Walmart associate in the U.S. would’ve made about 6 cents in that time, on the way to an $11 hourly minimum. Even in this era of extreme wealth and brutal inequality, the contrast is jarring. The heirs of Sam Walton, Walmart’s notoriously frugal founder, are amassing wealth on a near-unprecedented scale — and they’re hardly alone. The Walton fortune has swelled by $39 billion, to $191 billion, since topping the June 2018 ranking of the world’s richest families. Other American dynasties are close behind in terms of the assets they’ve accrued. The Mars family, of candy fame, added $37 billion, bringing its fortune to $127 billion. The Kochs, the industrialists-cum-political-power-players, tacked on $26 billion, to $125 billion. So it goes around the globe. America’s richest 0.1% today control more wealth than at any time since 1929, but their counterparts in Asia and Europe are gaining too. Worldwide, the 25 richest families now control almost $1.4 trillion in wealth, up 24% from last year...

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/richest-families-in-the-world/?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough to pay off National debt😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Health is real wealth!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BALBOA said:

Health is real wealth!

Healthcare is big business too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can they buy a stairway to heaven? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Why the comment about minimum wage?

Probably because a lot of these people continually whine about paying 20-25% income tax and the possibility of inheritance taxes while balking at the idea of paying their employees an extra 10c an hour and have no qualms about those employees also having to rely on welfare to survive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Probably because a lot of these people continually whine about paying 20-25% income tax and the possibility of inheritance taxes while balking at the idea of paying their employees an extra 10c an hour and have no qualms about those employees also having to rely on welfare to survive.

99.999% of the population is "qualified" to earn minimum wage, that's why it's minimum. When you move your way up the food chain, your ability to earn more increases. My problem with "living wage" arguments is, what is keeping someone on the bottom rung of the ladder? Lack of: Intelligence, ambition, willingness to achieve? 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

99.999% of the population is "qualified" to earn minimum wage, that's why it's minimum. When you move your way up the food chain, your ability to earn more increases. My problem with "living wage" arguments is, what is keeping someone on the bottom rung of the ladder? Lack of: Intelligence, ambition, willingness to achieve? 

Fair points but many limitations are outside of some peoples control - disability, family circumstances, lack of social mobility, poor schooling. 

Also look at how the ratio of CEX's wages have changed compared to the median wage of the people they employ. The ratios are now staggering compared to if you look back 30-40 years ago. That tells you all you need to know about growing inequalities. 

Edited by NickW
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see where this fractures in places like Nigeria.  The inequality results in armed groups camping out in the Delta and drilling into the oil pipelines to take what they consider to be "their share."  You try to stop them and they will shoot you.   Then you have the decade of kidnappings that took place in Colombia.  Although disguised as "revolution," in reality it was driven by income inequality.  The Western countries are less exposed to this sort of disjointed armed internal conflict, but don't kid yourself; the French thought that about their society also in the late 1700's.  Did not quite work out for the aristocracy there, either. .  

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you all have somewhat of a point. But is it ‘right’ to force one segment of society to subsidise another? Who makes the determination of who is ‘wealthy’?

The ‘wealthy’ also pay the majority of taxes in the US. Ideally we should go to a flat tax where you pay X%, regardless of whether you make ten million a year or ten thousand a year. Technically the burden would then be shared equally. Of course, people would still want the ‘rich’ to pay more.

Keep in mind the adage, ‘Has a poor man ever offered you a job?’.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you all have somewhat of a point. But is it ‘right’ to force one segment of society to subsidise another? Who makes the determination of who is ‘wealthy’?

The ‘wealthy’ also pay the majority of taxes in the US. Ideally we should go to a flat tax where you pay X%, regardless of whether you make ten million a year or ten thousand a year. Technically the burden would then be shared equally. Of course, people would still want the ‘rich’ to pay more.

Keep in mind the adage, ‘Has a poor man ever offered you a job?’.

One of the facets of modern western society which have largely avoided revolutions, major social instability, sky high crime rates  etc is having a system that buffers the poorest while the rich take up some of that cost for welfare and  social provisions for the poorer members of society (public schooling, healthcare,policing etc).

That's the price you pay for living in a stable society where you don't routinely need an escort of body guards and having to travel in an armoured car to got about your daily affluent life. 

While I'm not rich I am affluent (top 15-20% of UK population by wealth) and I'd prefer to live in a society where my family and I are at liberty to travel without a general fear for our safety. 

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you all have somewhat of a point. But is it ‘right’ to force one segment of society to subsidise another? Who makes the determination of who is ‘wealthy’?

The ‘wealthy’ also pay the majority of taxes in the US. Ideally we should go to a flat tax where you pay X%, regardless of whether you make ten million a year or ten thousand a year. Technically the burden would then be shared equally. Of course, people would still want the ‘rich’ to pay more.

Keep in mind the adage, ‘Has a poor man ever offered you a job?’.

A functioning transparent democratic political system resolves this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How so?

Because society elects its politicians based on their electoral pledges. Politicians then theoretically determine how to apply taxation policy. 

So for example it decides someone earning:

$15,000 pays no tax

$50,000 pays 15% tax

$100,000 pays 30% tax. 

Above we have an example of a very simple progressive taxation system. 

As long as the political process goes through the appropriate consultation checks and balances no Judge is going to determine that as unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you all have somewhat of a point. But is it ‘right’ to force one segment of society to subsidise another? Who makes the determination of who is ‘wealthy’?

The ‘wealthy’ also pay the majority of taxes in the US. Ideally we should go to a flat tax where you pay X%, regardless of whether you make ten million a year or ten thousand a year. Technically the burden would then be shared equally. Of course, people would still want the ‘rich’ to pay more.

Keep in mind the adage, ‘Has a poor man ever offered you a job?’.

Can a rich man build a dam or a company without the masses supplying the labor? So why should the masses continue to support ever booming compensation for the rich? The sense of fairness has to have a balance or the masses get irritated. A common sense idea eh?

By buying legislation with money companies skew that sense of fairness. In fact Trump is fighting the multinationals under the guise of attacking countries. As long as the rich as a group increase their wealth those workers who lose standard of living of course will complain and look for politicians to support their complaint. 

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The ‘wealthy’ also pay the majority of taxes in the US

Where does this info come from?. I see everyday, wealthy people not paying a dime in taxes.

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ron Rogers said:

Where does this info come from?. I see everyday, wealthy people not paying a dime in taxes.

 

I didn't say that - Douglas did so I don't know why that quote implies I said it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

At least Warren Buffet is honest enough to admit he pays less tax on a % basis than his Secretary. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/here-are-5-ways-the-super-rich-manage-to-pay-lower-taxes.html

Warren Buffet acquired the majority of his early businesses from distressed sales where the owner died and the kids were stuck with massive tax bills. He LIKES big taxes, not like he'll ever pay a dime. He left his $90 billion fortune to a "Trust" so none of HIS money goes to the govt even after he dies. But thee and me? He wants ALL our money to go there. 

As for percentages, meaningless. In absolute dollar terms, the "rich" pay VASTLY more than the poor do. By couching it in percentage terms the propagandists are misdirecting the unwary. Their other favorite game is to conflate NET WORTH with Income. Joe six-pack pays income tax (maybe), but Warren Buffet doesn't have a salary so he can sell a single share of Berkshire for $200k and he's held it so long it's all long term capital gains, hence, lower tax. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to encourage buy and hold and lower volatility. Taxes as socioeconomic engineering. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Warren Buffet acquired the majority of his early businesses from distressed sales where the owner died and the kids were stuck with massive tax bills. He LIKES big taxes, not like he'll ever pay a dime. He left his $90 billion fortune to a "Trust" so none of HIS money goes to the govt even after he dies. But thee and me? He wants ALL our money to go there. 

As for percentages, meaningless. In absolute dollar terms, the "rich" pay VASTLY more than the poor do. By couching it in percentage terms the propagandists are misdirecting the unwary. Their other favorite game is to conflate NET WORTH with Income. Joe six-pack pays income tax (maybe), but Warren Buffet doesn't have a salary so he can sell a single share of Berkshire for $200k and he's held it so long it's all long term capital gains, hence, lower tax. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to encourage buy and hold and lower volatility. Taxes as socioeconomic engineering. 

I didn't argue that wasn't the case. I am in favour of reasonably fair progressive taxes 

On trusts my view is that Governments should limit the amount that can go into trusts to avoid these type of avoidance schemes to avoid income or inhertance taxes. I also have my doubts about charitable contributions having unlimited tax relief. 

In the UK I have always found it amusing that Eton (school for the rich elites) has charitable status - that's right you can leave a shed load of money to a school for the elite and get tax relief / avoid income tax. 

On the second point in bold surely dividends on shares are taxed as income unless in some form of tax shelter (in the UK its ISA's) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.