I know you had to edit the title for length, but I think it would have made more sense to lose the first part and keep the factual part of the title intact, as it's pretty hard to make grammatical sense out of it as edited
"Untaxed Wealth of Richest 0.1% Is More Than Assets of World’s Poorest Half"
I'm one of that 0.1%, since my yearly salary is more than about USD90k. And my attached wealth is the most typical kind, too: my wife and I bought a place to live, which we haven't sold in the 20+ years since moving in. It probably could be sold for a fair bit more than we paid: untaxed wealth.
I suspect that we won't pay 100% tax on whatever we earn when we sell, if we sell, but if we were taxed 100% I'm sure something nice could be done with that money.
I'm quite impressed by the rhetorical skill here. It's easy to overlook that what they're saying is "by taxing something/someone 100%, it would be possible to...", ie. "If pigs would fly, it would be possible to..." and making it easy to overlook that takes real skill.
"Richest 0.1%" is not some ultra wealthy billionaire class. Making $90k/year in the US already puts you in the 0.1% of richest people worldwide by income. I assume a fair share of the audience here makes this much.
Don't know what the data is for net worth, but given that the vast majority of people worldwide barely live paycheck to paycheck, I assume even a small amount of savings puts you in a very high percentile.
The 0.1% thing ... Is that even the right label? I'm guessing one in a thousand people globally isn't using these mechanisms. The article spends some paragraphs on the world's richest person and his company's tax strategy. Is the millionaire next door quietly doing these things or is this about billionaires in which case it's more like one in a million.
They also use their wealth to rig the system (political manipulation) to the detriment of the societies that allowed them to accumulate wealth in the first place. Don't pretend they're blameless; they're parasites killing the host.
What I'm not for is letting them rig the rules of the game through unlimited political spending and not having functional social safety nets because we don't want to offend the all the future billionaires-to-be.
Basically, money makes money and at some level you get into infinite money glitch dynasties. I am no longer convinced that allowing that to happen is a good idea.
How are they killing it? Mankind is richer than they've ever been in history, and working less hours per day. Things are great. Things are way better than 40 years ago, 400 years ago.
15 comments
"Untaxed Wealth of Richest 0.1% Is More Than Assets of World’s Poorest Half"
Owning offshore assets also doesn’t automatically exempt you from paying taxes, since your tax liability is mostly determined by your tax residency.
Clickbait articleI suspect that we won't pay 100% tax on whatever we earn when we sell, if we sell, but if we were taxed 100% I'm sure something nice could be done with that money.
I'm quite impressed by the rhetorical skill here. It's easy to overlook that what they're saying is "by taxing something/someone 100%, it would be possible to...", ie. "If pigs would fly, it would be possible to..." and making it easy to overlook that takes real skill.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
Don't know what the data is for net worth, but given that the vast majority of people worldwide barely live paycheck to paycheck, I assume even a small amount of savings puts you in a very high percentile.
What I'm not for is letting them rig the rules of the game through unlimited political spending and not having functional social safety nets because we don't want to offend the all the future billionaires-to-be.
Basically, money makes money and at some level you get into infinite money glitch dynasties. I am no longer convinced that allowing that to happen is a good idea.