Wealth accumulates exponentially. A tax system that is linear (after a certain threshold) will always lose the race.

It's not just the tax system, it's the whole ultra-capitalist tax, legal and regulatory framework around companies, offshore investments, international trade etc etc that started up in the Reagan - Thatcher years. Fiddling around at the edges with wealth taxes won't change much, because the wealth will just re-accumulate. The issue is with how income is taxed - investment, dividend, capital gains and inheritance income, ie how rich people make money, are (in most if not all capitalist countries) taxed at a far lower level than earned income, ie how not-rich people make money.

Earned income is also subject to social security, which is usually capped so lower-income earners pay a higher %age of their income in social security. At the same time, income tax usually have no-tax and low-tax thresholds, so the really low-income working poor and unemployed pay very little in absolute tax (even though a smal %age of a tiny amount is still a significant hardship factor for people struggling to get to the end of the month). So the middle classes pay the bulk of taxes, who also pay the highest %age of their income as tax.

There are also surely a huge raft of allowable dodges whereby the ultra-rich can use trusts, special investment vehicles etc so that 'their' houses, cars, private islands etc are not directly owned by them so they're not tax liable for any of that. That's why nothing will change until ultimate beneficial ownership of trusts and companies is fully disclosed as part of the G20 tax harmonisation, and countries that allow secrecy are embargoed out as pariahs like apartheid South Africa was.

Six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion... is that 3.1 billion put together or averaged each? Because the 99.9999% thing seems to suggest collectively. Which is... shocking really. Mind you, you can't measure everything of value in $... can you?

You've got an extra 9 there.

As reported for a wealth of $1T = $1e12, so losing 99.999% of that leaves a fraction 1e-5, leaving them with $1e7 or $10M; you'd leave them with $1M, i.e. bare millionaires.

(and btw probably the summed wealth of the poorest 3G people, if I recall how these comparisons are usually worked).

"Mind you, you can't measure everything of value in $... can you?"

In what is now, and has been for quite some time, a capitalistic world, yes, you can.

But, never forget, a capitalist is someone who knows the prices of everything and the value of nothing.

Why does Jef Bezos want to have industry in space?

In space, he can't hear is employees scream

any dissent and those dissenting will be shown the door or in this case, the Air-Lock and the provision of a spacesuit will be way out of their pay grade.

This nonsense has been put to bed by Tim Worstall (formerly of this parish):

"Oxfam has told us all that 8 people have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of humanity and this is an outrage, Something Must Be Done. OK, so, let us think about what must be done then. The most obvious point being that we should reverse the outrage. Take all the money off the rich people and give it to the poor people. At which point that 50% of humanity would each get $100 or so.

This is not actually a solution to anything at all, is it? Thus the original problem being complained of is not a problem, is not an outrage and does not require that something be done."

https://www.timworstall.com/2017/01/solving-oxfams-problem/

Ah, so like microcredit. Apparently it can be quite the help for the very poorest, even if it wouldn't go far in the UK.

No one in the UK is anywhere near the bottom 50% poorest on the planet.

I never said they were. My trailing "wouldn't go far" remark was merely emphasis to avoid anyone thinking I was suggesting it might be (given this is a UK site, contexts are often implicitly UK focussed)

I wonder what % of what ranking gave money to those richest people?

I mean, I can't imagine that the 50% of the poorest on the planet have even HEARD of Amazon, let alone have a mobile phone and a credit card (except Visa) in order to buy something from there... Not that the "problem" lies with anyone, it's just how the money flows about that's fascinating; whilst most of us just sit there like a cat watching the fish in one of those wave machine aquariums.

Not sure that is entirely true. There are quite a few (illegal) slaves in the UK. Reports that immigrants working in nail bars, car valeting operations and other workers are effectively on slave, or no, wages, and of course sex slaves trafficked into the UK for the prostitution 'industry' are arguably well in the 50% worst off people in the world. The film 'Taken' may be fiction, but it is all too real to some.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/21/what-does-your-10-manicure-really-cost-the-unvarnished-truth-about-nail-bars

https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/taking-a-closer-look-into-the-uks-human-trafficking-crisis

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/16/true-human-cost-5-pound-hand-car-wash-modern-slavery

Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. If you gave $100 dollars to anyone making nothing or very little, it helps. In the US, we're not at the point that it will significantly change anyones life, but in third world countries (ignoring the logistics of actually getting the money there and keeping it in the individuals hands...) it would make a huge difference.

It's all a thought experiment anyway, as everyone knows that it won't and couldn't happen. Increased taxes on someone who makes literally billions of dollars a year? Sure, would be nice, except that no one does - they gain 'value' through investments and companies. Bezos/Musk don't have a money vault that gets filled daily so they can swim in it...

This is all just a way to increase donations from people that can't afford it, by pointing out that people have ludicrous amounts of money so you should... make up for it by giving yours away? I really have never understood that argument.

"Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. If you gave $100 dollars to anyone making nothing or very little, it helps."

Only if those people already live in a "wealthy" society so that they could actually do something useful with it. But the poorest in the world aren't just cash poor. $100 won't get them a school to get educated in, won't build a water treatment system so they have clean water to drink, won't create a healthcare system so they get treated for malaria, they won't even have a shop to buy a cheap mosquito net from. Just giving cash to people who have no means to use it doesn't help.

You could take Oxfam's solution - take the money but only give it to the poor people who are willing to be raped by Oxfam employees.

Since El Reg sacked Warstall and co in order to attract the student demographic, you won't find many readers willing to accept inconvenient facts like that.

I used to find the articles from Warstall, Page etc. interesting even if I didn't always agree with them. It'd be nice to have more stories like that.

Re: Worstall I always wondered what happened there. Reg used to feel a lot more centre right or at least classical liberal-ish until recently, even the comments section has got a lot more angry and left wing. My fave Andrew Orlowski was a self-described left-winger but v happy with hard economic facts (and indeed happily writes excellent articles for the Telegraph today). It's a mystery to me.

That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, just that the suggestion isn't a good solution.

It would have been good if the article had mentioned that Gates stands alone in the group (I think) as someone who actually trying to use his wealth to benefit humanity with his foundation. The others seem more content on playing with rockets and yachts though...

What happened to the Gates Halo* icon?

*pun unapologetically intended

Yep, The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation helped substantially in the effort to wipe out polio.

Warren Buffet is at No 10 in the list and he's pumped a lot of his money into the foundation, the other 8 on the list appear to be more interested in feathering their own nests, or islands in the case of Larry...

Baldy Bezos and Mucky Musk are in a race to own whole planets where they can become Emperor (clothes optional).

Even average wage earners can't afford to buy one of Musk's computers on wheels. The rich begat the rich.

Although that there Virgin guy does make a jolly nice pickle to go on your ploughman's.

[1]I can't believe people haven't heard of Richard Branston.

Or is it that brown pickle is a cardinal sin on a cheese ploughman's? I know the reg's commentard community holds very strong views on certain comestible conundrums, such as the brown vs red sauce on a bacon butty debate.

[1] https://www.lbbonline.com/news/branston-pickle-sets-the-record-straight-on-richard-branson-mix-up

Agreed, Gates should not be listed except perhaps as a shining example of what the rest should do.

They don't honestly believe that money is real do they? Just because something like Tesla was pumped to the $1trillion mark doesn't mean you can actually squeeze that cash out of Musk. It's amazing he's even managed to liquidate a fraction of his holdings so far.

No, they can't.

Governments can only act within their purview. A billionaires' purview is the entire world.

Whatever one government does, a billionaire can undo by playing in another country. Problem solved.

The only way to bring billionaires to heel is to have a World Government.

The only problem with that is ensuring that billionaires don't buy it out.