undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbmitc3y ago0 comments

What is "that" that you're referring to? Tax rates have absolutely fallen. If you're referring the article's claim that the rich pay much more taxes in terms of dollar amount, that doesn't necessarily mean anything because the rich are wealthier and more concentrated than every before.

For example:

> According to investment bank Credit Suisse, the fraction of global household wealth held by the richest 1 percent of the world's population increased from 42.5 to 47.2 percent between the financial crisis of 2008 and 2018. To put it another way, as of 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much household wealth as the lower half of the world's population combined—about 3.5 billion people; today Oxfam estimates that number as 26.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...

0 comments

sgjohnson3y ago

Looking at the total world population is completely meaningless. This is because fertility rate in virtually every developed country is below 2, however there are extremely poor countries where the population is exploding with fertility rates above 8.

> To put it another way, as of 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much household wealth as the lower half of the world's population combined—about 3.5 billion people; today Oxfam estimates that number as 26.

This is also completely meaningless, because that figure is largely imaginery and super illiquid. Rest assured, Jeff Bezos can't cash out of Amazon and expect to be paid the current market rate for all of his shares.

It's also completely meaningless because the world's bottom 3.5 billion people control virtually no wealth whatsoever. Makes for a good headline though

bmitcOP3y ago

For the U.S. alone, I think the stat is something like out of every 10,000 people, it's something ridiculous like either 40 or even 4 people that own as much wealth as the bottom 6,000 combined. It may honestly be something worse like 1. I remember calculating this from a research paper I read, and I feel like 10,000 was the sample population needed to get a non-fractional rich person or persons. This is absurd.

greedo3y ago

Bezos may not be able to sell his shares in significant amounts, but he can sure use them for collateral. This is a very basic strategy for the super rich...

prottog3y ago

It'll be interesting to see if that strategy continues to work in a rising-rates environment, where the value of AMZN or TSLA may not be infinitely appreciating.

1 more reply

sgjohnson3y ago

Yes, I mentioned it above. There’s no way of stopping it, because the modern financial system is extremely dependent on such collaterization.

Bezos uses it to spend his pile of money, but for one Bezos there are 100 businesses who use the same exact instrument as a perfectly legitimate way to borrow money.

It’ll be extremely hard to draw the line between both use cases in a way Bezos couldn’t exploit it.

rightbyte3y ago

Accumulated spending should be a better measurement than current wealth. Otherwise those with debt has negative wealth.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbmitc3y ago0 comments

For example:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...

0 comments

sgjohnson3y ago

It's also completely meaningless because the world's bottom 3.5 billion people control virtually no wealth whatsoever. Makes for a good headline though

bmitcOP3y ago

greedo3y ago

Bezos may not be able to sell his shares in significant amounts, but he can sure use them for collateral. This is a very basic strategy for the super rich...

prottog3y ago

It'll be interesting to see if that strategy continues to work in a rising-rates environment, where the value of AMZN or TSLA may not be infinitely appreciating.

1 more reply

sgjohnson3y ago

Yes, I mentioned it above. There’s no way of stopping it, because the modern financial system is extremely dependent on such collaterization.

Bezos uses it to spend his pile of money, but for one Bezos there are 100 businesses who use the same exact instrument as a perfectly legitimate way to borrow money.

It’ll be extremely hard to draw the line between both use cases in a way Bezos couldn’t exploit it.

rightbyte3y ago

Accumulated spending should be a better measurement than current wealth. Otherwise those with debt has negative wealth.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse