The super-rich and where they hide their wealth

For a list of countries and the Total Wealth stored there, see here: Ultra high-net-worth individual

Scroll down to the list titled: Largest UHNW Population, 2018

"NW" stands for Net Worth, and the list of countries and total Net Worth of the ultra-rich has been estimated. The source of the data is mentioned as Credit Suisse. Which may or may not be exact.

Just because the figures are country-wise does not mean that the listing pertains only to American individuals. Quite likely, the individuals in question simply like to have their wealth managed in America. It is therefore highly likely they are of a mixed-nationality source.

Who's surprised that the US is at the top of the list? Money begets money ...

 

Um... what exactly is wrong with "hiding their wealth" ?
(Assuming they're not trying to avoid paying legal taxes, of course)
Shouldn't they only be taxed on their wealth once, when they earned it as income?

Now land property and natural resource ownership might be seen as another matter (the Henry George argument) but that type of property is more difficult to hide; I assume we're not talking about that here.

Can we please draw a distinction between income and wealth here, or do you just view them all as pretty much the same?

 

AMERICA'S RUSH TO RICHES

I am talking about Wealth, the simple notion of accumulated riches.

Wealth is what? It is the product of income for some but not all. It is also an accumulation of money permitted by low taxation, which is called "riches".

Why should a country not want to put a limit on that amount! Speed kills. So does Wealth! Why should it go to a select few and remain within that family forever. What a waste!

Exaggerated wealth kills opportunity that could be attributed to social-services* had sufficient taxation been in place. Social Services for as many as possible is FAR, FAR MORE IMPORTANT than people accumulating Wealth that they don't even need and they pass it on to children who never worked to obtain it. (The Trump family is a prime example!)

It is a simple matter of "human-decency" that America apparently either has long since forgot in its mad rush-to-riches or never sufficiently learned ... !

*And the good-lord knows that America's societal needs are in great demand given - for instance - the exorbitant number of individuals in prisons! When some people are too dumb to get a decent but basic job so they go stealing, then something is fundamentally wrong, wrong, wrong! (And that "something" is an obvious lack of sufficient schooling!)

 

UPPER INCOME TAX-RATE TRECK TO THE BOTTOM

Yes, very simply it goes like this: As regards Wealth, too much is too much.

Especially when a country had a high income-tax rate (of around 90%) and a democrat PotUS (called Kennedy) lowered it out of consideration of how his father helped him win the presidency.

Then, years later, Reckless Ronnie comes along and says the drop in Upper Income Taxation is NOT ENOUGH. We the rich are getting screwed!

And so the top-rates start their trek-down to rock-bottom.

 

Yes, very simply it goes like this: As regards Wealth, too much is too much.

Especially when a country had a high income-tax rate (of around 90%) and a democrat PotUS (called Kennedy) lowered it out of consideration of how his father helped him win the presidency. Then, years later, Reckless Ronnie comes along and says the drop in Upper Income Taxation is NOT ENOUGH. We the rich are getting screwed!

And so the top-rates start their trek-down to rock-bottom.


The upper-income tax rate above should go back to 70%! And stay there ... !!!

 

OUR COLLECTIVE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Higher Upper-income rates will allow tax revenues that could pay for both a National Healthcare System and Free Tertiary-level education.

We could halve the humongous amount of money wasted on the DoD, and employ it also to send all our kids into a Tertiary-level education. Of course, some will say that is already happening by means of National Service in the DoD.

The DoD is not the place to accomplish the necessary education of our young. The results presently are lamentable.

If you must understand how urgent is the necessity, I suggest you go here: OECD Data - Adult Education Attainment. Note the level of the US way, way below other countries today!:

Whilst we spend more than half of our National Discretionary Spending on the DoD - see that graphic here:



Our high-school completion rate is decent. The quality of that education remains a state-by-state assessment.

The Post-secondary Degree completion rate is pathetic at around 30%. And that happens because the advanced-education is far too costly. Even in a state-school, the cost of A four-year degree is $14K a year. Which is evidently too expensive for the two-thirds who do not obtain that degree. And which is why that outcome must change. It must become as costly as a high-school diploma for as many as possible.

As I never tire of saying: Education is key to the future economic well-being of all Americans ... !

 

Oupps, sorry for the dual-display - the Web-connect became tricky this morning ...

 

Yes, very simply it goes like this: As regards Wealth, too much is too much.

Especially when a country had a high income-tax rate (of around 90%) and a democrat PotUS (called Kennedy) lowered it out of consideration of how his father helped him win the presidency. Then, years later, Reckless Ronnie comes along and says the drop in Upper Income Taxation is NOT ENOUGH. We the rich are getting screwed!

And so the top-rates start their trek-down to rock-bottom.

 

WHO GETS MORE FOR THEIR TAX DOLLAR? FRANCE OR THE US?

Wealth is evidently the aggregate of Net Taxable Income. Ipso facto, the less you pay in taxes the more Wealth accumulated. Not so difficult to understand, right?

But, the issue of Societal Fairness does not stick its ugly-nose into the matter in the US like the EU does. In Europe upper-income taxation is of course higher. In fact, much higher than in the US.

From the Brookings Institute here: Tax Policy Center Briefing Book

One final note from the site - the total tax burden (in relation to GDP) of any developed nation is the highest in France at around 47%. In the US it is half that amount. But! I get nearly free two key services in France.

Meaning what? These:
*My family pays next-to-nothing for any healthcare service whatsoever and
*My kids all got a post-graduate degree for "next to nada" (about $1.4K tuition-fee per year plus room&board).

When the US gets to THAT level of universal subsidy (of key lifestyle necessities) do let me know. I figure the French tax-payer gets more for their tax-paid (both state and national) than an American does*.

Meaning what? Half the US Discretionary Budget goes to the DoD? Ask yourself for what? Also ask yourself if you and your family in the US would not be better off with a European-style expenditure of higher taxation on key-services to the people ....

*The Tax-Budget is paying for a Very, Very Expensive DoD that we do not really need.

 

Can you explain why income saved and not spent is any worse than income that goes to a rich person and is immediately spent?

That's the issue I'm trying to focus in on here.


Also, please try to stay on-topic. You have a tendency in these economic threads to go off on wild tangents that are only remotely/indirectly related to the topic at hand.

 

A LIFE OF CRIME

It's not a question of the individual, but an entire nation of individuals. That is the focus of Social Democracy national objectives. Doing more for all the people and not just a select minority of the exaggerated rich, which is inherently unfair.

Too much money that goes to the rich because of low-taxation means VERY SIMPLY that the government does not get it and spend it on more of the population. So, the question devolves not to "Who is paying too much in taxation", but "Who is not getting enough key-services that are central to their quality-of-life."

Which frankly means - for instance - in the US, they have forsaken National Healthcare (and so they have a lifespan 4-years less than Europeans!)

Health Care and Adequate Education are the two key National Services that any country should provide its people:
*A great many American students who would like to go through post-secondary education but cannot afford the $14K a year of in costs, and thus end up below the Poverty Threshold.
*And the lesser lifespan (79 instead of 83 in Europe) due to insufficient health-care.

The above National Service provisions to its people would GREATLY improve their living-standards* ...

PS: And just might prevent more American children from opting for a life-in-crime.

 

It seems you did not answer the question.

Once again, you seem to be going somewhat off-topic off on a tangent. That is only indirectly/tangentially related to what we are talking about.

It is of course your thread. But if you are trying to really emphasize a specific point or aspect of an issue, you should really try to stay more on-topic and focused in subject of discussion.

 

Why am I supposed to care how much wealth someone else has?

 

Your own link states-

That kinda blows the whole "wealth begets wealth" thing out of the water.

It seems that building one's own wealth from scratch is a far more popular method of begetting wealth than begetting it from wealth.

 

But we still don't have an answer to the question: "Why should I care how much wealth another person has?"

 

Counting other people's wealth, and scheming up ways to beget at it, is a burning, maniacal obsession of the far leftist.

 

Envy. One of the seven deadly.

 

Your own link states that only an average of 18% of a billionaire's wealth is "liquid", and that portion is generally subject to heavy taxation.

That said, the other 82% of an average billionaire's wealth isn't "hidden" or "stored", because it's most likely tied up(invested) in a business, or many different businesses. ie- the lion's share of Bill Gates' money is "stored" in Microsoft, Jeff Bezos' wealth is "hidden" in Amazon, etc...

In order to transfer this wealth to "social services", that wealth would need to be liquidated(sold) and that wouldn't work, because doing so would drive stock prices haywire and crash companies, massive ginormous companies, and then all the wealth would evaporate with the killing of the golden goose that formerly was the source of all the wealth.

This lunatic liberal "wealth transfer" scheme would only work if wealth was actually as simplistic as lunatic liberals picture it in their minds- a big Scrooge McDuck money vault that could be raided for its piles of gold and stack of precious gems. Take the loot piles from the rich, and shovel them out to the poor.

Sorry, the real world wealth is a bit more complicated than the cartoon version of it that plays in the minds of liberals.

 

"Not unprecedented" doesn't mean "not stupid".

Going over Niagara Falls in a barrel is also "not unprecedented".

 

And...why should I care what someone else earns?

 

I think there is a huge difference between wealth (that someone already got and paid taxes on) and income.

So long as we are talking about wealth that got created as a product of human labor (i.e. not land or natural resources, or things that derive most of their value thereof), I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.

But maybe perhaps someone could enlighten me.

 

The notion that all privately held wealth has already been taxed as income is not only false, it is wildly false. With such a claim, you only disqualify yourself from serious discussion.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about, or trying to get at.

I was saying if it has already been taxed as income.

If it has not, then that is obviously a different story.

 

I don't see any "if" in your sentence. You said that it had been taxed as income.

But how could we tell?

 

60% are solely self made (not by inheritance) and 32% do not have a college degree.