I've never really stopped to think about this, exactly, but the numbers seem strikingly low. I suppose it's all what you're used to, and living here in the US things are pretty good! No wonder half the world wants to come here. I wonder if capitalism has anything to do with this wealth? In any event I figured I would post this, if nothing more than to make a few people here feel a little richer!



Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates easily qualify as part of America’s 1 percent and while it may seem like a pipe dream, reaching the milestone globally isn’t that far of a stretch.

Credit Suisse Research Institute’s 2018 Global Wealth Report found that to be among the global top 10 percent, you don’t even need six figures. A net worth of $93,170 in the U.S. is actually enough to make you richer than 90 percent of the population around the world. However, to join the global one percent in America, it takes a net worth of $871,320.

The institute notes that more than 19 million Americans currently qualify as the top one percent and more than 102 million Americans as the top 10 percent worldwide, far more than any other country. The most alarming statistic, however, is that you need to have a little more than $4,000 to your name to be among the top global 50 percent.

"While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1 percent of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10 percent of adults) owns 85 percent of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47 percent),” the report said.

Yet, there are signs that wealth inequality is no longer rising globally. The share of financial assets among the world’s richest people has been declining since its peak in 2015. While researchers predict it’s too early to tell if it’s on a downward trend, evidence suggests it may have “leveled out.”

Net worth or “wealth”, as defined by Credit Suisse, is the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. Private pension fund assets are included, but not entitlements to state pensions, the institute notes.



https://www.foxbusiness.com/fe...es-how-much-you-need

The numbers below crack me up. First, the top 1% in America aren't nearly as rich as folks want to make them sound. I think the national average for the top 1% is just over $400k/year. That's hardly the Coporate "greedy" CEO's flying around in their jets that the left make it sound like.

Also, the top 1% of all the liberal states are the richest. So when the libs talk about attacking the top 1%...it's themselves! I'd love Trump to explain these facts to rich folks who vote in these liberal states.

Here are the minimum household income needed to crack the top 1 percent in each state and the District of Columbia:

Connecticut: $700,800
District of Columbia: $598,155
New Jersey: $588,575
Massachusetts: $582,774
New York: $550,174
California: $514,694
Colorado: $458,576
Illinois: $456,377
Washington: $451,395
Maryland: $445,783
North Dakota: $445,415
Minnesota: $443,118
Texas: $440,758
Virginia: $425,144
Florida: $417,587
South Dakota: $407,406
Wyoming: $405,596
New Hampshire: $405,286
Alaska: $400,017
Pennsylvania: $388,593
Kansas: $375,344
Utah: $374,467
Georgia: $371,811
Nebraska: $363,310
Oregon: $358,937
Wisconsin: $349,905
Rhode Island: $346,657
North Carolina: $343,066
Nevada: $341,335
Delaware: $340,770
Ohio: $334,979
Oklahoma: $333,139
Tennessee: $332,913
Iowa: $331,572
Arizona: $331,074
Michigan: $328,649
Missouri: $326,839
Vermont: $321,969
Montana: $321,849
South Carolina: $318,463
Louisiana: $318,393
Indiana: $316,756
Idaho: $314,53
Hawaii: $310,5662
Maine: $303,897
Alabama: $297,564
Kentucky: $274,818
West Virginia: $258,078
New Mexico: $255,429
Arkansas: $255,050
Mississippi: $254,362


source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/2...t-of-your-state.html

Income is not the same as net worth. You don't have to bring in a large amount of income to have a large net worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
A net worth of $93,170 in the U.S. is actually enough to make you richer than 90 percent of the population around the world. However, to join the global one percent in America, it takes a net worth of $871,320.

I am surprised the number is that low, but it's a global number so doesn't mean a whole lot...there are a lot of dirt poor people around the world.

Out of curiosity I looked to find out how much your net worth would need to be to be in the top 1% in the US. Looks to be about $8 million.

Having net worth in the seven figures should be your goal, not demonized.

Glad to see my home state at 44 and current home at 50 on that list....

America's poor lives better than most of the rest of the world.

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe

So Bernie Sanders easily qualifies as a One Per Center. As do Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea -- and that's each one individually. True champions of the downtrodden they are, and have grown very rich by getting into politics.

I looked at my state, I better start robbing banks on a regular basis for bragging rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Bluecobra:
Income is not the same as net worth. You don't have to bring in a large amount of income to have a large net worth.

The opposite is also true: you can have a massive net worth and little to no income (or at least taxable income).

These two concepts are often confused when progressive folks use net worth disparities as proof of income inequality and then propose income taxes as the solution.

Financial assets plus real assets minus debts.

I could own a 8 million dollar yacht, and not be considered rich by Credit Suisse.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
Yet, there are signs that wealth inequality is no longer rising globally.

Two (related) points to make on that.

1) Wealth inequality inexorably increases. It's math. There are (and will always be) people with zero. And as long as wealth earns money (interest, capital gains) from being productively employed, it gains. Thus, the gap between zero and wealth+earnings must increase with time. Simple math fact.

2) #1 is a good thing. If wealth does not earn money from being productively employed then it won't be employed - rather than put at risk, it will be kept safe and become the equivalent of cash-stuffed-in-mattresses. It won't be used to build factories, start companies, loaned to businesses etc. and there would be a LOT more people nearer the zero-wealth end of the spectrum with the drop in employment opportunities.