this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
926 points (99.3% liked)

World News

51270 readers
2060 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Fewer than 60,000 people – 0.001% of the world’s population – control three times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity, according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.

The authoritative World Inequality Report 2026, based on data compiled by 200 researchers, also found that the top 10% of income-earners earn more than the other 90% combined, while the poorest half captures less than 10% of total global earnings.

Wealth – the value of people’s assets – was even more concentrated than income, or earnings from work and investments, the report found, with the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%.

In almost every region, the top 1% was wealthier than the bottom 90% combined, the report found, with wealth inequality increasing rapidly around the world.

“The result is a world in which a tiny minority commands unprecedented financial power, while billions remain excluded from even basic economic stability,” the authors, led by Ricardo Gómez-Carrera of the Paris School of Economics, wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

I have to respond to "with at a 50% wealthtax over 20 million euros" because that is the easy answer

Europe already has a lot of experience with taxing the ultra wealthy

In 1990, about a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but by 2019, all but three had eliminated the tax because of the difficulties and costs associated with both design and enforcement.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#In_practice

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Paris (AFP) – Bernard Arnault, the billionaire boss of the world's biggest luxury conglomerate LVMH, has picked a fight with the French government by suggesting that companies could flee France for the United States to escape a planned tax hike.

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20250130-french-luxury-billionaire-sparks-tax-debate-with-threat-to-leave

And it's hard because there will always be another country that wants rich people

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Tax transfers to those countries to the ever-loving-shit degree. Want to move money to this tax paradise? Sure. We take 90%. Not on profit. On transfer. Let's see them work around that. Want to move it to a country that doesn't have the same rules? Sure. We take 90% of that.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 4 points 3 days ago

Then they'll be welcome to fuck right the fuck off, but I absolutely assure you, there is someone willing to start a new company in their place, if the market was previously in the "make you a billionaire" territory, but now the person can "only" accrue €20 million, someone will fill that hole, but that someone won't be a piece of shit like Jeff Besos, because they won't be allowed to become that economically powerful. Instead it'll be 500 smaller companies, all competing for the market.

What happened to the different european wealth taxes is that it was implemented with loopholes as big as the France-England tunnel, and any rich asshole who didn't feel like paying taxes, could just transfer it somewhere else, and call it an investment. Instead, tax every single cent they move out of the country at 90%. That way they're forced to invest their money in the country they're making their money off of. Maybe give them a rebate if they move it within Europe to facilitate growth across the union, let's tax that at 45% instead then.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

That's because they left giant loopholes in those laws. Like allowing the ultra wealthy to remove their money from the country. They got that money because of the country, they don't get to then fuck off and take that wealth out of the country. They're free to leave, the majority of their wealth is not.

And poor nobles can cry me a river, sell the assets. Take the stocks too. The entire idea of shareholders running the company needs to die anyways.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If it's a free market within the country, the vaccuum created by the wealthy leaving will be filled in by smaller business servicing the same industries.

Big corporations that have wealth concentrating with the top brass and share holders do not add anything of value to the market over cooperatives and other worker owned incentive structures.