It’s LITERALLY just 16 families. Far fewer people than .1 percent. It’s 2 ten millionths of one percent.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
298 points (97.2% liked)
World News
55406 readers
162 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
8.2 billion people, so 0.1% of that is 8.2 million people
2.83 trillion dollars held in accounts to evade taxes means that approximately $345,000 per person is held in accounts offshore.
That seems low, in a way. I expected it to be in the dozens of millions per person. It's also possible that my math is wrong.
The 0.01 holds 1.77 trillion so the distribution is skewed. Furthermore there are likely many thousands of accounts in the 'small' amounts of tens of thousands, ostensibly for every member of an extended family in things like trust funds, etc.
I think it's 0.1% of wealth owning households, which would be closer to $1.42 million.
That would also mean the richest 0.01% are close to $8.85 million each.
Assuming 2 billion households, this is rough math.
Rough is right, in more ways than one.
If America has a major revolution, I suspect many of the financial assets would turn out to be smoke and mirrors, rather than something of concrete value.
3.55 trillion in untaxed wealth
Say you taxed them 50% of their unrealized gains, and assuming 50% of it was to the US, what percent of the US deficit could be paid?
I'd guess around 2-3%?
Laws are for little people.
Lmao, so this is fully excluding the official "net worth". Just a handful of trillions here and there
Wonder if there's a way to force all outstanding Treasury notes outside of the country to need to return back to treasury for renewal or otherwise be written off at invalid debt.
Not while the people running the USA are the same people who hide their immense wealth overseas.
Given the last Panama paper and similar leaks it’s much broader than USA :(
It’s a global class issue.
When Ukraine ousted their previous dictator, the Planet Money podcast had a piece on how the Ukrainian presidential palace had been effectively looted, and traced the absurdly long chain of shell companies that kept the actual owner obscured.
Also, the Vox/Netflix documentary series “Explained” had a genuinely good episode about billionaires. One of the things they brought up was that oligarchs store a lot of money in US real estate, like super-expensive NY condos.
This book is good too. Started in Boston and part of why America even exists as a country.
It was nearly a decade ago when I saw this, but there was a documentary, I think it was called The Spider's Web or something like that.
Basically it was about shell companies and "trusts," mostly centered in the Virgin Islands, where billionaires were keeping their real wealth obscured in off-shore banks.
It was mostly focused on wealthy Brits who derived their generational wealth from colonialism. It was pretty interesting though.
The guy was doing some investigative journalism, but obviously he wasn't let into any of the buildings, and once he started to attract notice he started receiving threats and stuff. But he traced money trails backwards and they basically never led to individual people who could be held accountable for the money or how it was used.
Looking back now, I wonder how much of Epstein's wealth was in those banks...
Are there shadow billionaires? Billionaires who are not officially recognized as such en cause they do such a good jon of hiding their wealth?
Oh yeah, I just mean academically. We would need to be on a much different anti oligarchy footing to actually implement. But in the meantime, I like to noodle out systems and mechanisms.
Let's say we eventually get to a renewed trust buster energy like we used the last time we broke up the corporate giants long ago.
Is there anything we could realistically do even with full control of the government, or is that money basically propping up the entire interconnected world economy?
We need a global solution. The scale of economic power is larger than the scale of our democratically controlled political power. Nationalism won't save us.
Well you got to work ontologically. A nation is a system with existing controls. And national control is already dicey at best. Implementing a direct solution at the international level would require a system that to my knowledge doesn't even exists. We treat the UN like an optional club not a world government.
The scale at which we exert political control has been increasing consistently for, approximately, the last 10k years. The rate has been accelerating too. There's no reason to believe that the current hodge podge of 300 or so regional factions (nations) is the natural or final solution, and every reason to expect that political/economic power will escalate to the global level, and soon.
We should be focused on ensuring that transition is peaceful and collaborative, that the solution we converge on is fair and sustainable. We should especially be concerned with preventing that transition from being a dominance play by the players currently holding the greatest defacto power (i.e., economic, transnational corporations, and military, the USA).
One major impediment to this is the idea that all we---the ordinary people all over the world---can do is fight amongst each other at a national level about relatively trivial social issues (i.e., by voting for the marginally less bad alternative in our national elections). We can, and should, organise and strive for a democratic, fair, well-designed global political system that keeps economic power in check.
Other major impediments are the lies that a) the only alternative to the current system is totalitarian communism, or other 19th century political models, and b) that we---you and I---need to have a perfect solution in hand already. We can demand, via our respective nations, that the world's best minds come together and design the best system possible, and that was transition to that system peacefully and rationally.
Ah... So if I'm reading you right, you're saying:
Yes, no system currently accounts for what we NEED it to do. So the most DIRECT solution would be to create a new movement, a new SYSTEM of people, control, and influence that transcends existing abstractions like nationalities, race, culture, and have this ontologically encompassing system implement that change from its larger frame of reference.
I like that. I hadn't considered that approach and it's probably right on the money. I think the first step is recognition of the issue and the need for such a movement. As such... Have you thought about names?
Something you would call such an endeavor, or movement, or coalition. Something that would be instantly recognizable as to what the goal or at least spirit or attitude behind it would be? Probably seems like a silly thing to fixate on this early, but sometimes the right name is a powerful tool.
Lol.
I actually agree with most of your statement, except for "DIRECT". That's not part of my claim, and it shouldn't be a goal of yours.
The terrain has been rigged so that all the direct, the locally advantageous, locally practical solutions lead back to the same toxic equilibrium. We are stuck in a historical basin of attraction and need to escape it.
The only long-term stable/viable solution, the only solution that honours our responsibility to future generations, is to avoid the immediate direct solutions, the ones that the manipulated incentive structures are set up to anticipate, and to do what you described. I'm not claiming it's easy, or likely to happen, merely that it's our only chance to save our species from itself.
Sure sure, though I think at that point the semantics of the word "direct" is probably something we would discuss and find common ground at. By direct I simply mean whatever the shortest VIABLE route is, which may end up being quite circuitous.
The problem is that most of these assets are digitally held. What we need is an anonymous type attack against these accounts, similar in style to what they did in Mr. Robot.
Make it near impossible for the government to claw the money back.
I dunno I think the problem is the billionaires hoarding the money not the government trying to claw some of the money back, but that's just me.
If you write off Treasury notes we have to either accept that MMT is real and that we can print money when needed.
Or we'd need to destroy an equal amount of money to the treasury note.
Or if MMT isn't accurate (unlikely) then we'd see inflation as the government would effectively be unsecuring it's debts.
Well could we somehow do it via serial number on the notes maybe? Like let's say we use the event to denote a switch to color money instead of green only. And then we say in 10 years, all green money is expired and worthless, so every note has to come back into the Treasury to get renewed, and at that time be potentially subjected to repatriation taxes.
Think something like that could work?
That would be a mechanism for doing it, I'm just pointing out that, according to most economic theories (which I think are wrong) money requires Treasury notes to exist, otherwise you're printing money which most economists claim will cause inflation.
0.1% still equates to 8.1m people; instead, if we we’re to focus focus on the Top 1%, of the Top 1% of the Top 1% - that is only ~8,100 people.
Holding their feet to the fire, and getting them to co tribute their fair share - despite their dragon’s hoard of wealth - would quickly bring those below them with less wealth in line.
e.g. Make an example out of Elon Musk, and the Ellison’s would quickly fall in line.
But still to manny ordinary people rage out when higher taxes for billionaires are discussed.
Yep, these people definitely have some sort of disease. No one needs nor would be able to spend that kind of money. Just completely insane.
Its neurological basis for it is probably similar to that of hoarding. Hoarders might be billionaires who just never accumulated wealth
If it's off the books, why dont the people holding it just take the bag and run?
They won't give you more to hold onto and can afford a bigger military.
I'm talking about the individualm rob them like they rob us