Note to all billionaires especially those with holdings 50 b

What is about the rich that confuses them to the degree that as ruling class they can not fathom the historically obvious?

Is there credence through the experience of the French revolution, the Romanov massacre, the Persian Shah’s debacle, the South Vietnamese fate of the Mandarins empire of recent role-to continue to live in an obscure hope of sustaining themselves as usual.

Here I then, it must be attitude, places against and not with and through the subservient masses!

What then, is their attitude?
Here is a search into that very mystifying element of behind the concept of historical causality:

Big Money

The bad behavior of the richest: what I learned from wealth managers

The habits of the wealthiest mirror the supposed ‘pathologies’ of the poor. But while those in poverty are called lazy, the rich are dubbed bon vivants

Big Money is supported by

About this content

Brooke Harrington

Fri 19 Oct 2018 02.00 EDT

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

If nearly a decade interviewing the wealth managers for the 1% taught me anything, it is that the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor have a lot more in common than stereotypes might lead you to believe.

In conversation, wealth managers kept coming back to the flamboyant vices of their clients. It was quite unexpected, in the course of discussing tax avoidance, to hear professional service providers say things like:

“I’ve told my colleagues: ‘If I ever become like some of our clients, shoot me.’ Because they are really immoral people – too much time on their hands, and all the money means they have no limits. I was actually told by one client not to bring my wife on a trip to Monaco unless I wanted to see her get hit on by 10 guys. The local sport, he said, was picking up other men’s wives.”

The clients of this Geneva-based wealth manager also “believe that they are descended from the pharaohs, and that they were destined to inherit the earth”.

I’ve told my colleagues: ‘If I ever become like some of our clients, shoot me’

If a poor person voiced such beliefs, he or she might well be institutionalized; for those who work with the wealthy, however, such “eccentricities” are all in a day’s work. Indeed, an underappreciated irony of accelerating economic inequality has been the way it has exposed behaviors among the ultra-rich that mirror the supposed “pathologies” of the ultra-poor.

In fact, one of the London-based wealth managers I interviewed said that a willingness to accept with equanimity behavior that would be considered outrageous in others was an informal job requirement. Clients, he said, specifically chose wealth managers not just on technical competence, but on their ability to remain unscandalized by the private lives of the ultra-rich: “They [the clients] have to pick someone they want to know everything about them: about Mother’s lesbian affairs, Brother’s drug addiction, the spurned lovers bursting into the room.” Many of these clients are not employed and live off family largesse, but no one calls them lazy.

As Lane and Harburg put it in the libretto of the musical Finian’s Rainbow:

When a rich man doesn’t want to work

He’s a bon vivant, yes, he’s a bon vivant

But when a poor man doesn’t want to work

He’s a loafer, he’s a lounger

He’s a lazy good for nothing, he’s a jerk

When the wealthy are revealed to be drug addicts, philanderers, or work-shy, the response is – at most – a frisson of tabloid-level curiosity, followed by a collective shrug.

Behaviors indulged in the rich are not just condemned in the poor, but used as a justification to punish them, denying them access to resources that keep them alive, such as healthcare and food assistance. Discussion of poverty has become almost impossible without moral outrage directed at lazy “welfare queens”, “crackheads” and other drug addicts, and the “promiscuous poor” (a phrase that has cropped up again and again in discussions of public benefits over more than a century).

These disparate perceptions aren’t just evidence of hypocrisy; they are literally a matter of life and death. In the US, the widespread belief that the poor are simply lazy has led many states to impose work requirements on aid recipients –even those who have been medically classified as disabled. Limiting aid programs in this way has been shown to shorten recipients’ lives: rather than the intended consequence of pushing recipients into paid employment, the restrictions have simply left them without access to medical care or a sufficient food supply. Thus, in one of the richest counties in America, a boy living in poverty died of a toothache; there were no protests, and nothing changed.

Why are so few US politicians from the working class?

Meanwhile, the “billionaire” in the White House starts his days at 11am – the rest of the morning is coyly termed “executive time” – and is known for his frequent holidays. “Nice work if you can get it,” quipped an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

We don’t hear much about laziness, drug addiction or promiscuity among the wealthiest members of society because – unlike Trump – most billionaires are not public figures and go to great lengths to seek privacy. Thus the motto of one London-based wealth management firm: “I want to be invisible.” This company, like many other service providers to the ultra-rich, specializes in preserving secrecy for clients. The wealthy people I studied not only had wealth managers but often dedicated staff members who killed negative stories about them in the media and kept their names off the Forbes “rich list”.

Donald Trump, who starts his days at 11am, has found plenty of time for vacation. Photograph: Peter Morrison/AP

Many even present themselves as homeless – for tax purposes – despite owning multiple residences. For the ultra-rich, having no fixed residence provides major legal and financial advantages; this is exemplified by the case of the wealthy businessman who acquired eight different nationalities in order to avoid taxes on his fortune, and by the UK native I interviewed in his Dubai apartment building:

“I am not tax resident anywhere. The tax man says ‘show me a utility bill’, and the only utility bill I can present is for the house I own in Thailand, and it’s in a language that the European authorities aren’t familiar with. With all the mobility going on in the world, international marriages, governments can’t keep up with people.”

Meanwhile, the poor can end up being “resident nowhere” because no one will allow them to stay in one place for very long; as the sociologist Cristobal Young has shown, the majority of migrants are poor people. In addition, the poor are routinely evicted from housing on the slightest pretext, frequently driving them into homeless shelters – which are in turn forced to move when local homeowners engage in nimby (not in my back yard) protests. Even the design of public spacesis increasingly organized to deny the poor a place to alight, however temporarily.

It is as if the right to move around, to take up space, and to direct your own life as you see fit have become luxury goods, available to those who can pay instead of being human rights. For the rich, deviance from social norms is nearly consequence-free, to the point where outright criminality is tolerated: witness the collective shrug that greeted revelations of massive intergenerational tax fraud in the Trump family.

For the poor, however, even the most minor deviance from others’ expectations – like buying ice cream or soft drinks with food stamps – results in stigmatization, limits on their autonomy, and deprivation of basic human needs. This makes life far more nasty, brutish and short for those on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, creating a chasm of more than 20 years in life expectancy between rich and poor. This appears to some as a fully justified consequence of “personal responsibility” – the poor deserve to die because of their moral failings.

So while the behavior of the ultra-rich gets an ever-widening scope of social leeway, the lives of the poor are foreshortened in every sense. Once upon a time, they were urged to eat cake; now the cake earns them a public scolding.

Brooke Harrington is a professor of economic sociology at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of Capital without Borders: Wealth Management and the One Percent (2016, Harvard University Press

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

The contrarian basis of Capital in all it’s manifestations: Tlme granted, will explore the metaphisical aspects including magic rites thereof. (Work in progress)

Canada THE FIFTH ESTATE

B.C. billionaire brothers’ use of KPMG offshore tax scheme exposed in emails

Federal auditors request for accounting giant’s records stalls yet again, 7 years into tax probe

Harvey Cashore, Frédéric Zalac - CBC News

Posted: 4 Hours Ago
Last Updated: 3 Hours Ago

Records show that Caleb Chan, pictured, and his brother Tom were part of a group of more than 20 wealthy Canadians whose families invested in a sophisticated KPMG tax dodge first developed out of the accounting firm’s Vancouver office in the late 1990s. (Edmond So/South China Morning Post)

The Chan family is one of the wealthiest in British Columbia and is known for donating millions to philanthropic causes.

Led by billionaire brothers Caleb and Tom Chan, the family donated $40 million this year to a Vancouver Art Gallery relocation project that will be christened the Chan Centre for the Visual Arts.

But right across the street from the existing gallery, a far different portrait of the Chan brothers is emerging, as they battle the Canada Revenue Agency in the Federal Court of Canada over a decade-long offshore tax dodge.

Numerous internal emails filed in court this summer reveal the Chans’ involvement in a KPMG offshore scheme so secret that neither tax collectors nor even their spouses were ever supposed to find out.

The Chan brothers may be the most prominent of several wealthy families whose identities have been revealed over the past few years as being part of the scheme.

The records show the Chan brothers were part of a group of more than 20 wealthy Canadians whose families had at least $5 million to invest in a sophisticated KPMG tax dodge first developed out of the accounting firm’s Vancouver office in the late 1990s.

Tom Chan, seen speaking in April 2017, at a performance to mark the 20th anniversary of the Chan Centre at UBC. (Paul Joseph/UBC)

The KPMG offshore tax dodge helped wealthy clients set up shell companies on the Isle of Man, a tiny tax haven in the middle of the Irish Sea. It promised clients they could pay “no tax” on their investments and hide money from their ex-spouses.

Over time, interest income from the overseas investments would accumulate untaxed, and funds would also be sent back to family members or other “eligible persons” as untaxed “gifts.”

The CRA says the so-called gifts were masking actual income and, in another tax case against KPMG clients, has called the operation a “sham.”

The agency first pursued the KPMG scheme in 2012, but then fought for years in court to have the accounting firm reveal the names of the wealthy Canadians involved.

Brothers cited for philanthropy in Canada and abroad

Born in Hong Kong, the Chan brothers immigrated to Canada in 1987.

Their business empire includes golf courses in B.C. and other real estate holdings. Their combined net worth is estimated at $1.07 billion, according to Canadian Business magazine.

In 1990, Caleb and Tom Chan received honourary degrees from the University of British Columbia after being cited for their philanthropic work, including a $10 million donation to the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at UBC.

The family’s donation to the Vancouver Art Gallery earlier this year was billed as the largest private donation to the arts in the province’s history. At the donation ceremony in January, Caleb Chan’s son Christian said the family was “honoured to participate in a project [that is of] such vast public benefit while also fitting so well into our family’s intergenerational charitable mandate.”

The Chans donated $40 million this year to a Vancouver Art Gallery relocation project that will be christened the Chan Centre for the Visual Arts. (Vancouver Art Gallery)

But around the same time, the battle between the Chan brothers and the CRA was beginning to escalate. New documents would soon be filed in federal court that show a pattern of extreme secrecy in their offshore accounts, set up in part to avoid paying Canadian taxes on their Hong Kong family charitable trusts.

In one email from 2002, a KPMG accountant explained the Chan brothers did not want their spouses to learn about their offshore dealings.

“The concern is that the wifes [sic] are not to know about the assets of the husbands,” said the accountant’s email.

In the Isle of Man, where the shell companies were set up, the response was to “rest assured” that the Chans’ partners would not find out.

THE FIFTH ESTATE CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in offshore tax scheme

Panama Papers spur billion-dollar global tax windfall, with $15M found in Canada

The documents show tax authorities were also not supposed to find out. The court records show the Chans did not disclose their offshore companies in the Isle of Man during a 2005 audit, even after being required to list all their global assets.

Another email exchange between accountants reveals plans to route communication outside Canada as much as “humanly possible” and through a law firm that might allow the players to “claim solicitor/client privilege.”

Despite the secrecy provisions built into the Chans’ offshore accounts, the records show CRA discovered their involvement in late 2016 from officials in the Isle of Man.

‘Stalling tactics’

The Chan brothers have since engaged in a legal battle against the CRA, hoping to block tax auditors from reviewing an additional 1,000-plus documents in KPMG’s possession, arguing that they are protected by solicitor-client privilege.

“These are stalling tactics, they are just trying to buy time,” said tax law professor Marwah Rizqy, who has reviewed the Chan court file and studied what has become known as the KPMG Isle of Man tax dodge for several years.

While some of the withheld documents may be legally privileged, tax experts consulted by The Fifth Estate and Radio-Canada’s Enquête say the revenue agency faces an uphill struggle getting access to all records from the Chan brothers they’re entitled to examine.

“How is the CRA supposed to follow through on its widely proclaimed desire to address offshore evasion and avoidance when the necessary information about wealthy Canadians cannot be obtained or reviewed?” said University of Victoria tax law professor Geoffrey Loomer.

The KPMG offshore tax dodge helped wealthy clients set up shell companies on the Isle of Man, a tiny tax haven in the middle of the Irish Sea. (Reinhard Krause/Reuters)

The court records show that as recently as last year, the CRA had not been able to obtain the crucial “general ledgers” from Caleb and Tom Chan’s offshore companies. The general ledgers would typically show money coming out of the offshore accounts, and where the money ended up.

In December 2017, Caleb Chan told tax auditors he did not have a copy of the general ledger.

Did company ledgers go missing?

Isle of Man documentspreviously obtained by The Fifth Estate and Enquête show that the Chan offshore companies were shut down in 2012, and that all “books, documents and all papers” were ordered “destroyed.”

Daniel Reid, a lawyer for the Chans, said his clients were not aware of the destruction order and that electronic records still exist. The lawyer did not respond to a question about whether the CRA had been provided the ledgers.

A KPMG flow chart of the secret Chan companies, filed in court, shows that the brothers named themselves, their spouses and their children as the “eligible persons” that could receive the tax-free “gifts.”

Reid said that any tax benefits for the Chan companies would have only been for international philanthropy outside Canada, and that no money ever went to family members.

Reid also said that KPMG told them “eligible persons” had to be named, even if they were not going to receive any money.

The internal flow chart, written at the time the offshore companies were set up, stated that donating to a charity was part of the scheme, warning advisors for the Chan brothers that it “must be a bona fide/genuine charity.”

Rizqy said it is hard to understand the Chan family position that none of them ever received the “gifts” from the Isle of Man, since they were the ones named as being “eligible” to receive them.

A KPMG flow chart of the secret Chan companies, filed in court, shows that the brothers named themselves, their spouses and their children as the “eligible persons” that could receive the tax-free “gifts.” (Federal Court of Canada)

“They wrote in black and white that there were members of the family who would be able to receive funds from the Isle of Man. And, they never divulged this information to the tax authorities,” Rizqy said.

Rizqy said that even if the Chan family did give all of its investment money to charity, their offshore investment income still needed to be declared on their taxes. In Canada, residents are taxed on their worldwide income.

“Whether this was intended for philanthropy or not, we have tax rules,” said Rizqy, adding that governments need all Canadian residents to pay their fair share of taxes for social programs and other expenditures. “We cannot be above the law.”

Exactly how much money the KPMG tax dodge diverted from the federal treasury remains unknown, but court records and documents in other cases suggest there were tens of millions in undeclared income in a scheme the CRA has alleged “intended to deceive.”

KPMG profited from the scheme by receiving annual fees from the clients, and in some cases, a percentage of the taxes dodged. The most successful KPMG salespeople were known internally as “product champions.”

‘We have a deep love for Canada’

Lawyers for the Chan brothers say that throughout their involvement in the KPMG offshore planning, they were relying entirely on the advice of tax professionals.

In a statement sent to The Fifth Estate/Enquête on Aug. 26, Caleb Chan added their goal was always to ensure the “sustainability” of their charitable giving.

“We have a deep love for Canada and the utmost respect for its laws and institutions. Any suggestion that we would deliberately act counter to this goes against everything that we stand for.”

“Our family has faith that our good and genuine intentions, our values, and our contributions to make Canada and the world a better place will ultimately shine through.”

The recently opened court documents reveal a major rift developing between the Chan brothers and KPMG. In a “memorandum of fact and law” filed in April, lawyers for the Chan brothers state that senior KPMG executives were “directly involved” in the scheme, including Walter Pela, now the firm’s B.C. managing partner.

The memorandum also says that others involved in the “planning, implementing, considering, or unwinding” of the offshore companies included Elio Luongo, the current chief executive officer of KPMG Canada, and Gregory Wiebe, the head of KPMG Canada’s tax office.

KPMG disputes those descriptions. In a statement to The Fifth Estate/Enquête, the firm said representatives for the Chan brothers “incorrectly” named Luongo, Wiebe and Pela, and said those three executives had “no involvement in the Chan engagements and/or didn’t provide any information, advice and expertise.”

This KPMG scheme first attracted the attention of the Liberal-controlled finance committee in 2016. The committee held hearings into the accounting firm and its offshore scheme that promised “no tax” on investments.

Liberal MPs ended up voting to shut down their inquiry prematurely, at KPMG’s urging. The accounting firm had argued that a continuation of the inquiry might unfairly prejudice any future court action against KPMG and its clients.

KPMG has said its Isle of Man scheme complied with all laws, but also said it would no longer support this kind of offshore tax planning.

To date, the CRA has settled all court actions related to the KPMG scheme instead of going to trial.

With files from Kimberly Ivany

If you have tips on this story, you can contact Harvey Cashore by email at Harvey.Cashore@cbc.ca, on Twitter @harveycashore or by phone at 416-526-4704.

CRA deploys new weapons against tax evasion: Freezing assets, seizing property

Limits to growth refers to limitations in the biosphere that can provide energy and material resources ultimately needed to back up all those numbers in hard drives.

We are likely approaching them, and no amount of increased credit can defy physics.

I think so as well, with that point probably passed with ex
President Carter’s push for growth limits and conservation.
He became an unpopular one-termer, for this , for the most part.

Instead of a wall there should be an help-corridor, a zone where people are helped with basic resources and allowed to stay there and build something. A no-country between Mexico and the US, in which there is only habeas corpus guaranteed by an otherwise non interventionist Swiss Guard.

People need to prove something here.
Its no longer about finding happiness in a pre existing structure. It is about proving the vitality of mankind.

Jeff Bezos could pay for this whole thing if he wanted.
There is need of a purpose for money.

Speak to the money kid. Speak to the money and treat it like you want it to treat you.
The golden rule applied to gold.
What could be wrong?

Guess!

It would upset the structural fidelity of the setup. The minutes blemish in that freeze, could cause avalanches of reprisal. At that level , the very eye of the target has to be within quanta of measurement. They are afraid of meltdown, at a time where systemic cohesion is at a very minimum.

Jacob, I said this all along, even when St.James and Armenius were around , that a net capital holding of one trillion individual holding , would indicate an unacceptable level, be it psychological, inflationary, or otherwise.
The world economy would basically begin to be run on futures of shortening risk, and it would probably create an unsupported weakness in the world economy, even one predicated on the NWO.

But I hold to that, even against variable odds, as mostly based on a gut feeling.

To be actually charitable, the wealthy possessing a great deal of political power, could actually make charity more viable in terms of more then periodic nominal contributions, coming through as gestures of good will.
They could more strongly endorse to clarify such hardly noticed but not less disturbing noticed on executive power, as they appear to snow ball by the minute.
Trump seriously is starting to advocate 3 or more presidential terms.
One notable significant comment suggests the seriousness of the sitiation:

"Below the level of rationality , there exists the primal question, -what shadows follow is from the choice between the evil genius , or the managed one?

Can this, does this question signal some kind of doubly vested metaphor in the new schemal working of things, of deciding what route best describes
venturing into the proper road to peace, rather than war?

For the former describes a split between good and evil, while the later above it and beyond."

I think this is a very intelligent observation, one that could have repercussions toward a slippery slope argument, that may effect a world politic on a complete irreversible trend, even to the point of total negation, toward dialectical reasoning.

youtu.be/9jK-NcRmVcw

Next stop : national socialism, but don’t use this retroactively.

youtu.be/vXwcacayJzA

youtu.be/u9sq3ME0JHQ

This contradicts your earlier statement, that these limits can be expanded.

Good Observation:

Sure for at least 2 reasons.

The first is an anti derivative differentiation toward an absolute .
In Marxian terms , it is through the concept of diminishing returns that a perpetual expansion of value has to take place. But incrementability subscribes to divisibility of available assets against demand.

If markets are not growing at the same rate as the supply is either over or underproduced, the producer will fix prices by dumping oversupplies into waste, rather then reduce prices.

The divisbility of supply, will tend to represent a model of infinite progression, where there never will be an absolute lack of supply, only the prices put on them will rise accordingly.

This is the whole idea behind the NWO, primarily, and secondarily, the threat of nuclear world war.

The other rationale is purely philosophical, and it has to do with Trumpism’s neo-Kantian resurgence, which does emphasize negative values associated with ontological negation and contradictions in material synthesis , that structuralism has not been able to edify.

The contradiction of having reached limits and being unlimited by it’s perpetual mobility toward an unreachable absolute are both contradictory and not.

Charity, like pity, is bad stuff, man. Nothing good ever comes of it. It’s demeaning to those who accept it, and creates for those who give it an air of pretentious philanthropy… who then receive appreciation that’s grossly disproportionate to the sacrifice they’ve actually made.

In most cases, those who are wealthy enough to give substantial charity have not given anything they have struggled to obtain.

An act of charity for the bourgeois is a plublicity stunt and not much more.

Given the constitution the Constitution is in, acts of charity, even perceived as mere gestures of goodwill may help.

In fact, I remember such belated gestures in the midst of the Obama tenure, where luxury rents were severely cut. In fact the proposal was to get rid of a very visible homelessness in major metropolitan areas, so that visitors can not comment on the extreme conditions that exist in the richest country on earth.
Have also discovered a naive strain I am grappling with, where in the same very affluent country, such gestures would suffer an incredible blow to social psychological morale, up the feeding chain, everyone demanding a peace of the pie.
Particularly and ironically, it would go against the contradictory fact of immigrants coming in en-masse, who can accommodate to dire circumstances , and incidentally, that is why the cross breeding of ideas and effects in the present administration appear cross wired intentionally.
Other than that the proof is in the pudding, how come the socialised health care system is still hanging, the wall has not been built? , etc. etc…
Everyone is coming and going through the back door, closed and non-transparent.
But there is a sliver lining here, and it is constructed of a necessity that perhaps transcends human understanding.
May be too much to do about anything.

Even if prices are removed, there will still be an absolute lack of supply because of physical limitations.

there are two ways to go after this the first is if you keep halving the supply, you never run out. At least not until the planetary orbit keeps us fairly safe.
We can subsist on far less by wasting far less.

The second is the misconception about saving supplies.

Once there was a man a fairly good and heroic man, trying to do good and he lived with his father in law who was a Chinese emperor.
This is a story my old grandad told me.
This simply heroic man did something useful and life saving for the emperor, and the emperor told him he would grant him anything he wished for. (Within reason)
So the guy thought about it and said all I want is one grain of rice on a square on a chess board.
Then 2 grains on the second square 4 on the third and so on until all the squares are covered.
The emperor thought his sin in law lost it, and readily agreed, thinking what a fool ,he could have asked for half the kingdom.
So the order was given to comply, and the emperor went to sleep.

Next morning, alarmed underlings woke up the emperor in great frenzy and told him that there is no amount of rice in China to be able to provide enough rice for the hero.
The emperor was incredulous.

Well doubling shows the same propensity to halving, but upwards. There is physically no limit either forwards or backwards to reach an absolute supply.

The number of billionaires world wide is increasing, directly corresponding to the effects of evaluating currencies. Low end billionaires like Trump and Oprah, (around 2 nil.) are dwarfed by top of the line ones like the Wal-Mart’ s and the like.

Millionites are becoming mere upper middle class figures, still clunking to less subtle forms of identification , such as ascribing social class with the car they drive.

The United States has the most billionaires in the world, with 420 more than the next closest country, China, according to Wealth-X’s 2019 Billionaire Census report. There are 705 billionaires in the United States, 285 in China, 146 in Germany, 102 in Russia, and 97 in the United Kingdom.

The combined net worth of US billionaires exceeds the total billionaire wealth of the next eight highest-ranked countries (China, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong, India, and Saudi Arabia).

The report further stated that the top 15 countries accounted for 75 percent of the global billionaire population. Collectively, the 1,942 billionaires in these 15 countries are worth $6.8 trillion — that accounts for 79 percent of total global billionaire wealth in 2018.

Here are the top 15 countries with the most billionaires in 2019.

  1. United States
    Jeff Bezos
    Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Getty
    Number of billionaires: 705

Total billionaire wealth: $3,013 billion

Richest Individual: Jeff Bezos ($118 billion)

  1. China
    Jack Ma
    Jack Ma. VCG/VCG via Getty Images
    Number of billionaires: 285

Total billionaire wealth: $996 billion

Richest Individual: Jack Ma ($41.8 billion)

  1. Germany
    dieter schwarz
    Dieter Schwarz. 60pages.com/north-and-south/
    Number of billionaires: 146

Total billionaire wealth: $442 billion

Richest Individual: Dieter Schwarz ($23.6 billion)

  1. Russia
    moscow russia skyline
    Moscow, Russia. Shutterstock
    Number of billionaires: 102

Total billionaire wealth: $355 billion

Richest Individual: Leonid Mikhelson ($21.6 billion)

  1. United Kingdom
    Jim Ratcliffe
    Jim Ratcliffe. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
    Number of billionaires: 97

Total billionaire wealth: $209 billion

Richest Individual: Jim Ratcliffe ($18.7 billion)

  1. Switzerland
    ernesto bertarelli
    Ernesto Bertarelli. AP PhotoKEYSTONE/Dominic Favre
    Number of billionaires: 91

Total billionaire wealth: $240 billion

Richest Individual: Ernesto Bertarelli ($16 billion)

  1. Hong Kong
    Hong Kong
    Hong Kong. Jessica Hromas/Getty Image
    Number of billionaires: 87

Total billionaire wealth: $259 billion

Richest Individual: Li Ka-Shing ($30.8 billion)

  1. India
    Mukesh Ambani
    Mukesh Ambani. Reuters/Amit Dave
    Number of billionaires: 82

Total billionaire wealth: $284 billion

Richest Individual: Mukesh Ambani ($49.5 billion)

  1. Saudi Arabia
    saudi arabia
    Saudi Arabia. adznano3/Shutterstock
    Number of billionaires: 57

Total billionaire wealth: $147 billion

Richest Individual: Alwaleed Al Saud ($14.7 billion)

  1. France
    bernard arnault
    Bernard Arnault. Reuters
    Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $195 billion

Richest Individual: Bernard Arnault ($88.5 billion)

  1. United Arab Emirates
    04_Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque_Abu Dhabi_United Arab Emirates
    Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. TripAdvisor
    Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $165 billion

Richest Individual: Majid Al Futtaim ($5.13 billion)

  1. Brazil
    Jorge Lemann
    Jorge Paulo Lemann. Scott Olson/Getty
    Number of billionaires: 49

Total billionaire wealth: $154 billion

Richest Individual: Jorge Paulo Lemann ($22.4 billion)

  1. Italy
    Giovanni Ferrero
    Giovanni Ferrero. REUTERS/Giorgio Perottino
    Number of billionaires: 47

Total billionaire wealth: $141 billion

Richest Individual: Giovanni Ferrero ($24.2 billion)

  1. Canada
    Canada
    Canada. Flickr/Kris Arnold
    Number of billionaires: 45

Total billionaire wealth: $87 billion

Richest Individual: Sherry Brydson ($8.39 billion)

  1. Singapore
    Wee Cho Yaw
    Wee Cho Yaw. Reuters
    Number of billionaires: 39

Total billionaire wealth: $84 billion

Richest Individual: Wee Cho Yaw ($8.53 billion)

More: CEO World Contributor contributor 2019 Billionaire

[quote=“Meno_”]
The number of billionaires world wide is increasing, directly corresponding to the effects of evaluating currencies. Low end billionaires like Trump and Oprah, (around 2 nil.) are dwarfed by top of the line ones like the Wal-Mart’ s and the like.

Millionites are becoming mere upper middle class figures, still clunking to less subtle forms of identification , such as ascribing social class with the car they drive.

The United States has the most billionaires in the world, with 420 more than the next closest country, China, according to Wealth-X’s 2019 Billionaire Census report. There are 705 billionaires in the United States, 285 in China, 146 in Germany, 102 in Russia, and 97 in the United Kingdom.

The combined net worth of US billionaires exceeds the total billionaire wealth of the next eight highest-ranked countries (China, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong, India, and Saudi Arabia).

The report further stated that the top 15 countries accounted for 75 percent of the global billionaire population. Collectively, the 1,942 billionaires in these 15 countries are worth $6.8 trillion — that accounts for 79 percent of total global billionaire wealth in 2018.

Here are the top 15 countries with the most billionaires in 2019.

  1. United States
    Jeff Bezos
    Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Getty
    Number of billionaires: 705

Total billionaire wealth: $3,013 billion

Richest Individual: Jeff Bezos ($118 billion)

  1. China
    Jack Ma
    Jack Ma. VCG/VCG via Getty Images
    Number of billionaires: 285

Total billionaire wealth: $996 billion

Richest Individual: Jack Ma ($41.8 billion)

  1. Germany
    dieter schwarz
    Dieter Schwarz. 60pages.com/north-and-south/
    Number of billionaires: 146

Total billionaire wealth: $442 billion

Richest Individual: Dieter Schwarz ($23.6 billion)

  1. Russia
    moscow russia skyline
    Moscow, Russia. Shutterstock
    Number of billionaires: 102

Total billionaire wealth: $355 billion

Richest Individual: Leonid Mikhelson ($21.6 billion)

  1. United Kingdom
    Jim Ratcliffe
    Jim Ratcliffe. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
    Number of billionaires: 97

Total billionaire wealth: $209 billion

Richest Individual: Jim Ratcliffe ($18.7 billion)

  1. Switzerland
    ernesto bertarelli
    Ernesto Bertarelli. AP PhotoKEYSTONE/Dominic Favre
    Number of billionaires: 91

Total billionaire wealth: $240 billion

Richest Individual: Ernesto Bertarelli ($16 billion)

  1. Hong Kong
    Hong Kong
    Hong Kong. Jessica Hromas/Getty Image
    Number of billionaires: 87

Total billionaire wealth: $259 billion

Richest Individual: Li Ka-Shing ($30.8 billion)

  1. India
    Mukesh Ambani
    Mukesh Ambani. Reuters/Amit Dave
    Number of billionaires: 82

Total billionaire wealth: $284 billion

Richest Individual: Mukesh Ambani ($49.5 billion)

  1. Saudi Arabia
    saudi arabia
    Saudi Arabia. adznano3/Shutterstock
    Number of billionaires: 57

Total billionaire wealth: $147 billion

Richest Individual: Alwaleed Al Saud ($14.7 billion)

  1. France
    bernard arnault
    Bernard Arnault. Reuters
    Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $195 billion

Richest Individual: Bernard Arnault ($88.5 billion)

  1. United Arab Emirates
    04_Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque_Abu Dhabi_United Arab Emirates
    Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. TripAdvisor
    Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $165 billion

Richest Individual: Majid Al Futtaim ($5.13 billion)

  1. Brazil
    Jorge Lemann
    Jorge Paulo Lemann. Scott Olson/Getty
    Number of billionaires: 49

Total billionaire wealth: $154 billion

Richest Individual: Jorge Paulo Lemann ($22.4 billion)

  1. Italy
    Giovanni Ferrero
    Giovanni Ferrero. REUTERS/Giorgio Perottino
    Number of billionaires: 47

Total billionaire wealth: $141 billion

Richest Individual: Giovanni Ferrero ($24.2 billion)

  1. Canada
    Canada
    Canada. Flickr/Kris Arnold
    Number of billionaires: 45

Total billionaire wealth: $87 billion

Richest Individual: Sherry Brydson ($8.39 billion)

  1. Singapore
    Wee Cho Yaw
    Wee Cho Yaw. Reuters
    Number of billionaires: 39

Total billionaire wealth: $84 billion

Richest Individual: Wee Cho Yaw ($8.53 billion)

At 3 % interest one billion can generate this much net a day:

=82, 191.00 ~ eighty two thousand one hundred ninety one dollars

Here is what it cost to shelter LA’s homeless-half of all US homeless:

laist.com/2018/06/22/heres_what … helter.php

That is 657 million a year for half of US population per year. Double that is 1,314 billion a year. for total US approx. population for housing.Food may be double that , so maybe 3 billion or 150,000 dollars a day for the complete package per day.

Now, added to the argument that according to civic analysis, it would cost less to cover that then to manage the homeless population per municipal law, the question becomes inescapable , why prefer homelessness ?

The answer given by Silhouette, , that such a move would prove ideologically unproductive or logically unsound , makes some kind of sense.

I or, may be that such move would be overtly idiosyncratic.