How much money do you need to lead an “ideal life”? Watch this report to know more.

The Good Life | How rich do you want to be?

Worst sufferers of the climate change are the poor nations of the world and on the contrary the biggest contributors are the developed nations of the word. Can India play pivotal role in breaking this menace and hypocrisy, Nitin Gadkari answers.

WION Climate summit: Can India play a pivotal role in breaking rich-poor gap? Nitin Gadkari answers

To attract investment and aid it’s ailing economy, Pakistan on Saturday has decided to offer a permanent residency scheme for wealthy foreign nationals. These may include Sikhs, Afghans and Chinese. &nbsp;

Although it may be an attempt to boost national growth, only time will tell how many people actually opt for it considering the numerous issues the country has been facing.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pm-imran-khan-launches-pakistans-first-ever-national-security-policy-444651" hreflang="en">PM Imran Khan launches Pakistan's first-ever national security policy</a>

With the help of an overnight tweet, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said that the new scheme was in line with the new National Security Policy, which was formally launched by Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In line with new Nat Security policy through which Pak declared GeoEconomics as core of its Nat security doctrine,Government has decided to allow Permanent residency scheme for foreign nationals,new policy allows foreigners to get permanent resident status in lieu of investment
— Ch Fawad Hussain (@fawadchaudhry) <a href="https://twitter.com/fawadchaudhry/status/1481995458805473283?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"In line with new National Security Policy, through which Pakistan declared geo-economics as the core of its national security doctrine, the government has decided to allow permanent residency scheme for foreign nationals, the new policy allows foreigners to get permanent resident status in lieu of investment," the tweet said. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/watch-didnt-expect-player-imran-khan-to-tax-condoms-bilawal-bhutto-444254" hreflang="en">Watch | Didn’t expect ‘player’ Imran Khan to tax condoms: Bilawal Bhutto</a>

This scheme looks to target the Sikhs, who are living in Canada and USA and want to invest in religious sites, like Kartarpur Corridor. It also aims to attract rich Afghans, who are relocating to Malaysia, Turkey and other countries, after the takeover of Taliban. &nbsp;

It will also target Chinese nationals, who wish to establish industrial units in Pakistan. &nbsp;&nbsp;

"It's a historic step, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, foreigners are being allowed to invest in the real estate sector," he said. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;

To attract investment and aid it’s ailing economy, Pakistan on Saturday has decided to offer a permanent residency scheme for wealthy foreign nationals. These may include Sikhs, Afghans and Chinese.

To attract investment and aid it’s ailing economy, Pakistan on Saturday has decided to offer a permanent residency scheme for wealthy foreign nationals. These may include Sikhs, Afghans and Chinese. Although it may be an attempt to boost national growth, only time will tell how many people actually opt for it considering the numerous issues the country has been facing. Also Read: PM Imran Khan launches Pakistan's first-ever national security policy With the help of an overnight tweet, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said that the new scheme was in line with the new National Security Policy, which was formally launched by Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday. In line with new Nat Security policy through which Pak declared GeoEconomics as core of its Nat security doctrine,Government has decided to allow Permanent residency scheme for foreign nationals,new policy allows foreigners to get permanent resident status in lieu of investment — Ch Fawad Hussain (@fawadchaudhry) January 14, 2022 × "In line with new National Security Policy, through which Pakistan declared geo-economics as the core of its national security doctrine, the government has decided to allow permanent residency scheme for foreign nationals, the new policy allows foreigners to get permanent resident status in lieu of investment," the tweet said. Also Read: Watch | Didn’t expect ‘player’ Imran Khan to tax condoms: Bilawal Bhutto This scheme looks to target the Sikhs, who are living in Canada and USA and want to invest in religious sites, like Kartarpur Corridor. It also aims to attract rich Afghans, who are relocating to Malaysia, Turkey and other countries, after the takeover of Taliban. It will also target Chinese nationals, who wish to establish industrial units in Pakistan. "It's a historic step, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, foreigners are being allowed to invest in the real estate sector," he said. (With inputs from agencies)

To aid ailing economy, Pakistan offers permanent residency to rich foreign nationals

India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with the top 1 per cent of the population holding more than one-fifth of the total national income in 2021 and the bottom half just 13 per cent, according to a report. The report, titled ‘World Inequality Report 2022’, has been authored by Lucas Chancel, co-director of the World Inequality Lab, and coordinated by several experts, including French economist Thomas Piketty.

It further said India is now among the most unequal countries in the world. The report pointed out that the average national income of the Indian adult population is ₹2,04,200. While the bottom 50% earns ₹53,610, the top 10 per cent earns more than 20 times (₹1,166,520).

“While the top 10% and top 1% hold respectively 57 per cent and 22 per cent of total national income, the bottom 50 per cent share has gone down to 13 per cent “India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with an affluent elite,” it said.

According to the report, average household wealth in India stands at ₹983,010. It observed that the deregulation and liberalisation policies implemented since the mid-1980s have led to “one of the most extreme increases in income and wealth inequality observed in the world”.

It also said gender inequalities in India are very high. "The female labour income share is equal to 18 per cent. This is significantly lower than the average in Asia [21 per cent, excluding China],” the report said, adding that this value is one of the lowest in the world, slightly higher than the average share in the Middle East (15%).

<iframe allow="attribution-reporting" aria-label="Advertisement" data-google-container-id="6" data-gtm-yt-inspected-1_19="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-2204733_50="true" data-load-complete="true" frameborder="0" height="1" id="google_ads_iframe_/22390678/Hindu_Desktop_Inarticle_1x1_0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/22390678/Hindu_Desktop_Inarticle_1x1_0" role="region" scrolling="no" srcdoc="" tabindex="0" title="3rd party ad content" width="1"></iframe>

The world map of inequalities reveals that national average income levels are poor predictors of inequality — among high-income countries, some are very unequal (such as the US), while others are relatively equal (Sweden).

“The same is true among low- and middle-income countries, with some exhibiting extreme inequality [Brazil and India], somewhat high levels (China) and moderate to relatively low levels [Malaysia, Uruguay],” it said.

The report noted that income and wealth inequalities have been on the rise nearly everywhere since the 1980s, following a series of deregulation and liberalisation programs which took different forms in different countries.

“The rise has not been uniform: certain countries have experienced spectacular increases in inequality [including the US, Russia and India] while others [European countries and China] have experienced relatively smaller rises,” it said. The report pointed out that in 2021, after three decades of trade and financial globalisation, global inequalities remain extremely pronounced.

“They are about as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century,” it said.

Lucas Chancel, lead author of the report, said the Covid crisis has exacerbated inequalities between the very wealthy and the rest of the population.&nbsp;"Yet, in rich countries, government intervention prevented a massive rise in poverty, this was not the case in poor countries. This shows the importance of social states in the fight against poverty,” he said.

India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with the top 1 per cent of the population holding more than one-fifth of the total national income in 2021 and the bottom half just 13 per cent, according to a report.

India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with the top 1 per cent of the population holding more than one-fifth of the total national income in 2021 and the bottom half just 13 per cent, according to a report. The report, titled ‘World Inequality Report 2022’, has been authored by Lucas Chancel, co-director of the World Inequality Lab, and coordinated by several experts, including French economist Thomas Piketty. It further said India is now among the most unequal countries in the world. The report pointed out that the average national income of the Indian adult population is ₹2,04,200. While the bottom 50% earns ₹53,610, the top 10 per cent earns more than 20 times (₹1,166,520). “While the top 10% and top 1% hold respectively 57 per cent and 22 per cent of total national income, the bottom 50 per cent share has gone down to 13 per cent “India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with an affluent elite,” it said. According to the report, average household wealth in India stands at ₹983,010. It observed that the deregulation and liberalisation policies implemented since the mid-1980s have led to “one of the most extreme increases in income and wealth inequality observed in the world”. It also said gender inequalities in India are very high. "The female labour income share is equal to 18 per cent. This is significantly lower than the average in Asia [21 per cent, excluding China],” the report said, adding that this value is one of the lowest in the world, slightly higher than the average share in the Middle East (15%). The world map of inequalities reveals that national average income levels are poor predictors of inequality — among high-income countries, some are very unequal (such as the US), while others are relatively equal (Sweden). “The same is true among low- and middle-income countries, with some exhibiting extreme inequality [Brazil and India], somewhat high levels (China) and moderate to relatively low levels [Malaysia, Uruguay],” it said. The report noted that income and wealth inequalities have been on the rise nearly everywhere since the 1980s, following a series of deregulation and liberalisation programs which took different forms in different countries. “The rise has not been uniform: certain countries have experienced spectacular increases in inequality [including the US, Russia and India] while others [European countries and China] have experienced relatively smaller rises,” it said. The report pointed out that in 2021, after three decades of trade and financial globalisation, global inequalities remain extremely pronounced. “They are about as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century,” it said. Lucas Chancel, lead author of the report, said the Covid crisis has exacerbated inequalities between the very wealthy and the rest of the population. "Yet, in rich countries, government intervention prevented a massive rise in poverty, this was not the case in poor countries. This shows the importance of social states in the fight against poverty,” he said.

India among most unequal nations; top 1% of population holds 22% of national income: Report

A plan by House Democrats to reduce taxes for high earners in states like New Jersey, New York and California in their $1.85 trillion social policy spending package is becoming an early political albatross for the party, with Republicans already mobilizing to accuse Democrats of defying their populist principles in favor of cutting taxes for the rich.

The criticism offers a preview of the emerging battle lines ahead of next year’s midterm elections and underscores the challenge that Democrats face when local politics collide with the party’s national ambitions to promote economic equity. For Republicans who have defended their 2017 tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, the proposal by Democrats to raise the limit on the state and local tax deduction is an opportunity to flip the script and cast Democrats as the party of plutocrats.

“I think they’re struggling to maintain their professed support for taxing the wealthy, yet they are providing a huge tax windfall under the SALT cap,” said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, referring to the acronym for state and local taxes. “If your priorities are working families, make that the priority, not the wealthy.”

Republicans, looking for ways to finance their own tax cuts in 2017, capped the amount of state and local taxes that households could deduct from their federal tax bills at $10,000. Democrats from high-tax states like New York, New Jersey and California have spent years promising to repeal the cap and are poised to lift it to $80,000 through 2030, before reducing it back to $10,000 in 2031. The cap, which is currently set to disappear in 2025, would then expire permanently in 2032.

The bill would cut taxes sharply for the next five years by increasing the value of the deduction, but it would mean higher taxes in the following five years than if the cap were allowed to expire. The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that over the course of a decade, the changes to the deduction would amount to a tax increase that would raise about $14.8 billion in revenue.

The House proposal is likely to change in the Senate, where it has its own champions and detractors. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, has embraced a more generous deduction while Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Senate Budget Committee, has sharply criticized the House proposal. He joined Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in negotiating an income cap — as high as $550,000, though that number is in flux — on who can receive the deduction.

This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee released survey data that it said suggested most voters in battleground states would be less likely to vote for Democrats who supported a policy that gave tax cuts to rich homeowners in New Jersey, New York and California. It said that the Democratic Party would have “to defend its politically toxic policies which penalize hardworking families to reward liberal elites.”

Prominent tax and budget analysts have argued that expanding the deduction amounted to an unnecessary giveaway to the rich.

According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a family of four in Washington making $1 million per year would receive 10 times as much tax relief next year from expanding the state and local tax deduction as a middle-class family would receive from another provision in the social policy package, an expansion of the child tax credit. Citing calculations from the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the group said that two-thirds of households making more than $1 million a year would get a tax cut under the legislation because of the increase to the state and local property tax deduction.

The proposal has put some Democrats on the defensive.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, said this week that tax giveaways to millionaires sounded like something that Republicans would have come up with.

“Proponents have been saying that the BBB taxes the rich,” Golden said on Twitter, referring to the bill known as the Build Back Better Act. “But the more we learn about the SALT provisions, the more it looks like another giant tax break for millionaires.”

The issue is further complicating passage of the bill, which Democrats are trying to get through both the House and Senate without Republican support. Given their thin majorities in both chambers, Democrats can afford to lose no more than three votes in the House and none in the Senate.

Some Democrats in Congress from states with high taxes have made the inclusion of the more generous deduction as a prerequisite for their backing the bill.

“There’s a series of competing views on SALT, but I mean, it’s pretty obvious something has to be in there, that’s for sure,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The unexpectedly tight race for governor of New Jersey was a clear reminder that the state’s high property taxes — and the limit on their deductibility — are high on voters’ lists of worries, strategists and other political observers said.

“As COVID kind of recedes, taxes are taking its place as the top issue in New Jersey,” said Michael DuHaime, a Republican political strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

The SALT cap “essentially resulted in a pretty large tax increase for a lot of families” in the suburbs of New York City, DuHaime said. With Democrats in power, those homeowners are counting on some relief, he said.

Now that former President Donald Trump is out of office, New Jersey has “reverted to its mean” of being deeply concerned about the state’s affordability, said Julie Roginsky, a strategist who advised Gov. Philip Murphy, a Democrat, during his first campaign in 2017. The average homeowner in the state pays about $10,000 in property taxes, she said, with the cap hitting about one-third of New Jersey residents.

“I think it’s absolutely a line in the sand that some of these vulnerable members of Congress need to draw,” Roginsky said.

Several Democrats who represent affluent suburban areas where most homeowners pay much more than $10,000 a year in property taxes will face stiff challenges in the midterm election next year, strategists said. Their short list of vulnerable House members include Josh Gottheimer, Mikie Sherrill and Tom Malinowski from North Jersey, and Andy Kim, who represents part of the Jersey Shore, all of whom support raising the SALT cap.

If the Democrats can engineer a change to the SALT deduction that is retroactive to cover 2021 taxes, those incumbents can campaign on having provided a tax cut, Roginsky said. But if they fail, their Republican opponents — like Thomas Kean Jr., a state senator who is challenging Malinowski — will be able to use that against them, she said.

“It may not play well in Vermont or in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s district, but if you’re Nancy Pelosi, you understand that the road to your majority runs through places like suburban New Jersey and suburban California and suburban New York,” Roginsky said.

Ben Dworkin, the director of the Rowan Institute for Public Policy and Citizenship at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey, cited the unexpectedly close race for New Jersey governor this year. He noted how effective Murphy’s challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, was in playing to voters’ feelings about the state’s high taxes.

“He hammered home that issue,” Dworkin said.

Public polling leading up to that election showed that affordability in general was the “top issue” in the state, he said.

“From an elected official standpoint, anything you can do to alleviate the pressure of taxes, as a change in the SALT cap would do, is a huge benefit,” Dworkin said.

Even one of the leading Republicans in the state, Jon M. Bramnick, the minority leader in the state Assembly, said he would applaud the Democrats if they provided some tax relief to New Jersey residents.

“If Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill and the others stand up to the Republicans and get it done, I’ll say I’m with them and I’m proud of their work,” Bramnick said.

Gottheimer said in an interview that people had been migrating away from New Jersey because the cap on the deduction meant an increase in the cost of living. He dismissed criticism that lifting the cap was a tax cut for the rich, arguing that was not the case in his state.

“My job is to fight for my district, and again if other states or districts don’t want it they don’t have to take it,” Gottheimer said. “If you come to my state, this is an existential threat.”

Yet the overall economic impact of the cap in high-tax states is not as clear as those who support raising it suggest.

Daniel Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago whose research has focused on taxes, argued that under the current proposal, millionaires would actually face higher taxes than they otherwise would have in the second half of the decade.

And while he said liberals should be concerned that the law would mean some rich people would get big tax breaks, he argued that Republicans were being disingenuous in their attacks given the structure of their $1.5 trillion tax cut four years ago.

“I think any Republican who voted for the 2017 tax law loses the ability to criticize liberals for regressive tax policy,” Hemel said.

A plan by House Democrats to reduce taxes for high earners in states like New Jersey, New York and California in their $1.85 trillion social policy spending package is becoming an early political albatross for the party, with Republicans already mobilizing to accuse Democrats of defying their populist principles in favor of cutting taxes for the rich.

A plan by House Democrats to reduce taxes for high earners in states like New Jersey, New York and California in their $1.85 trillion social policy spending package is becoming an early political albatross for the party, with Republicans already mobilizing to accuse Democrats of defying their populist principles in favor of cutting taxes for the rich. The criticism offers a preview of the emerging battle lines ahead of next year’s midterm elections and underscores the challenge that Democrats face when local politics collide with the party’s national ambitions to promote economic equity. For Republicans who have defended their 2017 tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, the proposal by Democrats to raise the limit on the state and local tax deduction is an opportunity to flip the script and cast Democrats as the party of plutocrats. “I think they’re struggling to maintain their professed support for taxing the wealthy, yet they are providing a huge tax windfall under the SALT cap,” said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, referring to the acronym for state and local taxes. “If your priorities are working families, make that the priority, not the wealthy.” Republicans, looking for ways to finance their own tax cuts in 2017, capped the amount of state and local taxes that households could deduct from their federal tax bills at $10,000. Democrats from high-tax states like New York, New Jersey and California have spent years promising to repeal the cap and are poised to lift it to $80,000 through 2030, before reducing it back to $10,000 in 2031. The cap, which is currently set to disappear in 2025, would then expire permanently in 2032. The bill would cut taxes sharply for the next five years by increasing the value of the deduction, but it would mean higher taxes in the following five years than if the cap were allowed to expire. The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that over the course of a decade, the changes to the deduction would amount to a tax increase that would raise about $14.8 billion in revenue. The House proposal is likely to change in the Senate, where it has its own champions and detractors. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, has embraced a more generous deduction while Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Senate Budget Committee, has sharply criticized the House proposal. He joined Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in negotiating an income cap — as high as $550,000, though that number is in flux — on who can receive the deduction. This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee released survey data that it said suggested most voters in battleground states would be less likely to vote for Democrats who supported a policy that gave tax cuts to rich homeowners in New Jersey, New York and California. It said that the Democratic Party would have “to defend its politically toxic policies which penalize hardworking families to reward liberal elites.” Prominent tax and budget analysts have argued that expanding the deduction amounted to an unnecessary giveaway to the rich. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a family of four in Washington making $1 million per year would receive 10 times as much tax relief next year from expanding the state and local tax deduction as a middle-class family would receive from another provision in the social policy package, an expansion of the child tax credit. Citing calculations from the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the group said that two-thirds of households making more than $1 million a year would get a tax cut under the legislation because of the increase to the state and local property tax deduction. The proposal has put some Democrats on the defensive. Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, said this week that tax giveaways to millionaires sounded like something that Republicans would have come up with. “Proponents have been saying that the BBB taxes the rich,” Golden said on Twitter, referring to the bill known as the Build Back Better Act. “But the more we learn about the SALT provisions, the more it looks like another giant tax break for millionaires.” The issue is further complicating passage of the bill, which Democrats are trying to get through both the House and Senate without Republican support. Given their thin majorities in both chambers, Democrats can afford to lose no more than three votes in the House and none in the Senate. Some Democrats in Congress from states with high taxes have made the inclusion of the more generous deduction as a prerequisite for their backing the bill. “There’s a series of competing views on SALT, but I mean, it’s pretty obvious something has to be in there, that’s for sure,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. The unexpectedly tight race for governor of New Jersey was a clear reminder that the state’s high property taxes — and the limit on their deductibility — are high on voters’ lists of worries, strategists and other political observers said. “As COVID kind of recedes, taxes are taking its place as the top issue in New Jersey,” said Michael DuHaime, a Republican political strategist with Mercury Public Affairs. The SALT cap “essentially resulted in a pretty large tax increase for a lot of families” in the suburbs of New York City, DuHaime said. With Democrats in power, those homeowners are counting on some relief, he said. Now that former President Donald Trump is out of office, New Jersey has “reverted to its mean” of being deeply concerned about the state’s affordability, said Julie Roginsky, a strategist who advised Gov. Philip Murphy, a Democrat, during his first campaign in 2017. The average homeowner in the state pays about $10,000 in property taxes, she said, with the cap hitting about one-third of New Jersey residents. “I think it’s absolutely a line in the sand that some of these vulnerable members of Congress need to draw,” Roginsky said. Several Democrats who represent affluent suburban areas where most homeowners pay much more than $10,000 a year in property taxes will face stiff challenges in the midterm election next year, strategists said. Their short list of vulnerable House members include Josh Gottheimer, Mikie Sherrill and Tom Malinowski from North Jersey, and Andy Kim, who represents part of the Jersey Shore, all of whom support raising the SALT cap. If the Democrats can engineer a change to the SALT deduction that is retroactive to cover 2021 taxes, those incumbents can campaign on having provided a tax cut, Roginsky said. But if they fail, their Republican opponents — like Thomas Kean Jr., a state senator who is challenging Malinowski — will be able to use that against them, she said. “It may not play well in Vermont or in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s district, but if you’re Nancy Pelosi, you understand that the road to your majority runs through places like suburban New Jersey and suburban California and suburban New York,” Roginsky said. Ben Dworkin, the director of the Rowan Institute for Public Policy and Citizenship at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey, cited the unexpectedly close race for New Jersey governor this year. He noted how effective Murphy’s challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, was in playing to voters’ feelings about the state’s high taxes. “He hammered home that issue,” Dworkin said. Public polling leading up to that election showed that affordability in general was the “top issue” in the state, he said. “From an elected official standpoint, anything you can do to alleviate the pressure of taxes, as a change in the SALT cap would do, is a huge benefit,” Dworkin said. Even one of the leading Republicans in the state, Jon M. Bramnick, the minority leader in the state Assembly, said he would applaud the Democrats if they provided some tax relief to New Jersey residents. “If Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill and the others stand up to the Republicans and get it done, I’ll say I’m with them and I’m proud of their work,” Bramnick said. Gottheimer said in an interview that people had been migrating away from New Jersey because the cap on the deduction meant an increase in the cost of living. He dismissed criticism that lifting the cap was a tax cut for the rich, arguing that was not the case in his state. “My job is to fight for my district, and again if other states or districts don’t want it they don’t have to take it,” Gottheimer said. “If you come to my state, this is an existential threat.” Yet the overall economic impact of the cap in high-tax states is not as clear as those who support raising it suggest. Daniel Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago whose research has focused on taxes, argued that under the current proposal, millionaires would actually face higher taxes than they otherwise would have in the second half of the decade. And while he said liberals should be concerned that the law would mean some rich people would get big tax breaks, he argued that Republicans were being disingenuous in their attacks given the structure of their $1.5 trillion tax cut four years ago. “I think any Republican who voted for the 2017 tax law loses the ability to criticize liberals for regressive tax policy,” Hemel said.

Tax deduction that benefits the rich divides Democrats ahead of vote

Rich nations are among the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases yet it is the poor countries which pay the heaviest price of climate change.

Rich nations vowed to provide climate funds to poor nations

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is now worth more than both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the 50-year-old’s net worth is $230 billion as of Friday. Microsoft founder Gates is placed fourth with $130 billion while Buffett is placed 10th with $102 billion.

Both Gates and Buffett previously held the world’s richest title. Musk first passed Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to become the world’s richest man in January with a net worth of $185 billion. Bezos had held the title since 2017.

Musk has added more than $60 billion to his fortune this year thanks to the strong performance of Tesla stock as well as a recent share sale at SpaceX which valued the company at $100 billion. The SpaceX deal added $11 billion to Musk’s net worth,&nbsp;according to Bloomberg.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/is-teslas-elon-musk-a-master-manipulator-of-markets-389229">&nbsp;Is Tesla’s Elon Musk a master manipulator of markets?</a>

Gates and Buffett are noted for giving way their wealth, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars to charitable causes, while Musk has been criticised for not giving away enough of his riches.

Earlier this year, Musk pledged to give away $150 million, including a $100 million prize in a carbon removal contest.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/elon-musk-asks-people-to-use-signal-app-instead-of-whatsapp-and-facebook-over-privacy-issues-355704">Elon Musk asks people to use Signal app instead of WhatsApp and Facebook over privacy issues</a>

Musk grew up in South Africa before moving to Canada aged 17, and then California where he became a young entrepreneur, founding software and then banking companies — one of which was merged to become PayPal.

In the early 2000s he formed aerospace manufacturer SpaceX and electric vehicle company Tesla Motors.

(With inputs from agencies)

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is now worth more than both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the 50-year-old’s net worth is $230 billion as of Friday.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is now worth more than both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the 50-year-old’s net worth is $230 billion as of Friday. Microsoft founder Gates is placed fourth with $130 billion while Buffett is placed 10th with $102 billion. Both Gates and Buffett previously held the world’s richest title. Musk first passed Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to become the world’s richest man in January with a net worth of $185 billion. Bezos had held the title since 2017. Musk has added more than $60 billion to his fortune this year thanks to the strong performance of Tesla stock as well as a recent share sale at SpaceX which valued the company at $100 billion. The SpaceX deal added $11 billion to Musk’s net worth, according to Bloomberg. Also read | Is Tesla’s Elon Musk a master manipulator of markets? Gates and Buffett are noted for giving way their wealth, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars to charitable causes, while Musk has been criticised for not giving away enough of his riches. Earlier this year, Musk pledged to give away $150 million, including a $100 million prize in a carbon removal contest. Also read | Elon Musk asks people to use Signal app instead of WhatsApp and Facebook over privacy issues Musk grew up in South Africa before moving to Canada aged 17, and then California where he became a young entrepreneur, founding software and then banking companies — one of which was merged to become PayPal. In the early 2000s he formed aerospace manufacturer SpaceX and electric vehicle company Tesla Motors. (With inputs from agencies)

With $230 billion net worth, Musk is now richer than Gates and Buffett combined

A leak of close to 12 million documents has exposed the hidden wealth of world leaders and powerful business leaders. Palki Sharma tells you how the rich and powerful hide their wealth.

Gravitas: How the rich and powerful hide their wealth

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Monday that if wealthy nations hogged COVID-19 shots while millions in poor countries died waiting for them it would amount to 'vaccine apartheid'.&nbsp;

South Africa and India have been pushing for a waiver on some intellectual property (IP) rights for vaccines and medicines at the World Trade Organization.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden backed the proposal last week, though it may still take months to reach a deal.&nbsp;

Ramaphosa called on South Africans to support the waiver in a weekly newsletter, saying vaccines should be 'a global public good'.&nbsp;

"It is about affirming our commitment to the advancement of equality and human rights, not just in our own country but around the world," he wrote. &nbsp;

"A situation in which the populations of advanced, rich countries are safely inoculated while millions in poorer countries die in the queue would be tantamount to vaccine apartheid."&nbsp;

Sub-Saharan Africa has administered the fewest vaccines relative to its population of any region, with roughly 8 doses per 1,000 people versus doses per 1,000 people globally, according to the World Health Organization.&nbsp;

Ramaphosa recalled that twenty years ago South Africa faced off against 'big pharma' over efforts to import and manufacture affordable generic antiretroviral medicines to treat people with HIV/AIDS.&nbsp;

"Years later, the world is in the grip of another deadly pandemic in the form of COVID-19. And once again, South Africa is waging a struggle that puts global solidarity to the test," he said.&nbsp;

Ramaphosa said South Africa was one of only five countries on the African continent able to manufacture vaccines and that there was a need for new capacity to be built.&nbsp;

South Africa has ordered enough COVID-19 vaccines for 46 million of its 60 million people via bilateral deals with Johnson &amp; Johnson (J&amp;J) and Pfizer. The J&amp;J shots will be made locally by Aspen Pharmacare.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Monday that if wealthy nations hogged COVID-19 shots while millions in poor countries died waiting for them it would amount to 'vaccine apartheid'.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Monday that if wealthy nations hogged COVID-19 shots while millions in poor countries died waiting for them it would amount to 'vaccine apartheid'. South Africa and India have been pushing for a waiver on some intellectual property (IP) rights for vaccines and medicines at the World Trade Organization. US President Joe Biden backed the proposal last week, though it may still take months to reach a deal. Ramaphosa called on South Africans to support the waiver in a weekly newsletter, saying vaccines should be 'a global public good'. "It is about affirming our commitment to the advancement of equality and human rights, not just in our own country but around the world," he wrote. "A situation in which the populations of advanced, rich countries are safely inoculated while millions in poorer countries die in the queue would be tantamount to vaccine apartheid." Sub-Saharan Africa has administered the fewest vaccines relative to its population of any region, with roughly 8 doses per 1,000 people versus doses per 1,000 people globally, according to the World Health Organization. Ramaphosa recalled that twenty years ago South Africa faced off against 'big pharma' over efforts to import and manufacture affordable generic antiretroviral medicines to treat people with HIV/AIDS. "Years later, the world is in the grip of another deadly pandemic in the form of COVID-19. And once again, South Africa is waging a struggle that puts global solidarity to the test," he said. Ramaphosa said South Africa was one of only five countries on the African continent able to manufacture vaccines and that there was a need for new capacity to be built. South Africa has ordered enough COVID-19 vaccines for 46 million of its 60 million people via bilateral deals with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Pfizer. The J&J shots will be made locally by Aspen Pharmacare. (With inputs from agencies)

South Africa warns of 'vaccine apartheid' if rich countries hog shots 

After refusing to sell vaccine raw materials, the US is now trying to undo the damage.&nbsp; President Joe Biden spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last night and promised to send emergency assistance. This includes oxygen supplies, vaccine materials and medicines. On Monday, an Air India flight picked up oxygen concentrators from New York. &nbsp;

This is a welcome shift. Remember, America was reluctant to help. It changed, after it was slammed the world over. Not only for refusing to help India, but also for hoarding vaccines. &nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-bill-gates-says-no-to-sharing-vaccine-formulas-to-developing-world-380867/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

America wants to send up to 60,000,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to different countries. When will that happen? After American regulators check the safety of the shots. It could take weeks and even months. So, there are no clear timelines. The world is not America's priority. So, why is it sharing vaccines at all? Because it's got too many of them, more than 550,000,000 excess doses.&nbsp;

That's what you call hoarding. Countries like China and India exported more than 40 per cent of their supplies. Even the European Union had shared 42 per cent of its supplies. What about the United States? It exported zero shots. What about the United Kingdom? Again, zero. &nbsp;

Countries like the US and the UK represent the global elite. The rich, who booked millions of doses well in advance. Now, they have extra vaccines, enough to inoculate their population three times and in some cases, five times. But they haven't shared anything with the world and they are making sure this system does not change.&nbsp;

They won't share vaccines, or patents. Life-saving drugs have been locked in patents. &nbsp;

Reports say during the phone call, Prime Minister Modi pressed President Biden about this. India has been pushing for a waiver on vaccine patents at the World Trade Organisation. The US and the UK have aggressively blocked this proposal, backing them are the European Union and Japan.&nbsp;

After the phone call, a senior official of the Biden administration was asked if America will relent. Will the United States back a patent waiver? Team Biden said it has nothing to share on this front.

And it's not just governments&nbsp;who are putting patents over lives. Even individuals, who make up the global elite, are championing the cause of big pharma. The likes of Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, believes vaccine formulas should not be shared with the developing world. On Sunday, Bill Gates was asked if it would be helpful for intellectual property protections to be lifted. He responded with an emphatic no. &nbsp;

Because he fears that lifting patent rights even temporarily could comprise the safety of vaccines. Gates believes in keeping the circle tight, that ideas like moving production from a Johnson &amp; Johnson factory to a facility in India are novel and they only happen 'because of our grants and expertise'.&nbsp;

“There's only so many vaccine factories in the world and people are very serious about the safety of vaccines. So, moving something that had never been done, moving a vaccine, say, from a (Johnson &amp; Johnson) factory into a factory in India, it's novel, it's only because of our grants and expertise that can happen at all,” said Gates, who was toeing the line of big pharma. &nbsp;

According to a report, every vaccine maker has its own secret recipes and supply chains, and they insist that no other approach is possible. &nbsp;

This is exactly why the world is lagging behind in the global vaccination drive. It's because the supplies have been limited by design. Only a few companies are being allowed to make vaccines right now. More than one billion shots have been administered so far. 87 per cent of these have gone to rich countries. One in four people in wealthy countries have got a jab. What about the poor countries? Just one in 500 have got a shot in these nations. &nbsp;

According to a report, only 0.2 per cent of the doses made so far have been dispensed to low-income countries. This is not just a question of inequity. This strategy will come back to bite the rich, because at this rate, the pandemic will take years to end. And if it doesn't end in the poor countries, it won't end in the rich ones either as this virus mutates and jumps borders. &nbsp;

Around 185,00,000 doses are being administered daily around the world. At this pace, it would take at least 19 more months to inoculate 75 per cent of the world population, which means extending this pandemic for at least two more years. If the world wants to end this pandemic, it must end vaccine patents first.&nbsp;

After refusing to sell vaccine raw materials, the US is now trying to undo the damage. President Joe Biden spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last night and promised to send emergency assistance.

After refusing to sell vaccine raw materials, the US is now trying to undo the damage. President Joe Biden spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last night and promised to send emergency assistance. This includes oxygen supplies, vaccine materials and medicines. On Monday, an Air India flight picked up oxygen concentrators from New York. This is a welcome shift. Remember, America was reluctant to help. It changed, after it was slammed the world over. Not only for refusing to help India, but also for hoarding vaccines. America wants to send up to 60,000,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to different countries. When will that happen? After American regulators check the safety of the shots. It could take weeks and even months. So, there are no clear timelines. The world is not America's priority. So, why is it sharing vaccines at all? Because it's got too many of them, more than 550,000,000 excess doses. That's what you call hoarding. Countries like China and India exported more than 40 per cent of their supplies. Even the European Union had shared 42 per cent of its supplies. What about the United States? It exported zero shots. What about the United Kingdom? Again, zero. Countries like the US and the UK represent the global elite. The rich, who booked millions of doses well in advance. Now, they have extra vaccines, enough to inoculate their population three times and in some cases, five times. But they haven't shared anything with the world and they are making sure this system does not change. They won't share vaccines, or patents. Life-saving drugs have been locked in patents. Reports say during the phone call, Prime Minister Modi pressed President Biden about this. India has been pushing for a waiver on vaccine patents at the World Trade Organisation. The US and the UK have aggressively blocked this proposal, backing them are the European Union and Japan. After the phone call, a senior official of the Biden administration was asked if America will relent. Will the United States back a patent waiver? Team Biden said it has nothing to share on this front. And it's not just governments who are putting patents over lives. Even individuals, who make up the global elite, are championing the cause of big pharma. The likes of Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, believes vaccine formulas should not be shared with the developing world. On Sunday, Bill Gates was asked if it would be helpful for intellectual property protections to be lifted. He responded with an emphatic no. Because he fears that lifting patent rights even temporarily could comprise the safety of vaccines. Gates believes in keeping the circle tight, that ideas like moving production from a Johnson & Johnson factory to a facility in India are novel and they only happen 'because of our grants and expertise'. “There's only so many vaccine factories in the world and people are very serious about the safety of vaccines. So, moving something that had never been done, moving a vaccine, say, from a (Johnson & Johnson) factory into a factory in India, it's novel, it's only because of our grants and expertise that can happen at all,” said Gates, who was toeing the line of big pharma. According to a report, every vaccine maker has its own secret recipes and supply chains, and they insist that no other approach is possible. This is exactly why the world is lagging behind in the global vaccination drive. It's because the supplies have been limited by design. Only a few companies are being allowed to make vaccines right now. More than one billion shots have been administered so far. 87 per cent of these have gone to rich countries. One in four people in wealthy countries have got a jab. What about the poor countries? Just one in 500 have got a shot in these nations. According to a report, only 0.2 per cent of the doses made so far have been dispensed to low-income countries. This is not just a question of inequity. This strategy will come back to bite the rich, because at this rate, the pandemic will take years to end. And if it doesn't end in the poor countries, it won't end in the rich ones either as this virus mutates and jumps borders. Around 185,00,000 doses are being administered daily around the world. At this pace, it would take at least 19 more months to inoculate 75 per cent of the world population, which means extending this pandemic for at least two more years. If the world wants to end this pandemic, it must end vaccine patents first.

Will rich countries share vaccines or patents? 

Saudi Arabia is creating a consolidated balance sheet to understand 'how rich' the kingdom is. WION's Palki Sharma tells you why Saudi Arabia wants to demystify its finances.

Gravitas: How rich is Saudi Arabia?

The year 2019 has been the year of the rich, as the world's richest 500 surged by 25 per cent, adding $1.2 trillion to their combined wealth, according to a report.&nbsp;

Names like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg were seen with new additions like American social media star Kylie Jenner, who became the youngest self-made billionaire after her company 'Kylie Cosmetics', signed an exclusive partnership with Ulta Beauty Inc.

Jenner was not alone as a lot of people making money through social media, including the Korean family who helped popularise the viral baby shark song, who are not worth $125 million.

Zuckerberg topped the list with an increase in net worth by $27.3 billion. He Xiangjian- founder of China's biggest air conditioner exporter- took the second spot with an added $23.3 billion to his wealth.&nbsp;

The co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates came in third with an addition of $22.7 billion to his fortune.&nbsp;

Amazon Inc's owner Jeff Bezos lost $9 billion due to his divorce settlement with wife Mackenzie.

However, it is important to note that as the wealth of the rich people is increasing, the gap between the rich and poor is also widening.

With reports claiming that the world's 26 richest people control as much wealth as the poorest 50 per cent.

While the rich may be making merry this New Year's Eve, their rising net worth is surely going to increase calls for equitable distribution of wealth.

The year 2019 has been the year of the rich, as the world's richest 500 surged by 25 per cent, adding $1.2 trillion to their combined wealth, according to a report.

The year 2019 has been the year of the rich, as the world's richest 500 surged by 25 per cent, adding $1.2 trillion to their combined wealth, according to a report. Names like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg were seen with new additions like American social media star Kylie Jenner, who became the youngest self-made billionaire after her company 'Kylie Cosmetics', signed an exclusive partnership with Ulta Beauty Inc. Jenner was not alone as a lot of people making money through social media, including the Korean family who helped popularise the viral baby shark song, who are not worth $125 million. Zuckerberg topped the list with an increase in net worth by $27.3 billion. He Xiangjian- founder of China's biggest air conditioner exporter- took the second spot with an added $23.3 billion to his wealth. The co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates came in third with an addition of $22.7 billion to his fortune. Amazon Inc's owner Jeff Bezos lost $9 billion due to his divorce settlement with wife Mackenzie. However, it is important to note that as the wealth of the rich people is increasing, the gap between the rich and poor is also widening. With reports claiming that the world's 26 richest people control as much wealth as the poorest 50 per cent. While the rich may be making merry this New Year's Eve, their rising net worth is surely going to increase calls for equitable distribution of wealth.

World's richest get richer, adding $1.2 trillion to their combined wealth

Walls draped in lush vertical gardens and air filtered through purifiers insulate diners at a swanky New Delhi food court from the choking haze outside in one of the most polluted places on earth.

But these eco-eateries, offering cleaner air as well as modern menus to the well-heeled are beyond reach for the poor, who have little means of escaping the deadly smog which coats the city for much of the year.

Air pollution kills more than one million Indians every year, according to a study by Lancet Planetary Health, and Delhi is ranked one of the most toxic urban centres to live, regularly exceeding World Health Organisation (WHO) limits.&nbsp;&nbsp;

But for Ramavtar Singh there is no escape: like many of the city's poorest, he eats, sleeps, and works outside.

"I work for six to eight hours every day and my children eat and sleep outside most times of the year," the father of five tells AFP at a roadside food stall, gulping down a 50-cent dish of rice and lentils.

Singh earns a living by cycling passengers and cargo around Delhi on his rickshaw, a strenuous activity that means he's inhaling dangerous concentrations of tiny pollutants deep into his lungs.&nbsp;

At best, he can wrap a rag over his mouth on smoggy days, a low-cost approach taken by labourers and rickshaw drivers that does little to prevent the most dangerous particles entering the bloodstream.

Delhi's smog peaks from October to February, routinely exceeding WHO recommendations for PM2.5 -- tiny and harmful airborne particles -- and some days registers levels more than 20 times safe limits.

Experts warn the long term health consequences of living enveloped in pollution are disastrous, often causing chronic sickness and in some cases early death.&nbsp;

'A quick oxygen shot'

Across town, Abhimanyu Mawatwal is settling down for lunch at a food court in Worldmark Aerocity, a grand commercial centre boasting purified air.

A meal here could cost twice Singh's monthly salary, but it is a price Mawatwal is willing to pay because outside the smog is at hazardous levels.

"I love to come here for my meals. It is like getting a quick oxygen shot," the office worker says, surrounded by creeper vines and a faux stream as he breathed lungfuls of filtered air circulating through expensive filters.

"We need to bring greenery to concrete jungles and create places where everybody can come for a breath of fresh air," insists S. K. Sayal, CEO of Bharti Realty which owns Worldmark Aerocity.

Delhi's affluent, who are often better informed about the dangers of pollution, increasingly expect the same safety measures they have in place at home, to be available when they are out.&nbsp;

High-end eateries, bars and cinemas are tapping into that demand -- installing electronic air purifiers and creating dedicated areas of rich vegetation to help filter airborne toxins.

But for Singh, and the one in five Indians living on less than $2 a day, visiting such places is nothing more than a fantasy.

"What will I do if I spend all the money on one meal? How will I feed my family?" said the rickshaw cyclist, who earns about 1,200 rupees ($17) a month.

He cannot dream of buying the foreign-made air purifiers to protect his family at home -- machines favoured by Delhi's elite, expat communities and office workers -- that easily cost Singh's annual wage.&nbsp;

"The rich and the poor have to breathe the same poisonous air. But the poor are more exposed to pollution," explains Sunil Dahiya, a campaigner for Greenpeace India.&nbsp;

He adds: "Most of the time, they don't even know the effects the toxic air is having on their health. Poor communities are definitely at the losing end."

Walls draped in lush vertical gardens and air filtered through purifiers insulate diners at a swanky New Delhi food court from the choking haze outside in one of the most polluted places on earth.

Walls draped in lush vertical gardens and air filtered through purifiers insulate diners at a swanky New Delhi food court from the choking haze outside in one of the most polluted places on earth. But these eco-eateries, offering cleaner air as well as modern menus to the well-heeled are beyond reach for the poor, who have little means of escaping the deadly smog which coats the city for much of the year. Air pollution kills more than one million Indians every year, according to a study by Lancet Planetary Health, and Delhi is ranked one of the most toxic urban centres to live, regularly exceeding World Health Organisation (WHO) limits. But for Ramavtar Singh there is no escape: like many of the city's poorest, he eats, sleeps, and works outside. "I work for six to eight hours every day and my children eat and sleep outside most times of the year," the father of five tells AFP at a roadside food stall, gulping down a 50-cent dish of rice and lentils. Singh earns a living by cycling passengers and cargo around Delhi on his rickshaw, a strenuous activity that means he's inhaling dangerous concentrations of tiny pollutants deep into his lungs. At best, he can wrap a rag over his mouth on smoggy days, a low-cost approach taken by labourers and rickshaw drivers that does little to prevent the most dangerous particles entering the bloodstream. Delhi's smog peaks from October to February, routinely exceeding WHO recommendations for PM2.5 -- tiny and harmful airborne particles -- and some days registers levels more than 20 times safe limits. Experts warn the long term health consequences of living enveloped in pollution are disastrous, often causing chronic sickness and in some cases early death. 'A quick oxygen shot' Across town, Abhimanyu Mawatwal is settling down for lunch at a food court in Worldmark Aerocity, a grand commercial centre boasting purified air. A meal here could cost twice Singh's monthly salary, but it is a price Mawatwal is willing to pay because outside the smog is at hazardous levels. "I love to come here for my meals. It is like getting a quick oxygen shot," the office worker says, surrounded by creeper vines and a faux stream as he breathed lungfuls of filtered air circulating through expensive filters. "We need to bring greenery to concrete jungles and create places where everybody can come for a breath of fresh air," insists S. K. Sayal, CEO of Bharti Realty which owns Worldmark Aerocity. Delhi's affluent, who are often better informed about the dangers of pollution, increasingly expect the same safety measures they have in place at home, to be available when they are out. High-end eateries, bars and cinemas are tapping into that demand -- installing electronic air purifiers and creating dedicated areas of rich vegetation to help filter airborne toxins. But for Singh, and the one in five Indians living on less than $2 a day, visiting such places is nothing more than a fantasy. "What will I do if I spend all the money on one meal? How will I feed my family?" said the rickshaw cyclist, who earns about 1,200 rupees ($17) a month. He cannot dream of buying the foreign-made air purifiers to protect his family at home -- machines favoured by Delhi's elite, expat communities and office workers -- that easily cost Singh's annual wage. "The rich and the poor have to breathe the same poisonous air. But the poor are more exposed to pollution," explains Sunil Dahiya, a campaigner for Greenpeace India. He adds: "Most of the time, they don't even know the effects the toxic air is having on their health. Poor communities are definitely at the losing end."

A tale of two Delhis: Deadly air exposes rich-poor divide

Indian billionaires saw their fortunes swell by Rs 2,200 crore a day last year, with the top 1 per cent of the country's richest getting richer by 39 per cent as against just 3 per cent increase in wealth for the bottom-half of the population, an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/worlds-26-richest-people-own-as-much-wealth-as-poorer-50-of-humanity-oxfam-191680">Oxfam study</a> said Monday.

Globally, billionaires' fortunes rose by 12 per cent or US $2.5 billion a day in 2018, whereas the poorest half of the world's population saw their wealth decline by 11 per cent, the international rights group said in its annual study released before the start of the five-day World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting in this Swiss ski resort town.

Oxfam further said that 13.6 crore Indians, who make up the poorest 10 per cent of the country, continued to remain in debt since 2004.

Asking the political and business leaders who have gathered in Davos for the annual jamboree of the rich and powerful of the world to take urgent steps to tackle the growing rich-poor divide, Oxfam said this increasing inequality is undermining the fight against poverty, damaging economies and fuelling public anger across the globe.

Oxfam International Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, one of the key participants at the WEF summit, said it is "morally outrageous" that a few wealthy individuals are amassing a growing share of India's wealth, while the poor are struggling to eat their next meal or pay for their child's medicines.

"If this obscene inequality between the top 1 per cent and the rest of India continues then it will lead to a complete collapse of the social and democratic structure of this country," she added.

Noting that wealth is becoming even more concentrated, Oxfam said 26 people now own the same as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, down from 44 people last year.

The world's richest man Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, saw his fortune increase to US $112 billion and just 1 per cent of his fortune is equivalent to the whole health budget for Ethiopia, a country of 115 million people.

"India's top 10 per cent of the population holds 77.4 per cent of the total national wealth. The contrast is even sharper for the top 1 per cent that holds 51.53 per cent of the national wealth.

"The bottom 60 per cent, the majority of the population, own merely 4.8 per cent of the national wealth. Wealth of top 9 billionaires is equivalent to the wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of the population," Oxfam said while noting that high level of wealth disparity subverts democracy.

Between 2018 and 2022, India is estimated to produce 70 new dollar millionaires every day, Oxfam said.

"It (the survey) reveals how governments are exacerbating inequality by underfunding public services, such as healthcare and education, on the one hand, while under taxing corporations and the wealthy, and failing to clamp down on tax dodging on the other," Oxfam India CEO Amitabh Behar said.

The survey also shows that women and girls are hardest hit by rising economic inequality, he added.

"The size of one's bank account should not dictate how many years your children spend in school, or how long you live -? yet this is the reality in too many countries across the globe. While corporations and the super-rich enjoy low tax bills, millions of girls are denied a decent education and women are dying for lack of maternity care," Byanyima said.

According to the Oxfam report, India added 18 new billionaires last year, raising the total number of billionaires to 119, while their wealth crossed the USD 400 billion (Rs 28 lakh crore) mark for the first time.

It rose from US $325.5 billion in 2017 to US $440.1 billion in 2018, making it the single largest annual increase since the 2008 global financial crisis. 
Oxfam further said getting India's richest 1 per cent pay just 0.5 per cent extra tax on their wealth could raise enough money enough to increase the government spending on health by 50 per cent.

It said the combined revenue and capital expenditure of the Centre and states for medical, public health, sanitation and water supply is Rs 2,08,166 crore, which is less than the country' richest man Mukesh Ambani's wealth of Rs 2.8 lakh crore.

Globally, Oxfam said the tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations have been cut dramatically.

While billionaire wealth soars, public services are suffering from chronic underfunding or being outsourced to private companies that exclude the poorest people, Oxfam said.

The rights group said in many countries including India, a decent education or quality healthcare has become a luxury only the rich can afford.

"Children from poor families in India are three times more likely to die before their first birthday than children from rich families," it added.

Oxfam said its calculations are based on the latest comprehensive data sources available publicly, including from the Credit Suisse Wealth Databook and the annual Forbes Billionaires List.

Indian billionaires saw their fortunes swell by Rs 2,200 crore a day last year, with the top 1 per cent of the country's richest getting richer by 39 per cent as against just 3 per cent increase in wealth for the bottom-half of the population, an Oxfam study said Monday.

Indian billionaires saw their fortunes swell by Rs 2,200 crore a day last year, with the top 1 per cent of the country's richest getting richer by 39 per cent as against just 3 per cent increase in wealth for the bottom-half of the population, an Oxfam study said Monday. Globally, billionaires' fortunes rose by 12 per cent or US $2.5 billion a day in 2018, whereas the poorest half of the world's population saw their wealth decline by 11 per cent, the international rights group said in its annual study released before the start of the five-day World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting in this Swiss ski resort town. Oxfam further said that 13.6 crore Indians, who make up the poorest 10 per cent of the country, continued to remain in debt since 2004. Asking the political and business leaders who have gathered in Davos for the annual jamboree of the rich and powerful of the world to take urgent steps to tackle the growing rich-poor divide, Oxfam said this increasing inequality is undermining the fight against poverty, damaging economies and fuelling public anger across the globe. Oxfam International Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, one of the key participants at the WEF summit, said it is "morally outrageous" that a few wealthy individuals are amassing a growing share of India's wealth, while the poor are struggling to eat their next meal or pay for their child's medicines. "If this obscene inequality between the top 1 per cent and the rest of India continues then it will lead to a complete collapse of the social and democratic structure of this country," she added. Noting that wealth is becoming even more concentrated, Oxfam said 26 people now own the same as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, down from 44 people last year. The world's richest man Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, saw his fortune increase to US $112 billion and just 1 per cent of his fortune is equivalent to the whole health budget for Ethiopia, a country of 115 million people. "India's top 10 per cent of the population holds 77.4 per cent of the total national wealth. The contrast is even sharper for the top 1 per cent that holds 51.53 per cent of the national wealth. "The bottom 60 per cent, the majority of the population, own merely 4.8 per cent of the national wealth. Wealth of top 9 billionaires is equivalent to the wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of the population," Oxfam said while noting that high level of wealth disparity subverts democracy. Between 2018 and 2022, India is estimated to produce 70 new dollar millionaires every day, Oxfam said. "It (the survey) reveals how governments are exacerbating inequality by underfunding public services, such as healthcare and education, on the one hand, while under taxing corporations and the wealthy, and failing to clamp down on tax dodging on the other," Oxfam India CEO Amitabh Behar said. The survey also shows that women and girls are hardest hit by rising economic inequality, he added. "The size of one's bank account should not dictate how many years your children spend in school, or how long you live -? yet this is the reality in too many countries across the globe. While corporations and the super-rich enjoy low tax bills, millions of girls are denied a decent education and women are dying for lack of maternity care," Byanyima said. According to the Oxfam report, India added 18 new billionaires last year, raising the total number of billionaires to 119, while their wealth crossed the USD 400 billion (Rs 28 lakh crore) mark for the first time. It rose from US $325.5 billion in 2017 to US $440.1 billion in 2018, making it the single largest annual increase since the 2008 global financial crisis. Oxfam further said getting India's richest 1 per cent pay just 0.5 per cent extra tax on their wealth could raise enough money enough to increase the government spending on health by 50 per cent. It said the combined revenue and capital expenditure of the Centre and states for medical, public health, sanitation and water supply is Rs 2,08,166 crore, which is less than the country' richest man Mukesh Ambani's wealth of Rs 2.8 lakh crore. Globally, Oxfam said the tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations have been cut dramatically. While billionaire wealth soars, public services are suffering from chronic underfunding or being outsourced to private companies that exclude the poorest people, Oxfam said. The rights group said in many countries including India, a decent education or quality healthcare has become a luxury only the rich can afford. "Children from poor families in India are three times more likely to die before their first birthday than children from rich families," it added. Oxfam said its calculations are based on the latest comprehensive data sources available publicly, including from the Credit Suisse Wealth Databook and the annual Forbes Billionaires List.

Wealth of 9 richest Indians equal to poorer 50% of population: Oxfam

More than half of wealthy investors around the world expect to live to the age of 100, with almost two in three planning to work longer in life to afford a comfortable retirement, according to a survey on Thursday.

The UBS Investor Watch, which tracks the sentiments of more than 5,000 people with at least $1 million in assets, showed nine out of 10 were adjusting spending habits and making long-term investments to finance their longevity.

But around one-in-four respondents based in the United States and Britain said they were not making any such financial changes, highlighting a shortfall in retirement planning in two of the world's most important economies as life expectancy rises, especially among the rich.

"The idea of living to 100 would have seemed absurd up until recently. Now, it's destined to become commonplace," Nick Tucker, Head of UK Domestic at UBS Wealth Management, said.

Tucker said prospective centenarians needed to plan for a 30 or 40-year retirement. That meant making and protecting wealth across all market cycles during that time, and deciding how to share their money more effectively with descendants.

The prospect of living longer and passing a smaller legacy to successors worried 35 percent of respondents, UBS said, while 62 percent said they were planning to give away more of their wealth while alive.

"By the time you pass away, your children are likely to be in their 40s, 50s or 60s. Wealth might not be as useful at this point as when they were younger. That's a key reason why we're seeing inheritance being shared earlier, or being given to grandchildren instead of children," Tucker said.

The prospect of living longer and passing a smaller legacy to successors worried 35 percent of respondents

More than half of wealthy investors around the world expect to live to the age of 100, with almost two in three planning to work longer in life to afford a comfortable retirement, according to a survey on Thursday. The UBS Investor Watch, which tracks the sentiments of more than 5,000 people with at least $1 million in assets, showed nine out of 10 were adjusting spending habits and making long-term investments to finance their longevity. But around one-in-four respondents based in the United States and Britain said they were not making any such financial changes, highlighting a shortfall in retirement planning in two of the world's most important economies as life expectancy rises, especially among the rich. "The idea of living to 100 would have seemed absurd up until recently. Now, it's destined to become commonplace," Nick Tucker, Head of UK Domestic at UBS Wealth Management, said. Tucker said prospective centenarians needed to plan for a 30 or 40-year retirement. That meant making and protecting wealth across all market cycles during that time, and deciding how to share their money more effectively with descendants. The prospect of living longer and passing a smaller legacy to successors worried 35 percent of respondents, UBS said, while 62 percent said they were planning to give away more of their wealth while alive. "By the time you pass away, your children are likely to be in their 40s, 50s or 60s. Wealth might not be as useful at this point as when they were younger. That's a key reason why we're seeing inheritance being shared earlier, or being given to grandchildren instead of children," Tucker said.

More than half of world's wealthy may live up to 100 years: Survey

Jeff Bezos, the founder and chief executive of Amazon.com Inc, has become the world&#39;s third-richest person as of the market close for the first time, Forbes magazine said, passing Warren Buffett, the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 
 
Bezos&#39; fortune was $65.3 billion as of 4:30 pm EDT on Thursday, compared with Buffett&#39;s $64.9 billion. 
 
Microsoft Corp co-founder Bill Gates remained the world&#39;s richest person, at $77.7 billion, while Spain&#39;s Amancio Ortega, who founded the Zara clothing chain&#39;s owner Inditex SA, was second at $72.7 billion. Facebook Inc co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was fifth, at $54 billion. 
 
Bezos, 52, owns close to 18 per cent of Amazon. Its stock has risen by roughly 50 per cent since early February, as the world&#39;s largest online retailer continued to upend retailing as more people took to the Web rather than the mall to shop. 
 
Amazon&#39;s share price rose further in after-hours trading, after the Seattle-based company reported better-than-expected second-quarter results. 
 
Buffett, 85, owns close to 18 per cent of Berkshire, but his donation this month of $2.86 billion of Berkshire stock to the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and four family charities led to his drop to fourth place. He has donated more than $24.3 billion to the Gates Foundation and family charities since 2006. 
 
Berkshire is based in Omaha, Nebraska, and has roughly 90 business units including Geico car insurance, the BNSF railroad and Dairy Queen ice cream. 
 
In June, Buffett called Bezos a &quot;classic example&quot; of how a business owner could thrive, by having focused at Amazon on how to &quot;delight&quot; customers, and keep them coming back, rather than simply process their orders. 
 
(Reuters)

Microsoft Corp co-founder Bill Gates remained the world's richest person, at $77.7 billion

Jeff Bezos, the founder and chief executive of Amazon.com Inc, has become the world's third-richest person as of the market close for the first time, Forbes magazine said, passing Warren Buffett, the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Bezos' fortune was $65.3 billion as of 4:30 pm EDT on Thursday, compared with Buffett's $64.9 billion. Microsoft Corp co-founder Bill Gates remained the world's richest person, at $77.7 billion, while Spain's Amancio Ortega, who founded the Zara clothing chain's owner Inditex SA, was second at $72.7 billion. Facebook Inc co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was fifth, at $54 billion. Bezos, 52, owns close to 18 per cent of Amazon. Its stock has risen by roughly 50 per cent since early February, as the world's largest online retailer continued to upend retailing as more people took to the Web rather than the mall to shop. Amazon's share price rose further in after-hours trading, after the Seattle-based company reported better-than-expected second-quarter results. Buffett, 85, owns close to 18 per cent of Berkshire, but his donation this month of $2.86 billion of Berkshire stock to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four family charities led to his drop to fourth place. He has donated more than $24.3 billion to the Gates Foundation and family charities since 2006. Berkshire is based in Omaha, Nebraska, and has roughly 90 business units including Geico car insurance, the BNSF railroad and Dairy Queen ice cream. In June, Buffett called Bezos a "classic example" of how a business owner could thrive, by having focused at Amazon on how to "delight" customers, and keep them coming back, rather than simply process their orders. (Reuters)

Bezos passes Buffett, becomes third-richest person: Forbes

rich

Rich, News on Rich, stories on Rich, articles on Rich, Rich stories at Wion, Rich news, Rich latest news