Ambiguous in cash terms, certainly he's very rich and has millions of pounds. I'd assume he could live comfortably without ever having to work.

More importantly, he is married to the daughter of a Baronet, and is the cousin of a Baronet too, so, socially, very firmly a 0.1%er.

You don't need that many millions to live comfortably for the rest of your life. 1M is 10 years of 100,000 worth of net income which is more than you would get if you just reach the 1% mark in the UK. 10M say a modest lottery payout would give you a 100 years worth of 100,000 net yearly income and that's before you count in any potential ROI on that money if you decide to invest it rather than just stash it under the mattress.

One of the other issues with money is that most of the people even those who are just in the 1% have to work to live, if you have access to sufficient finance to not worry about needing a job for the rest of your life one could argue that it's a problem. Even if you take out 100% of the money out of politics it's not going to be enough, because those who do not need to work to survive can invest 100% of their time into politics and driving their agenda forward while the rest lags behind.

Now I'm not arguing that there is a solution for it, but what people tend to focus too much is on flat sums and income inequality which is almost futile. You might dislike some one who's making 160K a year but in most cases they are just like you if they do not work they'll find them selves on the street just as fast (and sometimes even faster than you). So for the most part I discount those who work directly for their compensation from the so called "1%" while you might think that some CEO getting payed 700,000 is some wallstreet arsehole, the oil worker in Nebraska might think the same about a developer in NYC earning 300K a year.

True wealth allows people to focus on building dynasties and true power and if you want to focus on anything you might focus on that, that said we are 65 there's a good chance that we'll be considerably less supportive of things like inheritance tax when I'll have children and grandchildren to worry about.

I think he means that technically the cutoff for the worldwide 1% of income is something like $35K/year.

He even pays the same rate of tax as me! :D

Do you mean Sam or Dave - Davesa pauper compared to Samcam

Cameron is worth $50 million that we know about. Easily in the 0.1%.

He would need to make a little over 3% on that 50million to get into 0.1% in the US at 50 million. So, good odds, but not 100%.

PS: These numbers get crazy. I know a couple that has a little under 20 million, but don't quite think they have made it based on who they hang out with. And honestly there goals don’t seem that ridiculous. ~200k each after inflation from a diversified and conservative portfolio which will just snowball takes a lot more now than you might think.

It's a whole lot more easier to "vilify" the rich when you don't personally know them, or haven't spoken with them on a non-trivial level. For all we know, there are people much lower down on the scale than the "0.1%" that are impacting politics on levels/scales we won't ever know of. Generals, drug-bosses, influential figures, nefarious individuals that wield power through back-room dealings, etc.

In fact, there are probably legitimately influential people that wield more power than those much richer to them. One need only look at political "movements" to see that they're not always run by the rich and powerful. But rather, by those that can get large amounts of individual/normal people to agree with them and follow through. The oratorical figures, I'd say.

$50M, where did that come from?

He has been saying (and publishing tax returns to show it) that he doesn't own any shares any more. And even when he did the amounts being talked about are in the hundreds of thousands range. Was there some new revelation in the past 24 hours that revealed Cameron to be a secret millionaire?