A new analysis of how the world’s wealth is distributed

Re:A new analysis of how the world’s wealth is distributed by hkmurakami on Friday November 25, 2016 @02:02AM (#13034822)

Well what you mention about ultrawealthy individuals doesn't really matter since one billionaire is still only one person. In terms of setting the bar for where the 1% threshold is, it wouldn't make a difference if someone has $1B or $10M. So what matters in the quantity of people who own more than $750K in assets, rather than exactly how much each of those people own.

>Cumberbatch

It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax.

http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor...

But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new analysis of how the world’s wealth is distributed by curun1r on Friday November 25, 2016 @03:21AM (#13035064)

> especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance)

At least actors don't have to pay state taxes in each state where they "play" like athletes do. Athletes, while often highly paid, really get screwed in just about every way come tax time.

[ Parent | on HN ]