Let’s do this.

Inequality · Learn

What’s true about inequality.

Ten minutes. Ten facts, five words that change the answer, and the places where serious people disagree. The famous head count is the least reliable number in the field; the concentration it points at is one of the most solid.

Do the thing Practice

Ten facts

  1. In January 2026, the 12 richest people held more wealth than the poorest half of humanity, 4.1 billion people. $2.635 trillion against $2.567 trillion, by Oxfam’s count. On 5 November 2026 the same comparison took about ten people on Forbes’ live list. A trading week can move it by one or two.1
  2. The head count has been 62 (2016), 8 (2017), 42 (2018), 26 (2019) and 12 (2026). Oxfam itself says the years can’t be compared. Its 2017 “eight men” became 61 when better data arrived a year later. In the Januaries from 2020 to 2025 Oxfam compared different groups, and the data source changed again in 2026. The 26 is from an Oxfam blog post; the 2019 report itself wouldn’t open for us.1
  3. The steadier fact: the richest 10% own about three-quarters of the world’s wealth. The top 1.5% of adults own about half. Every source agrees wealth is extremely concentrated; they disagree on the decimal places.2
  4. Billionaires’ wealth reached $18.3 trillion in 2025, up 16% in a year. There are more than 3,000 of them.1
  5. About 811 million people live on less than $3 a day. About 645 million are hungry. “Billions” in poverty is true only at higher poverty lines.3
  6. The 400 wealthiest US families paid an average federal income tax rate of 8.2% from 2010 to 2018, counting gains on their investments as income. Those gains aren’t taxed until the asset is sold, and often it never is.4
  7. Policy moves child poverty fast, in both directions. US child poverty fell to 5.1% in 2021 under the expanded Child Tax Credit and rose to 12.0% in 2022 when it expired. It was 13.4% in 2025, by the Census Bureau’s revised count.5
    US child poverty in the years the page cites, by the Census Bureau's revised count
    5.1%2021, expanded Child Tax Credit
    12.0%2022, after it expired
    13.4%2025

    Green: 2021, the year the expanded credit was in force. The years between 2022 and 2025 aren't shown because the page doesn't cite them.5

  8. About one in five eligible US workers never claims the Earned Income Tax Credit. Money Congress already set aside, left on the table. Free tax-prep volunteers close that gap one return at a time.6
  9. Cash works in Kenya; in the US the trials are sobering. One-time grants of about $1,000 in rural Kenya raised recipients’ and neighbours’ incomes, every dollar adding about $2.40 to local output, with little inflation. In the US, $1,000 a month for three years cut recipients’ other income by about $1,900 a year and their work hours slightly; the wellbeing gain faded after a year. $333 a month from birth showed no detectable effect on children’s development at four.7
  10. Alaska has paid every resident an oil dividend for over forty years without reducing employment. $1,000 in 2025, $1,200 in 2026. It lowers poverty, but it also raises measured inequality, and since 2016 the Legislature, not the statutory formula or the residents, has set the amount.8

Five words that change the answer

Wealth vs income
Wealth is what you own minus what you owe, a stock. Income is what comes in each year, a flow. “The richest own X” is about wealth. Most tax is on income. The two inequalities are different sizes; wealth is far more concentrated.
Net wealth
Assets minus debts. A new graduate with student loans has negative net wealth and pulls the “poorest half” total down. Oxfam says about a quarter of the world’s bottom tenth are indebted people in rich countries; ignoring debt raised the 2017 head count from 8 to 56.
Market rates vs purchasing power
Value a farmer’s land in dollars at the exchange rate, or by what the money buys locally? The same database gives the bottom half 0.52% of world wealth one way and about 2% the other. The World Inequality Report uses the second; Oxfam’s note doesn’t say which it uses, and its total is consistent with the first. Together with counting debt, this is one of the two biggest swing factors in every head count.
Adults vs people
The wealth surveys count adults. “4.1 billion people” is half of everyone, children included. A translation, not the survey’s unit.
Correlation vs experiment
Most of what’s known about inequality and growth compares countries. The cash-transfer trials are experiments. When the two disagree, the experiments are the firmer ground, and they’re also the narrower.

Where the sources disagree

Does inequality slow growth? IMF staff find lower inequality “robustly correlated” with faster, longer growth, and one study credits 20 to 40% of US growth from 1960 to 2010 to opening jobs to women and Black Americans. Another finds higher inequality went with higher growth in the short run. A meta-analysis finds a negative effect on average, strongest in poorer countries, with publication bias. The direction leans towards “inequality slows growth”, but not consistently.9

Does a universal cash floor work? Yes in the Kenyan trial; small or no effects in the recent US ones. The honest reading is that cash does most where people have least, and that the US trials tested amounts and settings that don’t transfer to a national floor either way.7

Is the head count misleading? Critics: it counts debt, uses exchange rates, and swings with stock prices. Oxfam: the picture is extreme under any method. Both are right. Quote the share (top 10%, three-quarters), not the head count, when you want to be unarguable.12

Read the originals

Next

Do the thing Practice: the dinner-table drill

Sources

  1. Oxfam, Resisting the Rule of the Rich and its methodology note, January 2026 (Forbes data to 30 November 2025; World Inequality Database); billionaire wealth release, 18 January 2026; January 2018 release (61, “not eight”) primary; the 2019 count of 26 is from Duncan Green’s Oxfam blog, From Poverty to Power, 21 January 2019, describing a report that would not open for us primary, report: unread. Live recheck: Forbes real-time list, 5 November 2026 20:20 UTC, summed against Oxfam’s bottom-half figure. our arithmetic
  2. World Inequality Lab, World Inequality Report 2026, December 2025 (purchasing-power basis) research; UBS Global Wealth Report 2026 (top 1.5% of adults hold 48.4%) industry research.
  3. World Bank, Poverty overview, September 2026 nowcast ($3 a day, 2021 prices) primary; FAO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 (645 million people faced hunger in 2025) primary.
  4. White House Council of Economic Advisers and OMB, average federal income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, 23 September 2021 (archived). primary
  5. US Census Bureau, Income, poverty and health insurance coverage, 2022, 12 September 2023 (Supplemental Poverty Measure); Poverty in the United States: 2025 (P60-290), September 2026, and its Table 8: Supplemental Poverty Measure, children under 18, 5.1% in 2021, 12.0% in 2022, 13.4% in 2025, on the thresholds revised in July 2026 (the 2023 release had 5.2% and 12.4%). primary
  6. IRS, EITC participation rate by state, reviewed 19 August 2026: 80.8% nationally in its table for tax year 2022, while the page calls 78%, from the Census survey, “the reported national estimate”. Either way, about one in five. primary
  7. Egger, Haushofer, Miguel, Niehaus and Walker, General equilibrium effects of cash transfers, Econometrica 2022; Vivalt et al., The employment effects of a guaranteed income, NBER 2024, QJE 2026; Baby’s First Years, NBER working paper 33844, May 2025. research
  8. Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, FY26 audit, September 2026; Permanent Fund Dividend Division, 21 September 2026 primary; Jones and Marinescu, The labor market impacts of universal and permanent cash transfers, 2022 research; ISER, the dividend’s effect on wellbeing, June 2019 research; Anchorage Daily News, on the 2026 dividend, 19 September 2026 (the Legislature has not followed the statutory formula since 2016) news.
  9. Hsieh, Hurst, Jones and Klenow, The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth, 2019; Ostry, Berg and Tsangarides, Redistribution, inequality and growth, IMF 2014 (staff views); Forbes, A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth, 2000; Neves, Afonso and Silva, meta-analysis, World Development 2016 (abstract only). research
Contest a fact, suggest something, or tell us what’s broken

If someone is in danger right now, don’t use this form. Call your local emergency number (911 in the US). For trafficking: 1-888-373-7888, or text 233733.

What is it?

No name, no account. Your note goes into the site’s private records, nothing about your browser or connection is stored with it, and the email box is the only way we’d know who you are. The weekly review reads every note, re-reads the original source, and fixes the page if it should. A contested fact and its outcome are listed on Contested, in the review’s words, never yours.

No tracking on any link.Ticks stay on this device.Facts checked 5–6 Nov 2026.What changedContested