The richest 1% own more than 99% of world's population

[webfact]

The richest 1% own more than 99% of world's population
By Everton Gayle



"We cannot continue to allow hundreds of millions of people to go hungry while resources that could be used to help them are sucked up by those at the top"

LONDON: -- The super rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, according to a report by international aid charity Oxfam.

The richest one percent own more than the other 99 percent put together.

It says that World leaders’ concern about the escalating inequality crisis has so far not translated into concrete action.

“The world has become a much more unequal place and the trend is accelerating,” Oxfam International’s executive director, Winnie Byanima, said.

“We cannot continue to allow hundreds of millions of people to go hungry while resources that could be used to help them are sucked up by those at the top,” Byanima added.

The wealth of the richest 62 people has risen by 44 percent since 2010, while that of the poorest fell by a corresponding figure, the international charity says.

About $7.6 trillion of individuals’ wealth sits in offshore tax havens, and if tax were paid on the income that this wealth generates, an extra $190 billion would be available to governments every year, Gabriel Zucman, assistant professor at University of California, Berkeley, has estimated.

The report claims that as much as 30 percent of all African financial wealth is held offshore, costing about $14 billion in lost tax revenues every year.

This is enough to pay for healthcare that could save 4 million children’s lives a year,

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-19

[puukao]

But the media teaches me to hate the poor!!!! If poor, they are lazy!!!

The rich changes the rules, hide for a few years, complicate issues..... all until everyone is confused and doesn't care.

gotta go...I'm in charge of the coal furnace and my boss said if i take more than a 2-minute break i'm fired!!!!

so, ruling by fear works??

ruling by debt works??

get a college degree, buy an over-priced house, and then become a slave for decades...

break the chains!!!!

oh wait, you are in BKK and dating the girl from soi 99 who works at Cowboy...

carry on

[PatOngo]

Eat the rich!

[sirineou]

Eat the rich!

too rich for my taste, and high on cholesterol.

[pedro01]

They own 99% of the population?

Dontchamean 99% of the wealth?

[NeverSure]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

[worgeordie]

Its always been the same the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer,

off the backs of the of the workers,to 1% too much is never enough.

regards Worgeordie

[trogers]

The storers of treasure on earth, read Matt 6:19 again and again.

And at the moment of your last breath, recall this verse.

[Johpa]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Hard to know where to begin correcting your thinking here. European Socialists do not intend to take from the rich to make poor people rich but to provide them with healthcare and educational opportunity. I always imagined that the chance at the first million would suffice for incentive and that having little chance at the billion level would not seriously impact motivation to innovate. Russia was communistic back in the day and not socialistic. Nobody is advocating a return to the failed concepts of communism although some are arguing against the equally failed American cowboy capitalism. European style socialism, democratic socialism, seems to be working quite fine in regions such as Scandinavia where they have some of the best results from their healthcare systems and from their educational systems compared to other countries, especially the US which always seems to be ranked rather low on such matters. And there are many entry level jobs created by people of limited means. Compare that to the number of jobs created by the wealthiest American family, the Waltons, whose only hires are their accountants. Again, it is not wealth that creates jobs and grows an economy. These happen only when there is an aggregate increase in demand for goods and services and sometimes that happens when you have high progressive taxation on high income such as during the era of that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower when taxes were as high as 90% on high incomes.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Johpa

[F430murci]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

[SOTIRIOS]

..duhh....sounds about right......!@#$%^&*(.....

[12DrinkMore]

..duhh....sounds about right......!@#$%^&*(.....

That certainly moves the discussion forward.

[RuamRudy]

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

The model of Capitalism we currently enjoy is certainly not working for the majority of the planet. Western nations got wealthy through empire and exploitation, leading to the concentration of power in the hands of a very small group of people who utilise that power for their own interests. They are not capitalists but potentates - Adam Smith would be turning in his grave to see what has become of his philosophy.

From Why Conservatives are Still Trying, And Failing, To Prove Income Inequality Is A Myth

[Johpa]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Not just the Internet but technology in general is replacing the need for human labor and has been doing so for quite some time. But I would argue that the current growth in income inequality is a result of political considerations whereby the elite have captured the government and taken personal advantage of tax regulations to their own personal needs and greeds. This has resulted in a stagnant economy where capital stagnates, or as some economists say has low velocity. Democracy requires some modest limits on extreme wealth to avoid such regulatory capture.

By the way, the $15/hour minimum wage increase has not hurt most businesses up in Seattle although those already on the margins may not survive. As any business that can't afford to pay its employees a wage that does not require government subsidies should not be in businesses.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Johpa

[Gulfsailor]

Sure, the richest people got richer in the past decades, but at the same time global poverty has been declining as well. Also the world is no longer seperated in the rich 1st world and poor 3rd world. Incomes have been spreaded much more equally. And looking at regional growth figures for the next few years, we can only expect to see this divide becoming smaller and smaller. The world as a whole is moving towards a decent middle class income for all, albeit there may be a few outliers on both extreme ends of the curve, which Oxfam likes to point out.

Here some pics of poverty level and income distribution in the past 30 years;

Edited January 19, 2016 by Gulfsailor

[trogers]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Not just the Internet but technology in general is replacing the need for human labor and has been doing so for quite some time. But I would argue that the current growth in income inequality is a result of political considerations whereby the elite have captured the government and taken personal advantage of tax regulations to their own personal needs and greeds. This h as s rest

Sent from my KFOT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I am still waiting in front of my computer since the early 2000s for the new economy to build my brick and mortar home without the need of labor...

[trogers]

Sure, the richest people got richer in the past decades, but at the same time global poverty has been declining as well. Also the world is no longer seperated in the rich 1st world and poor 3rd world. Incomes have been spreaded much more equally. And looking at regional growth figures for the next few years, we can only expect to see this divide becoming smaller and smaller. The world as a whole is moving towards a decent middle class income for all, albeit there may be a few outliers on both extreme ends of the curve, which Oxfam likes to point out.

Here some pics of poverty level and income distribution in the past 30 years;

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Those graphs may not look so pretty should they show net worth, ie. Asset less Liability. Debts are usually hidden from view...

[puukao]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Trump was given one million and turned it into billions....so he worked, started companies, etc....

you can be smart and poor.....and in 15 minutes not go poor again. i think it depends how you go poor, and how you got rich. technically most college kids are poor when they graduate....

people get bank loans because they are not rich.......

clearly being rich gives you more options to gather more wealth. some laws only benefit the rich......

and giving the rich more money might mean more corruption....which might end up killing the poor, literally.

hard to generalize, but easy to do for people who don't care to think it through

Billions of poor.....no way we know the exact percentage of who would do what with money...

[lostinisaan]

I believe that everybody has his "price." Might that be a police officer, or politician.

Would somebody offer me 10 K Thai baht to kill somebody, I'd deny. No idea if somebody would offer me 10 million U.S> $$$$$$$$

With other words. People who've got all the cash, also have the power.

Not the well educated rule Wall Street, the wealthy guys do.

A German magazine wanted to find out how much a contract killer would want to get rid of a person, they're looking for a guy for a "difficult, but good paid job" in West Berlin, about 25 years ago.

A hidden camera recorded several "interviews" with potential killers, who got in touch with them.

At this time still German Mark. The "cheapest killer" was asking for 30,000 Mark, the highest wanted amount was 120,000 Mark.

I could "theoretically find a contract killer" for 15,000 Thai baht at the place, where I settled down. In my former neighborhood, there's a "gun to hire" for 3,500 baht, including three bullets. A Walther 9 mm Parabellum.

I later found out that plenty of people got killed with that gun, the last victim was a loan shark, who got killed in bright daylight, in the middle of Sisaket city.

. Money rules the world.

[RuamRudy]

Sure, the richest people got richer in the past decades, but at the same time global poverty has been declining as well. Also the world is no longer seperated in the rich 1st world and poor 3rd world. Incomes have been spreaded much more equally. And looking at regional growth figures for the next few years, we can only expect to see this divide becoming smaller and smaller. The world as a whole is moving towards a decent middle class income for all, albeit there may be a few outliers on both extreme ends of the curve, which Oxfam likes to point out.

Here some pics of poverty level and income distribution in the past 30 years;

The rate of increase in wealth concentration among the elite in recent years is unprecedented. That they throw a few more baubles than previously to those at the bottom is no defence of a system that is inherently unfair for the majority of people. They have used their power and money to corrupt our laws, securing their positions and erecting almost impenetrable barriers from the real world.

[Enoon]

Sure, the richest people got richer in the past decades, but at the same time global poverty has been declining as well. Also the world is no longer seperated in the rich 1st world and poor 3rd world. Incomes have been spreaded much more equally. And looking at regional growth figures for the next few years, we can only expect to see this divide becoming smaller and smaller. The world as a whole is moving towards a decent middle class income for all, albeit there may be a few outliers on both extreme ends of the curve, which Oxfam likes to point out.

Here some pics of poverty level and income distribution in the past 30 years;

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

These graphs are not much use as they are based on GDPs and show notional average incomes and the wealth of "countries".

The bulk of the wealth worldwide (especially in those countries which appear to have "equalised", such as China and India) is concentrated in the hands of a minority of individuals.

Hence the statement.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Enoon

[Suradit69]

The richest 1% own more than 99% of world's population

Doesn't seem to convey quite the same meaning as :

The richest one percent own more than the other 99 percent put together.

[thaibeachlovers]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

If what you say is correct, never mind 20 years as it will all fall down before then if it keeps on the way it is. No company will make a profit on e commerce as there will not be any buyers.

BTW don't need workers in a restaurant as all food will come ready made from factory, heated and delivered by robot. Those sushi places already deliver food on a conveyer belt.

I agree that the internet ( or rather computerisation of everything ) is to blame, but that's something that can't be changed now. Do you want to go back to 1960? I do, but it's not going to happen.

Unfortunately, the answer isn't a good one, but if the 1% think they can hide in their towers, surrounded by militarised guards forever, they are mistaken, and they won't have a happy ending- just think French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution etc.

[soalbundy]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Ask King Louis XVI of France how that worked out for him

[Suradit69]

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico.

"17 from Europe"

1% of the world's population is something like 70 million people and we've only found 17 in Europe?

[kamahele]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

The wealthiest time in America was a time at which the rich were taxed the most, labor was heavily unionized and corporations thought in long term in regards to profit. The trickle down theories of the Republicans have been disproved as working conditions for most Americans have gotten worse. Wages for the average American have been dropping in real value dollars for decades while income for the wealthy has continued to climb to proportions not seen since the days of the robber barrens. We have rigged the tax code so that the rich can keep much more wealth than at any time almost a century and it hasn't increased our productivity and hasn't contributed to more work or better pay. I would also like to point out that Russia is not a communist country. It is also not a socialist country. It is an oligarchy which America has turned into.

Edited January 19, 2016 by kamahele

[RuamRudy]

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico.

"17 from Europe"

1% of the world's population is something like 70 million people and we've only found 17 in Europe?

That is part of the problem - if you earn more than $32k or have net assets worth more than $770k, you are in the 1%.

Edit: I admit to fitting the former criteria but not the latter.

Edited January 19, 2016 by RuamRudy

[thaibeachlovers]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Not just the Internet but technology in general is replacing the need for human labor and has been doing so for quite some time. But I would argue that the current growth in income inequality is a result of political considerations whereby the elite have captured the government and taken personal advantage of tax regulations to their own personal needs and greeds. This h as s rest

Sent from my KFOT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I am still waiting in front of my computer since the early 2000s for the new economy to build my brick and mortar home without the need of labor...

Erm. The future of brick and mortar is not good. Houses will be prefabricated in a factory and erected by minimal, and unskilled ( ie low paid ) workers. In the future, robots will be able to assemble factory produced house components.

To employ skilled bricklayers will exceed the ability of any but the very wealthy.

I watched a house being built next door recently. Other than the piles and the floor, everything else came ready made from the factory on a truck. Soon, the walls will arrive with cladding, plumbing, electric outlets and wiring pre installed.

Took under 3 weeks to build with basically 2 people. Anything requiring more people was contracted.

In the past either took more ( skilled ) people to build, or took a lot longer- probably both.

[thaibeachlovers]

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico.

"17 from Europe"

1% of the world's population is something like 70 million people and we've only found 17 in Europe?

That is part of the problem - if you earn more than $32k or have net assets worth more than $770k, you are in the 1%.

Edit: I admit to fitting the former criteria but not the latter.

The 1% is a nickname for the super rich and not to be taken literally.

The paper today ( that's something that will disappear soon, replaced by a tablet- why pay people to make newsprint, print and deliver paper when it can be done cheaper electronically? There's another umpteen thousand jobs gone ) said that 64 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people. Believe it or not, up to you, but even if that is incorrect, it is obvious that a few people are too rich, and a lot of people are too poor, and it can't go on indefinitely.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Communism was usurped by mad dictators and their lackeys, so don't know if it would work.

Socialism is something that has never been done properly, so people don't know what "socialism" really is. It would be the ideal, but will never work in the real world because people are greedy and stuff everything up.

Look at the NHS in the UK. It would be fantastic except the greedy people thought it should be for everything ( which was not the intention ) and the cost of providing "everything" is making it unaffordable. IVF and transplants were not even thought of when they set it up.