There is one political problem from which all others stem. It is the primary cause behind the rise of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, the shocking weakness of their opponents, the polarization tearing societies apart, and the devastation of the natural world. It can be stated simply: the extreme wealth of a tiny minority.
This can be measured. The World Inequality Report 2026 shows that roughly 56,000 people—0.001% of the global population—control three times more wealth than the poorest half of humanity. This imbalance affects almost every country. In the UK, for example, 50 families hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population combined.
You can watch their fortunes grow. In 2024, Oxfam’s figures show that the wealth of the world’s 2,769 billionaires increased by $2 trillion. Total global spending on international aid last year was projected to be, at most, $186 billion—less than a tenth of that increase. Governments claim they “can’t afford” to do more. In the UK, billionaires have, on average, become over 1,000% richer since 1990. Most of their wealth comes from property, inheritance, and finance. In other words, they have grown this rich at our expense.
This issue touches every aspect of policy. Trump is not seizing Venezuela’s oil wealth for the sake of America’s poor. He couldn’t care less about them, as his “big, beautiful” tax bill—robbing the poor to give to the rich—made clear. His interest in Greenland serves the same elite interests he represents.
When the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, helped dismantle USAID, harming the world’s poorest, he acted on behalf of his class. The same is true of Trump’s assaults on democracy and his war on the environment. The ultra-rich benefit most from destruction, both in making money and spending it. The World Inequality Report shows that the richest 1% of the global population account for 41% of greenhouse gas emissions from private capital ownership—almost double the share of the bottom 90%. Another study shows that through their consumption, the top 1% produce as many greenhouse gases as the poorest two-thirds of humanity.
Inequality damages every part of our lives. Decades of research by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson shows that higher inequality—regardless of a country’s overall wealth—is linked to more crime, worse public health, higher addiction rates, lower educational achievement, greater status anxiety (leading to more consumption of status goods), increased pollution and destruction, and many other social ills.
Extreme inequality creates an “Epstein class” of global predators who exploit others financially and in other ways. It fosters an ethos that no longer recognizes our common humanity, that sees other people, as Musk puts it, as “non-player characters,” and believes that “the fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy.”
This is the measure by which you can distinguish political allies from enemies: whether they support or oppose the extreme concentration of wealth. In fact, it should be definitive. Those who support it (Group 1) are the right. Those who oppose it (Group 2) are the left.
Once you view politics through this lens, something extraordinary becomes clear. Almost the entire public belongs to Group 2. Polling across 36 nations by the Pew Research Center found that 84% see economic inequality as a major problem, and 86% believe the political influence of the rich is a primary cause. In 33 of these countries, a majority think their economic system needs either “major changes” or “complete reform.” In the UK, a YouGov poll showed 75% support a wealth tax on fortunes over £10 million, while only 13% oppose it.
But here is the astonishing part: almost the entire political class belongs to Group 1. You can search the manifestos of major parties that once belonged to the left and find no call to make billionaires pay their fair share.In fact, the opposite is true. Even when politicians are pressured to consider a wealth tax, they dismiss it—as UK ministers have done—with two excuses. The first is that it wouldn’t raise much money. That may or may not be true; evidence varies. But raising revenue is the least of its benefits. Far more important are two other issues. One is fairness. As the World Inequality Report notes, “Effective income tax rates climb steadily for most of the population but fall sharply for billionaires and centi-millionaires.” This erodes trust in the tax system and in politics overall. The other is reducing the power of the ultra-wealthy over our lives. To restore democracy and build a fairer, safer, greener world, we must rein in the ultra-rich, shrinking their fortunes until they can no longer dominate us.
The second excuse is that the super-rich will leave the country. There are three responses to this. First, there’s no evidence to support it. Second, if it were true, good riddance—they do more harm than good. Third, the obvious answer is a global measure to prevent tax avoidance. And yet, while 125 nations supported this approach, Keir Starmer’s government was one of nine that opposed it. Our government doesn’t tax the ultra-rich enough not because it can’t, but because it won’t.
It’s not just politicians. Almost all media belongs to the same group. As the wealth and power of media owners grow harder to justify, the views in their outlets grow more extreme. Immigrants, asylum seekers, Muslims, women, transgender people, disabled people, students, protesters—everyone is blamed for society’s problems except those actually causing them. Ever more extreme “culture wars”—a euphemism for divide-and-rule—are stoked.
That’s also why imaginary threats—Venezuela, “cultural Marxists,” “domestic terrorists”—are constantly drummed up. You cannot have both a free market in media ownership and a free market in ideas. The oligarchs who dominate the industry suppress inconvenient truths and promote policies that protect their wealth.
No one claims tackling extreme wealth is easy. But the fight starts with political parties stating this goal clearly and unequivocally. They either represent the vast majority or the tiny minority—they can’t do both. So where, we might ask, are our representatives?
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs The Influence of Wealth on Politics
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does politicians giving in to the ultrawealthy mean
It means that political decisionslike writing laws setting tax rates or regulating industriesare often shaped more by the interests and lobbying of a very small extremely rich group than by what benefits the general public
2 Isnt that just how lobbying works Whats the problem
While lobbying itself is a legal way to advocate for issues the problem is the extreme imbalance The ultrawealthy and large corporations can afford to spend vastly more money on campaign donations lobbyists and media campaigns than ordinary citizens giving their interests disproportionate influence
3 Can you give me a simple example
A classic example is tax policy Laws are often written with loopholes or lower rates for investment income compared to wage income This is frequently the result of sustained lobbying and campaign support from wealthy donors
4 How does this affect me directly
It can affect the affordability of healthcare the cost of education the safety of your food and environment the stability of your job and how much of your paycheck goes to taxes versus what large corporations pay When policy favors concentrated wealth public services and infrastructure often suffer
5 Whats the difference between wealthy and ultrawealthy in this context
Wealthy might be a highearning professional Ultrawealthy refers to the top 01individuals and families with such immense assets that they can singlehandedly fund political campaigns super PACs or think tanks to shape national policy debates
Advanced Practical Questions
6 What are specific mechanisms the ultrawealthy use to influence politics
Campaign Financing Donating to candidates and parties creating expectations of favorable treatment
Super PACs Dark Money Funding unlimited often opaque political advertising
Lobbying Hiring professional advocates to directly persuade lawmakers
Revolving Door Offering highpaying jobs to former officials and having corporate executives take government roles
Funding Think Tanks Media Supporting organizations that produce research and narratives favorable to their interests
