Oxfam 2013: World’s 100 Richest Earned Enough to End Poverty 4 Times

In January 2013, just before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Oxfam published a short briefing with a headline figure that travelled around the world: the 100 richest billionaires on the planet had a combined net income of about $240 billion in 2012, which the charity calculated was enough to end extreme poverty four times over. Its argument was that the problem was no longer only how poor the poorest were, but how quickly wealth was piling up at the very top.

This page explains what the report actually claimed, how the "four times over" calculation works, what Oxfam proposed, and how the numbers look more than a decade later.

What Oxfam's 2013 briefing said

The briefing was titled The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt Us All and was released on 19 January 2013. Its main claims were:

• The richest 100 billionaires had net income of around $240 billion in 2012.
• The income of the richest 1% of people worldwide had grown by about 60% over the previous 20 years, and the financial crisis that began in 2008 had sped this up rather than slowed it.
• Up to $32 trillion, perhaps a third of all global wealth, was held in tax havens, and closing them could raise roughly $189 billion a year in extra tax revenue.
• The very richest also had a much larger environmental footprint; Oxfam estimated that some members of the top 1% emitted thousands of times more carbon than an average US citizen.

Oxfam's Ben Phillips summed up the thinking: "one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth."

How "enough to end poverty four times over" is calculated

The comparison is easy to misread. In 2013 the World Bank defined extreme poverty as living on less than $1.25 a day. Economists measure what it would cost to end it using the "poverty gap": the total amount needed to lift every person below the line up to the line, not to give each poor person a large sum. Because most people in extreme poverty sit somewhat below the line rather than at zero, that gap is much smaller than many people expect. Oxfam's figure implied an annual gap of around $60 billion, so $240 billion covers it about four times.

Two cautions apply. First, comparing one year's income with one year's gap is an illustration of scale, not a practical plan: money cannot simply be transferred without cost, waste or political obstacles, and poverty has causes, from conflict to weak institutions, that cash alone does not fix. Second, billionaire "income" in such estimates is largely gains in the value of assets such as shares, which are not the same as cash in a bank. The point of the comparison was to show that the sums involved in ending the worst poverty are small next to what was flowing to the top, and on that narrower point it holds up.

Why Oxfam argued extreme wealth is a problem in itself

The report did not only argue for more aid. It claimed that very high concentrations of wealth harm everyone, in several ways:

• Economic efficiency. The richest spend a smaller share of their income, so concentrating money at the top can weaken demand in the wider economy.
• Politics. Wealth can buy access and influence, which Oxfam said tilts policy toward the few, even in democracies.
• Social cohesion. Unequal societies tend to have lower trust and higher social problems, a link explored by many researchers.
• The environment. High-consumption lifestyles produce far more emissions per person.

Executive Director Jeremy Hobbs put it most directly: "We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many."

The briefing cited examples from both rich and emerging economies. It pointed to the United States, where the share of national income going to the top 1% had roughly doubled since 1980, and to the UK and China, where inequality had climbed fast. It also highlighted Brazil, which had grown quickly in the 2000s while reducing inequality, as evidence that the trend was not inevitable.

The "global new deal" Oxfam proposed

Borrowing language from Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s, Oxfam asked world leaders to commit to bringing inequality back down to 1990 levels. Its proposals were:

1. Closing tax havens.
2. Reversing the shift toward regressive taxes that fall hardest on people with less.
3. Agreeing a global minimum rate of corporation tax.
4. Raising wages relative to returns on capital.
5. Investing more in free public services and social safety nets.

At the time, a global minimum corporate tax looked unrealistic to many observers. In 2021, more than 130 countries agreed through the OECD to a minimum rate of 15% for large multinationals, though its rollout has been uneven and the United States has since distanced itself from it. Automatic exchange of bank information between tax authorities has also become far more common since 2013, making some kinds of offshore hiding harder.

The figures since 2013

Oxfam has published a similar report before every Davos meeting since, and the headline numbers have grown dramatically. Its January 2026 report, Resisting the Rule of the Rich, put total billionaire wealth at a record $18.3 trillion in 2025, up more than 16% in a single year and 81% since 2020. The number of billionaires passed 3,000 for the first time, and the report said the 12 richest individuals held more wealth than the poorest half of humanity.

The poverty side has changed too, partly because the measuring stick has moved. The World Bank has raised the international poverty line several times to reflect prices: from $1.25 to $1.90, then $2.15, and in June 2025 to $3.00 a day in 2021 prices. At the new line, about 838 million people were living in extreme poverty in 2022. The higher count reflects a more realistic line, not only a worsening situation, so the 2013 and current figures cannot be compared directly.

Common misunderstandings

• "Oxfam said billionaires should give their money to end poverty." The report's proposals were about tax, wages and public services, not voluntary charity.
• "Ending extreme poverty would make everyone comfortable." The extreme-poverty line describes deep deprivation. Lifting everyone just above it would still leave billions with very little.
• "Inequality and poverty always move together." They do not. Global extreme poverty fell sharply for decades while the share of wealth at the very top rose. The argument is that poverty could have fallen faster with a fairer distribution.
• "Oxfam's numbers are uncontested." Economists debate its methods, especially the wealth data that rank the very rich. The overall direction of travel, however, matches other sources such as the World Inequality Database.

Whatever your view of the remedies, the 2013 briefing marked a shift in how charities talked about poverty: from a story only about the poorest, to one about the gap between the bottom and the top.

Sources: Oxfam International: Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over; Al Jazeera, 20 January 2013; World Bank: June 2025 update to global poverty lines; Oxfam GB: global inequality report (January 2026); original story via RT.

Related:

• A Wealth-Inequality Video From the 2013 Archive
• Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
• A Historical Chart of Consumer Brands and Parent Companies
• The Corporation: A Documentary's Argument About Corporate Power
• The Money Masters (Documentary): How Banks Create Money Out Of Thin Air
• The American Dream - The Story of Your Enslavement
• President Of Uruguay, Donates 90 Percent Of Salary To Charity