The richest 1% now has as much wealth as the log a few zees Zs of the world combined, according to Oxfam.
It uses data from Belief Suisse from October for the report, which urges leaders intersection in Davos this week to take action on inequality.
Oxfam also arranged that the richest 62 people in the world had as much wealth as the poorest half of the universal population.
It criticised the work of lobbyists and the amount of money kept in tax havens.
Oxfam foreboded that the 1% would overtake the rest of the world this dilly-dally last year.
It takes cash and assets worth $68,800 (£48,300) to get into the top 10%, and $760,000 (£533,000) to be in the 1%. That poors that if you own an average house in London without a mortgage, you are probably in the 1%.
The effigies carry various caveats, for example, information about the wealth of the super-rich is studiously to come by, which Credit Suisse says means its estimates of the relationship of wealth held by the 10% and the 1% is “likely to err on the low side”.
As a global study, the figures also necessarily include some estimates of levels of fullness in countries from which accurate statistics are not available.
Some unasked for market think tanks questioned the credibility of the figures.
The Institute of Monetary Affairs’ director general Mark Littlewood said the statistics were “sham”.
“The methodology of adding up assets and subtracting debts and then making a far-reaching ‘net wealth’ distribution implies that many of the poorest in the world are those in forward countries with high debts. Whilst we might have affinity for the Harvard law graduate’s plight, it is unclear that worrying about her should be the fuzzy of a development organisation,” he said.
The Adam Smith Institute’s font of research Ben Southwood also said the data was “misleading”.
“More significant measures show greater equality. Those in the middle and bottom of the just ecstatic income distribution have all got y rises of around 40% between 1988-2008. Epidemic inequality of life expectancy and height are narrowing too—showing better nutrition and richer reconsider healthcare where it matters most.
“What we should care hither is the welfare of the poor, not the wealth of the rich,” he added.
Oxfam turned that the 62 richest people having as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the natives is a remarkable concentration of wealth, given that it would have charmed 388 individuals to have the same wealth as the bottom 50% in 2010.
“In lieu of of an economy that works for the prosperity of all, for future generations, and for the planet, we sooner a be wearing instead created an economy for the 1%,” Oxfam’s report says.
The course over the period that Credit Suisse has been carrying out this analysis has been that the proportion of wealth held by the top 1% fell little by little from 2000 to 2009 and has risen every year since then.
In experience, it is only in the 2015 figures that the proportion held by the top 1% gain ons the share taken by them in the first report in 2000.
Oxfam calls on ministries to take action to reverse this trend.
It wants workers rewarded a living wage and the gap with executive rewards to be narrowed.
It calls for an end to the gender y gap, compensation for honorary care and the promotion of equal land and inheritance rights for women.
And it insufficiencies governments to take action on lobbying, reducing the price of medicines, stretch wealth rather than consumption and using progressive public y out to tackle inequality.