How did Bill Gates actually make his money?
Bill was the founder of Microsoft, so he did indeed have a large number of shares as the company was growing exponentially.  He has previously donated a large share of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, so his fortune would be even greater were it not for the philanthropy.  He is still a large holder of Microsoft stock at about $12B according to your link, but it wouldn't be wise to hold his entire fortune in one company, so he has diversified.   You can see that his investment portfolio at Cascade includes ~$28B in Televisa and ~$7B in Berkshire Hathaway. http://www.tickerspy.com/pro/Bill-Gates---Cascade-Investment And you can keep track of whether he stays at the top by watching the bloomberg billionaires list. http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ Bill gates is founder of microsoft along with his friend allen.in microsoft as its vast empire increasing the wealth and enormous property of bill gates is increasing
You seem to be confused - try answering these:  1. Whom do the traders work for?  2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles?  3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed?  Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first. "&gt; Identifying and supporting products good for the business   If a gray person comes with a great idea or innovation, any idiot can ""identify"" and ""support"" that product.  And you want to bet how many great ideas and products Steve and CEOs said ""No!"" and it turned out to be huge mistakes?  Do you know the story of Bill Gates/Microsoft Internet Explorer versus Steve Jobs/Macintosh?   Hint: eventually, Steve had to cave in and ask Bill Gates to make a version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh.  In this respect, Bill Gates was much much better than Steve Jobs in identifying and supporting new products and ideas." where did all this money come from?  Investing in a currency, whether it's bitcoin, gold, USD, or another country's currency, is a risky investment because the average trader loses money (after transaction fees). This is not true of the stock market, since successful companies actually produce wealth. So in short, money made from selling bitcoin comes from the people buying your bitcoins. why has bitcoin performed so well over the past year? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, but I can point out some of the most prominent factors. This last point is one of the biggest. With all the recent hype, more and more people want to try to get in on the action. No one can tell when or if the bubble will pop, though. "I don't think they ""actually"" turned a profit, did they?  As I understand it, this is an accounting method/trick, it's not as if they generated more income by using this system.  They just made their monetary value visible rather than implicit.  Which is not the same as turning a profit... or am I missing something?" "?  You quoted an oft cited oft disproven false factoid. It's extremely biased. Like you seem to be.   Most of those ""self made"", notice those quotes, people came from money. Their business is ""self made"", with family money. Like the article implies." "The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers).  Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and   dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already   has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock   dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term   capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the ""mega-rich"" are hedge fund   managers ""who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to   classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain   15 percent tax rate."" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned   by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a   high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit)   would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly   well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than   $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but   remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest   people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent   would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the   first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45   percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall   tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income   would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll   taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent   in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated,   given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make   between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal   taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis   from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of   Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower   capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar." "It's called being smart.  I spent 2+ years building a business that now brings me ""passive income"".  IE: It runs itself online and I only need to put a couple of hours/week.  Have you ever tried a ""turnkey operation""?  Anything easy is so saturated that you will most likely never make money." "Yes, you're right, the whole system of venture capital is all about creating a great work environment. So are all those articles about how Jack Dorsey works two 8-hour job back to back, and Michael Arrington the venture capitalist and tabloidist telling you to ""quit crying"" -- and Paul Graham, the venture capitalist, telling you how hackers are god's gift to the earth and how, for a hacker, working a job is like being ""a caged lion.""  It's not about the money at all. Nooo. They're telling you this for the good of their widdle souls." "An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc.  Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc.  If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank.  Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments.  If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion.  I say ""theoretically"" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once." A great deal of the money was made abroad.  I imagine they paid some tax in those respective countries.  I heard that they and other large Co's were trying to get a deal bring the money home. If they did they would be taxed again. If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires.  My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company.  It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger.  Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows.  After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed  after striking rich somewhere.  If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there. "For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the ""12 million"" refers to?  Do you mean ""total cost of animations created by the company in a year"" or?  If so, ""12 million"" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example.  Do you mean the ""cost of plant"" - so, for a ""TV commercial production company"" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a ""film or TV-commercial production company"" is a bad example, it's not really a ""business"" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous ""film or TV-commercial production companies"" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.)  G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial.  G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job.  Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says ""Yes"" and hands over a cheque for $190,000.  G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he ""hires"" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on.  Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer.  P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically ""help with cashflow."" The answer to that is nothing more than ""through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that."" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on.  (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G ""apologizes"".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from ""actual investors"", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories.  Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: ""borrow money"" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to ""start an animation studio"" - which would be completely whacky.  Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you ""have"" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs).  XYZ just couldn't care less.  All they care about is your folio of work.  In this example, RSA would get the job  :)  ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around ""borrowing money"" to get businesses like that started.  (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't -  your fears are assuaged!  :)" I don't know about the Saudi part of your point, but generally these are estimations based on the ownership stake of X person's main enterprise (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft, Berkshire). Even if Bezos made millions one year investing in, whatever, McDonald's franchises, it's a rounding error compared to his ~$80bn stake in Amazon, so they don't need pour over tax returns to get exact info. "As others have stated, CEO's often make more than 200K, and when they do, they're compensated with stock options and other lucrative bonuses and deals that allow them to build wealth above and beyond the face value of their salary. However, remember that having wealth makes it easier to build further wealth. As Victor pointed out, having wealth allows you to increase your wealth in different kinds of investments. Also, it gives you access to more human capital, e.g. wealth management services at firms like Northern Trust, a greater ability to diversify into investments like hedge funds, more abilities to invest abroad through foreign trusts, etc. Also, you have to realize that wealthier people often pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn a salary. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, so wealthy individuals who earn much of their money from long-term investments won't pay nearly as high a rate. In my case, my current salary places me at the top of the 25% tax bracket (in the US), but if I earned all of my income through long-term capital gains instead of salary, I would only pay around 15-20% in taxes. Plus, I could afford numerous tax accounting firms to help me find ways to pay fewer taxes. It's not altruism that causes CEOs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to take a $1 salary.  This isn't directly related to CEOs, and I'm not leveling accusations of corruption against high net worth individuals, but I remember spending a few months in a small town in a country known for its corruption. The mayor had recently purchased a home worth the equivalent of several million dollars, on his annual civil servant salary of approximately $20K. One of the students asked him how he managed to afford such a sizable property, and he replied ""I live very frugally."" This is probably a relatively rare case (I'm sure it depends on the country), but nevertheless, it illustrates another way that some people build wealth." "I did once read a book titled ""How I made a million dollars on the stock market"". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck.  (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, ""smart"" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal).  Clearly not a matter of ""playing your cards right"", but of having an enormous amount of luck."