Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 22nd, 2017, 08:32 PM   #491

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Vague Historical Studies
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Orion Arm
Posts: 3,707
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Yes that what is usually is..... but they have not defined it...

If that's what they had in mind, then the inheritance point I made is relevant and their conclusion about diplomas is moot... Also I still have trouble believing that the average black person's net worth is less than the value of a used car
Without the right skills and attitudes, many people simply squander the inheritances, no matter how big they are.
VHS is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 22nd, 2017, 09:59 PM   #492
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,930

Quote:
Originally Posted by VHS View Post
Without the right skills and attitudes, many people simply squander the inheritances, no matter how big they are.
that would be a minority...... we are talking here about averages
tomar is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 10:07 PM   #493

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,285

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Yes that what is usually is..... but they have not defined it...

If that's what they had in mind, then the inheritance point I made is relevant and their conclusion about diplomas is moot... Also I still have trouble believing that the average black person's net worth is less than the value of a used car
If you look at the Fed report underlaying that graph they break it down more precisely as well in the text assets-liabilities.

Table 1

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econr...s-20170927.htm

3.3

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econr...2015076pap.pdf

As far average net worth less than a used car... they are using Median which is a bit different and for the entire nation is around $45,000 or basically slightly less than 1 year salary.

Or viewed demographic cohorts-

https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-c...united-states/

Last edited by Ichon; December 22nd, 2017 at 10:19 PM.
Ichon is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 10:53 PM   #494

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 3,037

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
that would be a minority...... we are talking here about averages
It's not a minority. 70% of inheritances are squandered within two generations regardless of how much they are worth or the education level of the recipients and 90% are gone within three.

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-f...s-lose-wealth/

Last edited by Dan Howard; December 22nd, 2017 at 10:59 PM.
Dan Howard is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 01:17 AM   #495
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
It's not a minority. 70% of inheritances are squandered within two generations regardless of how much they are worth or the education level of the recipients and 90% are gone within three.

70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation | Money
they talk about real wealthy people there....

in any case 2 or 3 generations is a long time
tomar is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 03:25 PM   #496

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,285

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
they talk about real wealthy people there....

in any case 2 or 3 generations is a long time
Yeah and that statistic is hugely misleading since the top 1% is 9 USD million net worth which if it is divided by 2 children who each have 2 children goes 4.5 to 2.25 by the 3rd generation and often less as taxes and late life living expenses, and lawyers take a significant percentage. 2.25 million would put someone in the top 10% but considering how net worth is often passed on that is likely to be a family home vacation home or a benevolent trust chaired by descendants.

If we talk about the top .01% the net worth is usually 100 million USD but living expenses at that level are usually over a million a year so given such a person lives to 80 their networth might have declined to less than 80 million of which currently about 40% is taken in inheritance taxes if no tax shelter is used so 48 million is passed from the 1st generation split between 2 children each inheriting 24 million of which 12 million is passed to each child of 2 children of which 7 million after taxes might be inherited and right there after the 3rd generation the top .1% of wealth is less than the top 1% which in 1 more generation is less than the top 5% though of course things rarely work that precisely.

Every long term study of generational wealth transfer maintains that staying in the top .1% is quite unlikely simply due to the very small amount of people in the top .1% that any splitting of that wealth drops the 2nd generation down immediately. However once a family is in the top .1% their descendents are likely to remain in the top 10% for at least 7 generations (which is as long as the studies can measure with currently available data).
Ichon is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 06:25 PM   #497

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Vague Historical Studies
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Orion Arm
Posts: 3,707
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
Yeah and that statistic is hugely misleading since the top 1% is 9 USD million net worth which if it is divided by 2 children who each have 2 children goes 4.5 to 2.25 by the 3rd generation and often less as taxes and late life living expenses, and lawyers take a significant percentage. 2.25 million would put someone in the top 10% but considering how net worth is often passed on that is likely to be a family home vacation home or a benevolent trust chaired by descendants.

If we talk about the top .01% the net worth is usually 100 million USD but living expenses at that level are usually over a million a year so given such a person lives to 80 their networth might have declined to less than 80 million of which currently about 40% is taken in inheritance taxes if no tax shelter is used so 48 million is passed from the 1st generation split between 2 children each inheriting 24 million of which 12 million is passed to each child of 2 children of which 7 million after taxes might be inherited and right there after the 3rd generation the top .1% of wealth is less than the top 1% which in 1 more generation is less than the top 5% though of course things rarely work that precisely.

Every long term study of generational wealth transfer maintains that staying in the top .1% is quite unlikely simply due to the very small amount of people in the top .1% that any splitting of that wealth drops the 2nd generation down immediately. However once a family is in the top .1% their descendents are likely to remain in the top 10% for at least 7 generations (which is as long as the studies can measure with currently available data).
It seems like having prosperous ancestors is still an advantage after a few generations.
Can we talk about the intangible advantages of having such ancestors?
VHS is online now  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 09:27 PM   #498
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 11,930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
Yeah and that statistic is hugely misleading since the top 1% is 9 USD million net worth which if it is divided by 2 children who each have 2 children goes 4.5 to 2.25 by the 3rd generation and often less as taxes and late life living expenses, and lawyers take a significant percentage. 2.25 million would put someone in the top 10% but considering how net worth is often passed on that is likely to be a family home vacation home or a benevolent trust chaired by descendants.

If we talk about the top .01% the net worth is usually 100 million USD but living expenses at that level are usually over a million a year so given such a person lives to 80 their networth might have declined to less than 80 million of which currently about 40% is taken in inheritance taxes if no tax shelter is used so 48 million is passed from the 1st generation split between 2 children each inheriting 24 million of which 12 million is passed to each child of 2 children of which 7 million after taxes might be inherited and right there after the 3rd generation the top .1% of wealth is less than the top 1% which in 1 more generation is less than the top 5% though of course things rarely work that precisely.

Every long term study of generational wealth transfer maintains that staying in the top .1% is quite unlikely simply due to the very small amount of people in the top .1% that any splitting of that wealth drops the 2nd generation down immediately. However once a family is in the top .1% their descendents are likely to remain in the top 10% for at least 7 generations (which is as long as the studies can measure with currently available data).
Agree.. just one more point though, your scenario is basically one where the wealthy person does nothing... If he earns money (perhaps he inherited a family business) then he can maintain and even expand his wealth

Such as these guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henokiens#Members
tomar is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 10:14 PM   #499

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,285

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Agree.. just one more point though, your scenario is basically one where the wealthy person does nothing... If he earns money (perhaps he inherited a family business) then he can maintain and even expand his wealth

Such as these guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henokiens#Members
Sure, and often the money goes into a business or other things to make getting accurate net worth is quite difficult as the more money someone has the less burdensome it is to pay a dozen or so tax attorneys to find loopholes and tax shelters.

Most top 1% families invest heavily into the education of their children which is an intangible value that evaporates net worth in the present but does increase net worth further ahead in the lives of those children. However until the 1970s few wealthy women entered the labor market despite receiving expensive educations and the people with the most net worth today are 55+ years old and most entered the labor market between in 1960 and 1980.

Then there is the proliferation of trusts or other ways of passing on wealth that isn't tied to a name directly so measuring net worth can be quite complicated.

Offsetting all of that is the rising cost of healthcare and especially end of life healthcare. A few members of my family were close to the 10 million mark going into their 80s (they were all depression era savers with strong but not extravagant incomes; veterinarian, artist, chemist, small business owner)

Having in-home nursing aids, cooks, shuttle services, private doctors costs +10,000 per month and then add in the medications, lawyers fees for estate and financial planning etc and it is amazing how fast money is spent over a decade and so far most are still living. All of them plan on giving whatever remains of their estate to charity so I'm not personally financially affected but it has been interesting to see how much money can be spent.

The one who passed on thought he had anticipated his children's preferences in the will dividing up some properties but one of the daughters disagreed and the resulting legal dispute took years and about 20% of the value of the estate since all 7 children retained their own lawyers paid out of the estate before a settlement was reached.

Last edited by Ichon; December 23rd, 2017 at 10:17 PM.
Ichon is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:17 PM   #500

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 3,037

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Sophia View Post
Dan let Paul Craig Roberts explain it to Royal744. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...-change-world/

All of Washington's stats have been fake since the reign of Papa Bush.

Jim Rogers has pointed specific commodities that they have used completely false info for and no one in the world knows more about commodities than Jim Rogers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers
These sum up the evidence suggesting that the next economic downturn is due.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.co...eve-it-part-1/
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.co...eve-it-part-2/
Dan Howard is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
broken, economy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debt based economy vs Equity based economy Menshevik Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 1 November 27th, 2013 08:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.