Live data from Hacker News

The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

qz.com

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but agriculture became less a source of great wealth during the industrial revolution. Trade probably continued to be quite profitable, though.

Agriculture isn't the way to riches anymore, but holding all the former farmland is. Say your ancestor Rich Grosvenor owned the village of Belgrave near Westminster Cathedral and the farmland around it - then just by holding on to it, watching it as it becomes prime urban real estate and living off the million-pound rents you and your children can't avoid becoming billionaires a dozen times over. Then you can proceed…

That only works if your land is located in the right place, though. I suspect it didn't work as well in, say, the Midlands.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#92

"While it comes as little surprise that families pass on their wealth to their children, it’s still somewhat remarkable that these families were able to maintain their wealth through various sieges of Florence, Napoleon’s campaign in Italy, Benito Mussolini’s dictatorship, and two world wars." When you are a part of the Illuminati, anything is possible!

Username checks out.

Oh cmon! That was funny!

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A low estate tax threshold is the destroyer of individual proprietorships and family farms. The impact on farm families is particularly caustic. If you want a world where only large corporations can farm, raise estate taxes.

The current U.S. federal estate tax threshold is so high ($5.5m for an individual, or $11m for a couple) that it only hits the wealthiest 0.2% of estates, not your typical small businessperson. In addition, a large proportion of the "family farms" complaining about the estate tax are sham farms, essentially real-estate investment vehicles that throw a handful of cows on them in order to qualify for farm subsidies and…

Well, your anecdote may apply in Texas. It does not match the experience of my extended family in Iowa and Minnesota. (currently doing estate taxes for my father-in-law's dairy farm, FWIW).

The current estate tax threshold largely misses real family farms, but it doesn't have to move much to become a disaster. When I was in high school I personally witnessed neighbor widdows being beggared by the then ridiculous estate tax threshold. That memory is seared into my brain.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#94
post #18

I don't understand this. Assuming no inbreeding, families that consistently have 2 kids roughly double in size every generation - a 600-year-old family would have 1 billion unique descendants by now. Of course, there is a ton of inbreeding - in the technical sense - but I still have a hard time imagining a 600 year continuous family line that isn't a pretty arbitrary chart of certain descendants here and there. It's…

That's not correct; once you reach out a few generations the branch becomes a web as distant relations marry. That's the only way it can work if you think about it.

still, it would be a very large web, large enough to encompass several families, not just one.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#95
post #26

One of the reasons Bill Gate's father among others were campaigning against the repeal of "Estate Taxes" was so we wouldn't have a permanent wealthy class in the US. (Estate taxes are taxes paid on your money when you pass away before being distributed. Right now I think its only on holdings over 5million) http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/18/william-gates-sr/

Unfortunately, several states have repealed the common law rule against perpetuities entirely. Long story short, rich people can create trusts that pay a steady income to their families for as long as they want, including for hundreds of years. There's no estate tax upon your death because the assets were already transferred. The assets aren't taxed on transfer, either, but only as they're paid out to the beneficiari…

I mostly agree with your post. As a financial planner by trade, I'd like to add to it.

In the proposals floating around to repeal the estate tax, there is at least one that suggests repealing the tax entirely but then not giving estates the step up in cost basis.

This has a set of interesting results, including paying no tax until an asset is sold. For instance, if your parents bought at&t stock at $10, and it's worth $20 when you inherit it, you pay no tax. But when you sell it, let's say at $25, you will pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sell price and the _original_ buy price. Estate tax right now gives a step up in the cost basis regardless of whether the tax limit (roughly $10million) is ever hit.

And just to cover the topic, there are two main reasons against the estate tax. The first is that the state has no right to that money. The second, thought, is much more problematic. If you inherit a business, valued at $20 million, you'd have to pay estate tax of roughly $5 million upon your inheritance. If you just owned the at&t stock I referred to above, no big deal - sell some, pay the tax, and walk away with your remaining $15 million.

But if you have a family business, the effects can kill the business. For instance, if your parents own a retail outlet or manufacturing facility, you can't easily sell part of it.

The US has never had an issue with permanent wealth like Europe has, even for the hundreds of years before the estate tax was put in place.

Post reply on HN