Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 356 posts

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#41

Post by metabagel »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #11
orangepurple wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthiest and most secretive are probably the members of the Rothschild family. Today, the family's total net worth is estimated at an eye-watering $400 billion, with some estimates ranging to an astonishing $1 trillion. Ref: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/the-richest-... Archive: https://archive.is/pMypx -- Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist and author, estimated this year that Putin has somewh…

That reads like something out of a tabloid in the checkout aisle of a grocery store. It links to a website called “celebritynetworth”, which just based on the URL, has no credibility.

It seems like you stopped after the first paragraph.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#42

Post by beardicus »

GreedClarifies wrote: post #30

Yet on the billionaire leaderboard the top-10 are: Musk, Arnault, Bezos, Ellison, Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, Balmer, Page, Bin. Not one of them through inheritance. Sure, you have the waltons a little lower on the list. As a person who started in the bottom decile of wealth I want to hate inheritance at least as much as the next person. But at first glance it sure doesn't look good for these "researchers".

boy, i wonder if these researchers maybe did more research than casually glancing at at top 10 list on the internet?

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#44

Post by suoduandao3 »

GreedClarifies wrote: post #30

Yet on the billionaire leaderboard the top-10 are: Musk, Arnault, Bezos, Ellison, Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, Balmer, Page, Bin. Not one of them through inheritance. Sure, you have the waltons a little lower on the list. As a person who started in the bottom decile of wealth I want to hate inheritance at least as much as the next person. But at first glance it sure doesn't look good for these "researchers".

I think though that most of the people on that list had their net worths decrease last year. To my understanding this article is pointing to a pretty short-term trend, though maybe an important one.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#45

Post by bombcar »

naremu wrote: post #27
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming we're not talking "I have a retirement plan and a house so my net-worth is over a million" type of millionaire, isn't passing oneself off as a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire a distinction without a difference? I guess I don't run in those circles, but it's still fabulous wealth either way.

Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time. But many of those people take their entire lives to go from "pretty well off" to "technically a multi millionaire, after many years of hard work, and planning" and got there from very reasonable expectatio…

In the US a billion is 1,000 million, not one million million.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#46

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

WXLCKNO wrote: post #22
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming we're not talking "I have a retirement plan and a house so my net-worth is over a million" type of millionaire, isn't passing oneself off as a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire a distinction without a difference? I guess I don't run in those circles, but it's still fabulous wealth either way.

Being worth 50 million puts you in the ultra high net worth category (>30M$) and you live an incredible lifestyle obviously. But your entire net worth is 5% yearly interest on a billion dollars. It's hard to imagine for regular people just how far a billion dollars is, you're essentially royalty at that point as far access to anything in life is concerned.

Yes, by the numbers million vs billion is massive, yes, but for quality of life and for worrying about monetary things? You no longer need to be concerned about food or any type of shelter. It's a matter of the size of yacht you can buy.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#47

Post by Ekaros »

nvr219 wrote: post #29
orangepurple wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthiest and most secretive are probably the members of the Rothschild family. Today, the family's total net worth is estimated at an eye-watering $400 billion, with some estimates ranging to an astonishing $1 trillion. Ref: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/the-richest-... Archive: https://archive.is/pMypx -- Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist and author, estimated this year that Putin has somewh…

It's very funny to see Rothschild described as "secretive"; I thought they were one of the most well-known families in the world or at least in Europe.

How many of them an average person can name? And how many of those are still alive?

Name is known, but I don't think they are as individuals known very much at all.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#48

Post by waveBidder »

naremu wrote: post #27
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming we're not talking "I have a retirement plan and a house so my net-worth is over a million" type of millionaire, isn't passing oneself off as a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire a distinction without a difference? I guess I don't run in those circles, but it's still fabulous wealth either way.

Statistically, many "average" upper middle class people are very able to become low tier multimillionaires through a well educated upbringing and a good job, and good financial decisions over a long period of time. But many of those people take their entire lives to go from "pretty well off" to "technically a multi millionaire, after many years of hard work, and planning" and got there from very reasonable expectatio…

literally a thousand…

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#49

Post by hellotomyrars »

gsky wrote: post #20

How's amassing through inheritance instead of squandering is a bad thing? I know a lot of people who are poor because of lack of skill or bad habits.

If the bar for being successful is to inherit a pile of money that means you never have to worry about anything ever without losing it all, then boy is that a low bar.

Plenty of people with a stupid amount of money lack skills and have bad habits. The difference is if you’re born poor you’re at a disadvantage from the jump. It is harder to climb out of poverty than to lose hundreds of millions of dollars of your inherited wealth. Give me a break. Good grief.

Obtaining skills costs money and time. People in poverty are less likely to have the money needed and the free time to do so because they’re working a ton of hours at a low pay rate. Someone born into extravagant wealth doesn’t have to worry about survival and can do whatever the hell they want, even if it is to work hard and obtain skills via education, they have the time and resources to invest.

I’m not going to claim everyone with money didn’t earn it, but many don’t and the generational transfer of wealth is a problematic at the scale it has gotten to.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#50

Post by callalex »

tylersmith wrote: post #23
hilux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's depressing.

But what about it a Trust is depressing exactly? It's just a legal agreement for how wealth can be spent.

Money is a social construct, and it seems you are starting from the base assumption that wealth can be transferred infinitely and unrestricted between generations. Not everyone holds that view of money.
Post reply on HN