America's richest families

[dmcowen674]

7-8-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-richest-families-185-clans-080000370.html

America's richest families

Forbes has compiled the first comprehensive ranking of the richest families in America: 185 dynasties with fortunes of at least $1 billion.

They're collectively worth $1.2 trillion.

The Mellons. The Kennedys. The Rockefellers.

You know the names already.

Nearly all have ties to some of the most storied businesses and brands in American history, including Jack Daniel's, L.L. Bean, Getty Oil, Hallmark and Budweiser.

The wealthiest family in America, and also the world, is the Walton family.

They are worth $152 billion, $63 billion more than the second richest family, headed by the politically active and often controversial Koch brothers.

The three richest families are worth $301 billion, one fourth of cumulative net worth of all the wealthiest families.

 

[dmcowen674]

Most of these are bent on destroying America and doing a heck of a job doing it.

 

[brandonb]

Most of these are bent on destroying America and doing a heck of a job doing it.

How so? Walton's employ more than anybody. That's bad?

 

[BoberFett]

Most of these are bent on destroying America and doing a heck of a job doing it.

What do you do for America, Dave?

 

[dmcowen674]

What do you do for America, Dave?

Those that know me and met from here know I've done and continue to do a lot.

 

[bradley]

Most of these are bent on destroying America and doing a heck of a job doing it.

Being wealthy isn't a crime. Although I would get behind a message that focused solely on the status quo, or those using their power solely to maintain that power... and illegally keeping others (perhaps those more righteous) from gaining power.

Focus on the people who provide no benefit or worth to society (those who hide the truth in order to sell the lie) and yet remain powerful.

 

[BoberFett]

Those that know me and met from here know I've done and continue to do a lot.

Posting lunacy in an online forum doesn't add value.

What do you actually do of value for the United States of America?

 

[dmcowen674]

Posting lunacy in an online forum doesn't add value.

What do you actually do of value for the United States of America?

Part of what I do and have done allows even America haters like you to post in said online forums.

 

[Cozarkian]

I just don't understand why people want to be that wealthy. The most recent interest rate on 30-year TIPS is about 1.375%. If you invested $30 million in those, that's $412,500 annual income. I could live a luxurious lifestyle with $200,000, setting aside the rest to pay for taxes, charitable donations, and reinvestment.

With estate tax of 35%, I'd need around $45 million to guarantee my child could also live off the interest for their entire life. If I wanted to buy a winter and summer mansion and save enough for up to 10 grandchildren, at most I'm looking at half a billion, and that's with about the most conservative investment strategy I can imagine (i.e. break-even with inflation). Not to mention I'd now have about $2 million to spend annually instead of $200,000. I'd have the highest-paid gardener, housekeeper, pool guy, etc... in the country and I'd still be struggling to give away money.

No wonder why the Koch brothers are so politically active. With $63 billion, it's basically a full-time job to find a way to spend it.

 

[Engineer]

No wonder why the Koch brothers are so politically active. With $63 billion, it's basically a full-time job to find a way to spend it.

They're not trying to spend it...they are politically active trying to keep everything they have and gain even more.

 

[TheSiege]

This is 99% stock. Its not like they have 30 billion in cash lying around. They could lose a lot of it if the stock market were to crash.

 

[Cozarkian]

This is 99% stock. Its not like they have 30 billion in cash lying around. They could lose a lot of it if the stock market were to crash.

If they have 30 billion, they could lose 15 billion, transfer the balance from stocks to government bonds, and still have enough for 250 people to live a luxurious lifestyle (about 200,000/year) off the interest.

To each their own, but again, if I had that much money, I'd set aside about half a billion in conservative investments to fund my family line for generations and then would start finding ways to spend more than I can earn on the balance through charity projects, paying exorbitant employee wages, and leaving massive tips.

I don't value money for its own sake, I value what it can purchase, which is one of the reasons I'm not that wealthy. It takes a special kind of crazy to accumulate that much wealth.

 

[Phynaz]

If they have 30 billion, they could lose 15 billion, transfer the balance from stocks to government bonds, and still have enough for 250 people to live a luxurious lifestyle (about 200,000/year) off the interest.

To each their own, but again, if I had that much money, I'd set aside about half a billion in conservative investments to fund my family line for generations and then would start finding ways to spend more than I can earn on the balance through charity projects, paying exorbitant employee wages, and leaving massive tips.

I don't value money for its own sake, I value what it can purchase, which is one of the reasons I'm not that wealthy. It takes a special kind of crazy to accumulate that much wealth.

$200K a year is luxurious?

 

[TheSiege]

If they have 30 billion, they could lose 15 billion, transfer the balance from stocks to government bonds, and still have enough for 250 people to live a luxurious lifestyle (about 200,000/year) off the interest.

To each their own, but again, if I had that much money, I'd set aside about half a billion in conservative investments to fund my family line for generations and then would start finding ways to spend more than I can earn on the balance through charity projects, paying exorbitant employee wages, and leaving massive tips.

I don't value money for its own sake, I value what it can purchase, which is one of the reasons I'm not that wealthy. It takes a special kind of crazy to accumulate that much wealth.

Well it probably has to do with retaining control of their stock. And the mars family (whose company is private) its what analyst suspect the company is worth.

Bottom line, its not cash. Its wealth is based value of the company and stocks.

 

[Matt1970]

If they have 30 billion, they could lose 15 billion, transfer the balance from stocks to government bonds, and still have enough for 250 people to live a luxurious lifestyle (about 200,000/year) off the interest.

To each their own, but again, if I had that much money, I'd set aside about half a billion in conservative investments to fund my family line for generations and then would start finding ways to spend more than I can earn on the balance through charity projects, paying exorbitant employee wages, and leaving massive tips.

I don't value money for its own sake, I value what it can purchase, which is one of the reasons I'm not that wealthy. It takes a special kind of crazy to accumulate that much wealth.

They are just like Bill Gates. They would take a massive hit trying to unload 1/2 their stock assets. And most of the people who do have that kind of wealth donate more to charity than you can imagine.

 

[Strk]

How so? Walton's employ more than anybody. That's bad?

Well, the Waltons at least, are pretty lousy. A large portion of their workforce requires government assistance. Walmarts do some seriously shady, browbeating practices to vendors. And, while charity isn't required, it is worth noting that, between all the family members, the only money they've ever donated, except for a small amount from one of the kids, comes from an endowment Sam Walton made before his death.

As for the others on that list, yeah, usual BS about them destroying the country. The Kochs are the most interesting in that group though, since they aren't exactly what they are vilified for. While they have supported Republicans, they really are libertarians. They just want government out of everything. People seem to assume they're just lock-step with the GOP, but what else do they support? Limited foreign policy, gay marriage, pot legalization and plenty of other things the GOP is against.

 

[Cozarkian]

$200K a year is luxurious?

That's 200K spending money, not a 200K salary. It's post-tax, post-charity (about 100K) with no need to put any into savings, no mortgage, and no other debt.

 

[Phynaz]

That's 200K spending money, not a 200K salary. It's post-tax, post-charity (about 100K) with no need to put any into savings, no mortgage, and no other debt.

And?

Oh, and the interest you are talking about is taxable. At regular income rates.

 

[who?]

There's something in the old testament that says if you brag of your good deeds among men your only rewards will come from men and not from God. If you want rewards for your good deeds from God you shouldn't brag about them among men. What you remember God forgets and what you forget God remembers.

 

[Jeff7]

I just don't understand why people want to be that wealthy. The most recent interest rate on 30-year TIPS is about 1.375%. If you invested $30 million in those, that's $412,500 annual income. I could live a luxurious lifestyle with $200,000, setting aside the rest to pay for taxes, charitable donations, and reinvestment.

With estate tax of 35%, I'd need around $45 million to guarantee my child could also live off the interest for their entire life. If I wanted to buy a winter and summer mansion and save enough for up to 10 grandchildren, at most I'm looking at half a billion, and that's with about the most conservative investment strategy I can imagine (i.e. break-even with inflation). Not to mention I'd now have about $2 million to spend annually instead of $200,000. I'd have the highest-paid gardener, housekeeper, pool guy, etc... in the country and I'd still be struggling to give away money.

No wonder why the Koch brothers are so politically active. With $63 billion, it's basically a full-time job to find a way to spend it.

I think that once you get to that point, you will find things to spend it on.

The majority of the world's population lives in what we would consider to be poverty. Some of them live in severe poverty.
Here in the US, we have abundant food available all over the place, clean water, good sanitation systems, and a moderately-functional electric grid. $20k/year can pay for housing and essentials for one person, perhaps with a bit left over. But it's not considered to be very good pay. Yet we find plenty of other things to spend it on, mostly related to entertainment. Internet, cable TV, cellphone, phone service, alcohol or tobacco, online services.....the list goes on.
Once you're acclimated to $400k/year, you're going to want more. Then as you see that your money and position translates to power over others, you keep wanting more. Eventually you end up with people who control billions of dollars in wealth, and can effectively afford to buy out their own politicians and have laws made in their favor.

$200K a year is luxurious?

I'll answer that from my perspective: Fucking hell yes it is.
First job out of college started me at $40k/year. I didn't know what to do with that much money. So I paid off my 10-year-term student loans in under 3 years. And bought a new car once my 11-year-old car started to rust itself to pieces.
$200k/year? I'd finally have to learn about things like tax-efficient investing once IRA and 401k space is filled and there's still money left.

 

[Cozarkian]

And?

And yes, I think 200K of spending money (as opposed to 200K in pre-tax gross income), with no debt and no need to save for the future, is enough to live a luxurious lifestyle.

Oh, and the interest you are talking about is taxable. At regular income rates.

Well, if you read enough to know that, then you should have also read enough to realize that the calculation was actually for $412,500 and that the $200K figure was derived after providing a generous set aside (more than 50%) to pay for federal taxes (no state tax on federal bonds), charitable contributions (which reduce the tax liability), and reinvestment (help stave off inflation), so that the entire 200K can be devoted to consumption of goods and services.

 

[WackyDan]

Most of these are bent on destroying America and doing a heck of a job doing it.

Yes... The staggering amount of money these families have given in the name of philanthropy is destroying America.

Museums.
Schools.
Hospitals.
Scholarships.
Endowments.
etc.

These people are rich and continue to get shit on and still give. If anyone is outraged it should be them.

 

[WackyDan]

$200K a year is luxurious?

I know. I'm on track to about $170k this year and trust me, it isn't luxury. It is comfortable certainly. If I could work the next 20+ years at that level I'd have a comfortable retirement... But not luxurious. Shit... I'm living in a modest home with a run of the mill chevy and ford.

Well, everyone has their standards.

 

[WackyDan]

That's 200K spending money, not a 200K salary. It's post-tax, post-charity (about 100K) with no need to put any into savings, no mortgage, and no other debt.

Ah... well that paints a different picture indeed. I can agree with that. 200k would allow that. You can live a great life on that kind of spending money and be just as content as those that spend 100 million on a jet, boat, etc.

Well, mostly as content. It is still a lot of dead hookers either way.

 

[Cozarkian]

I think that once you get to that point, you will find things to spend it on.

I know I would. For example, I wouldn't need a 10-car garage because I wouldn't buy more than 3 cars. Instead of taking my cars into the shop for periodic oil changes, however, I'd pay the mechanic to drive to my house, pick up the car, take it into the shop, and drop it off when the service was done, and instead of just paying the rate for hourly labor, I'd just double or triple the total bill. That provides a real benefit to me in the form of convenience, but it's incredibly wasteful.

I'd also be setting up huge endowments for charities. Let's say my local <insert desired charity> has an annual operating expense of $200,000. Well, I'd drop $10-20 million into a trust that is set up to reinvest a portion of the earnings to keep up with inflation and pays the post-tax balance (hopefully about $200,000) to the <charity name>. On top of that, I'd probably throw the volunteers a kick-ass christmas party at a fancy restaurant where I hired chauffeurs to make sure they all get home safely.

The point is, if I were that wealthy, rather than trying to accumulate more wealth, I'd be finding ways to spend the money so that when I die, the only thing left is enough money for a couple generations of my heirs to be able to live off the interest.

I'm not actually criticizing wealthy people that don't do that, I just don't understand why they wouldn't.