America's richest families

[maluckey]

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.

....

Ignore the facts much? Granted I did not look up the Koch family because I limited myself to a station break.

First off...you're wrong about charity. For starters...look up Crystal Bridges Museum, which is free for eternity to anyone. Alice Walton is the driving force and . founder of the almost 800 million dollar enterprise. How about Children's Miracle Network donations (Walmart is the largest sponsor), or the fact that Walmart employs more people than ANYONE, and the fact that certain prescriptions from WALMART are cheaper than anywhere for several dozen important drugs.

Then show us where Target pays more as an average for hourly, and has fewer percentage of employees off of public assistance...you can't. Show us that another company close to their size is more environmentally green....you can't. Show where another company Walmart size has better health-care coverage...you can't.

Walmart is many things.....what you listed is NOT any of them.

I fault them for being overly PC at times: overly friendly to Foreign-Visa holders and previously overly friendly to imports.

Times are changing, and while I'm not foolish enough to believe that being green isn't paying them well, and bringing suppliers closer to home doesn't give more profit, I understand that a business is not a charity (or the govt.). They're in business to provide the shareholders and board of directors with a return on investment.

sheesh! My fact-checking took about three minutes....go home.....!!!

 

[Jeff7]

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.

High cost of living area, 17 people living in one household, or what?


Maybe we define "luxury" very differently.

 

[Strk]

Ignore the facts much? Granted I did not look up the Koch family because I limited myself to a station break.

First off...you're wrong about charity. For starters...look up Crystal Bridges Museum, which is free for eternity to anyone. Alice Walton is the driving force and . founder of the almost 800 million dollar enterprise. How about Children's Miracle Network donations (Walmart is the largest sponsor), or the fact that Walmart employs more people than ANYONE, and the fact that certain prescriptions from WALMART are cheaper than anywhere for several dozen important drugs.

Then show us where Target pays more as an average for hourly, and has fewer percentage of employees off of public assistance...you can't. Show us that another company close to their size is more environmentally green....you can't. Show where another company Walmart size has better health-care coverage...you can't.

Walmart is many things.....what you listed is NOT any of them.

I fault them for being overly PC at times: overly friendly to Foreign-Visa holders and previously overly friendly to imports.

Times are changing, and while I'm not foolish enough to believe that being green isn't paying them well, and bringing suppliers closer to home doesn't give more profit, I understand that a business is not a charity (or the govt.). They're in business to provide the shareholders and board of directors with a return on investment.

sheesh! My fact-checking took about three minutes....go home.....!!!

I didn't say they didn't give to charity through the foundation, but that almost all of that money is from Sam Walton, while his kids have donated almost nothing, which includes that museum.

 

[WackyDan]

High cost of living area, 17 people living in one household, or what?


Maybe we define "luxury" very differently.

We probably do and that is the rub. Of course if you've never made that much money, you might assume a lot about what that enables.

I'm not driving a BMW, a Mercedes, a 60k SUV. My house was bought for $142k as a distressed property in 2004 when I was making $60k and my wife 30k.

I didn't hit 100k until 2007. I was laid off in 2010, got a decent severance. Was unemployed for 8 months and then picked up at a higher base wage. Moved into a new position two years ago which bumped me up little by little to where I'm at now.

The rub is next year I might only make $130k. The rub is next year I could be laid off again. I don't live like those wages are always going to be that high, or there at all.

I don't live in a McMansion. I don't drive fancy cars. My wife has to stay at home to care for our daughter who has some elevated medical needs since birth in 2010. I didn't start saving much for retirement until my income started its rise in 2006, so I'm behind the 8 ball.

So no, not living in luxury. I won't deny that the income allows me to pay off my vehicles ahead of time and that the only debt is the mortgage. It allows me to have enough of an emergency fund to hopefully weather another lay off. I'm trying to play catch up with retirement with the hope the wife can go back to work in two years to ensure that security. Still fixing up the house and hoping it will be worth $190k by time we sell, if we sell. I want another house - same size range but with a bit more land than the 1/3 acre we have now so I can put up a pole barn and run a business out of that for a soft retirement at the least.

So my income doesn't feel like a lot of money. Even though we live pretty modestly. I used to think back in 2000 that 100k a year was a shit ton of money... I was making 38-40k that year. The only thing that really changed since then was the house and having a wife and child.

So it seems to me the more you make, there are diminishing returns on that higher amount. The only reason I want more earnings is simple to ensure a comfortable retirement vs a comfortable "now", and perhaps that is the difference between myself and many of my peers in the same salary range. I can see where If my pay were to jump into the 250k range then I'd might consider a bit more of the "wants" versus needs. Then again, I'd love to disconnect from the corporate world and do something more enjoyable, but self employed probably making 1/3 of what I make now... And that is part of my plan.

So yes, we are comfy in that we have what we need, a bit of what we want, and only the mortgage to pay off at this point. We are very fortunate compared to many, but rich? Hardly.

 

[who?]

I didn't say they didn't give to charity through the foundation, but that almost all of that money is from Sam Walton, while his kids have donated almost nothing, which includes that museum.

If his kids are obeying the old testament they don't brag about their giving among mankind because they know that God knows what they've done and that's what's important. Besides that I wonder how much begging they would have to deal with if they publicised their giving.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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

Illegally installing software on dozens/hundreds of computers owned by others is allowing us to post on online forums?

 

[Zebo]

Hard to comprehend that kind of money. I mean so you buy a sweet beachfront house on balboa or palm beach for 25m. Toys like a ski boat, Ferrari, atv etc 1m. What else you need? You prolly made more in interest than you just spent.

I'd still fish all the time. Just ocean instead of lakes. Ocean fishing is $$$$. Easy to spend $1000 a day on fuel.

 

[1prophet]

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.

You should be a consultant for the rich on how they should spend their money, since it seems they are all going about it the wrong way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

I hate to say it but Dave has a point at least about them. Walmart employs more because it took away local jobs. They are more efficient, meaning they use fewer people to work harder and pay them less. I saw it happen a few times in New England.

It's true that they didn't start the trend, but they are all consuming.

 

[Jeff7]

We probably do and that is the rub. Of course if you've never made that much money, you might assume a lot about what that enables.

I'm not driving a BMW, a Mercedes, a 60k SUV. My house was bought for $142k as a distressed property in 2004 when I was making $60k and my wife 30k.

I didn't hit 100k until 2007. I was laid off in 2010, got a decent severance. Was unemployed for 8 months and then picked up at a higher base wage. Moved into a new position two years ago which bumped me up little by little to where I'm at now.

Even that's something of a luxury. The "severance" I've always seen is, "Your employment ties to us are severed as of right now. You will be permitted to clean out your desk of any personal items, and we will then escort you off the premises. You will receive pay for the remainder of the workday."


I just remember that my parents raised my sister and I on a combined income of somewhere in the area of $70k or $80k/year. I had friends with parents in engineering or pharmaceuticals. Our house could have fit comfortably in their houses at least twice. Central air systems, their PCs had Soundblasters back when they were $200 add-in cards (and multiple PCs in one house, no less), a huge Christmas tree, and even a carphone, which was in the company car. (This was the early-mid 90s.)

The rub is next year I might only make $130k. The rub is next year I could be laid off again. I don't live like those wages are always going to be that high, or there at all.

Commission work? Or is it bonuses that come and go year to year?

I don't live in a McMansion. I don't drive fancy cars. My wife has to stay at home to care for our daughter who has some elevated medical needs since birth in 2010. I didn't start saving much for retirement until my income started its rise in 2006, so I'm behind the 8 ball.

Yeah, that'll definitely cost something. :\

So no, not living in luxury. I won't deny that the income allows me to pay off my vehicles ahead of time and that the only debt is the mortgage. It allows me to have enough of an emergency fund to hopefully weather another lay off. I'm trying to play catch up with retirement with the hope the wife can go back to work in two years to ensure that security. Still fixing up the house and hoping it will be worth $190k by time we sell, if we sell. I want another house - same size range but with a bit more land than the 1/3 acre we have now so I can put up a pole barn and run a business out of that for a soft retirement at the least.

So my income doesn't feel like a lot of money. Even though we live pretty modestly. I used to think back in 2000 that 100k a year was a shit ton of money... I was making 38-40k that year. The only thing that really changed since then was the house and having a wife and child.
...

Well....for many people, it is a lot.
Especially given that a lot of people are assuming that "retirement" means "Work until I die because I can't afford anything else."
I don't know how people entering the workforce now are expected to afford it. Hopefully the stock market doesn't go into a plunge, though I do wonder, given all the stupid accounting tricks used to inflate earnings just to get some good quarters - stockholders are the true customers for some companies. Actual customers buying products are just a nuisance.
If if you're making $12/hr doing basic assembly work in one of the few places that hasn't offshored that kind of job, how much can you stick in a 401k? And god help you if you have any kind of medical problems along the way.


I'll still say that a family income of $200k/year is doing pretty darn good.


(I'm living on my own with no plans for kids, at least unless it'd be legal to toss them into frozen stasis most of the time, like having a big Pause button. That's probably not good parenting though. So that'd be $200k for just one, maybe two, people; that's where my default perspective is. Yes, luxury.)

Hard to comprehend that kind of money. I mean so you buy a sweet beachfront house on balboa or palm beach for 25m. Toys like a ski boat, Ferrari, atv etc 1m. What else you need? You prolly made more in interest than you just spent.

I'd still fish all the time. Just ocean instead of lakes. Ocean fishing is $$$$. Easy to spend $1000 a day on fuel.

Like I said, regulatory capture: Buy your own politicians. You can do no wrong if you can control the definition of "wrong."
Then upgrade to a better yacht that can store your jetskis. Then a better one with a helicopter pad.
Then spend enough on your hookers and heroin so that you can be sure that you won't get overdosed to death.

 

[WackyDan]

Even that's something of a luxury. The "severance" I've always seen is, "Your employment ties to us are severed as of right now. You will be permitted to clean out your desk of any personal items, and we will then escort you off the premises. You will receive pay for the remainder of the workday."


I just remember that my parents raised my sister and I on a combined income of somewhere in the area of $70k or $80k/year. I had friends with parents in engineering or pharmaceuticals. Our house could have fit comfortably in their houses at least twice. Central air systems, their PCs had Soundblasters back when they were $200 add-in cards (and multiple PCs in one house, no less), a huge Christmas tree, and even a carphone, which was in the company car. (This was the early-mid 90s.)






Commission work? Or is it bonuses that come and go year to year?



Yeah, that'll definitely cost something. :\




Well....for many people, it is a lot.
Especially given that a lot of people are assuming that "retirement" means "Work until I die because I can't afford anything else."
I don't know how people entering the workforce now are expected to afford it. Hopefully the stock market doesn't go into a plunge, though I do wonder, given all the stupid accounting tricks used to inflate earnings just to get some good quarters - stockholders are the true customers for some companies. Actual customers buying products are just a nuisance.
If if you're making $12/hr doing basic assembly work in one of the few places that hasn't offshored that kind of job, how much can you stick in a 401k? And god help you if you have any kind of medical problems along the way.


I'll still say that a family income of $200k/year is doing pretty darn good.


(I'm living on my own with no plans for kids, at least unless it'd be legal to toss them into frozen stasis most of the time, like having a big Pause button. That's probably not good parenting though. So that'd be $200k for just one, maybe two, people; that's where my default perspective is. Yes, luxury.)





Like I said, regulatory capture: Buy your own politicians. You can do no wrong if you can control the definition of "wrong."
Then upgrade to a better yacht that can store your jetskis. Then a better one with a helicopter pad.
Then spend enough on your hookers and heroin so that you can be sure that you won't get overdosed to death.

Severance isn't a luxury. It is a benefit or perk. If I'd been with them 15 years I would have gotten a "full" package which yes, would have been a luxury. I got 8 weeks for four years on that job. Large Corporation with a standard calculation for shit like that.

I get base plus commission and other incentives, hence planning for less just in case.

I never in my reply to you suggested that I thought we weren't fortunate. I recognize what my current earning are and how that compares to many - at the same time, my income level isn't all that rare either. If my career had bloomed earlier, and I had been making more earlier on, and I planned on working at that level until I was 60-65 then I'd probably be sitting in a very very comfy place now and in retirement. Too many of us got a late start, and even if I work another 16 years till 60 or 21 years to 65, I'm still nervous about our savings. No one in the U.S. has ever fully retired on a 401k that I'm aware of.

People like me that stress about that a good thing as at least we will potentially be not as dependent on gov't services/programs in retirement if at all - While still paying income taxes on what we consume from our retirement accounts.

 

[Newell Steamer]

They manipulate the system - and then cry when the system asks for them to pay their share.

On top of it, they expect the system to protect them at all costs,.. otherwise, they threaten to go to another country.

They are blood thirsty lot; that squeezes the middle class dry and is a parasite on our own government.

 

[Zebo]

They manipulate the system - and then cry when the system asks for them to pay their share.

On top of it, they expect the system to protect them at all costs,.. otherwise, they threaten to go to another country.

They are blood thirsty lot; that squeezes the middle class dry and is a parasite on our own government.

not all of them...buffet even ran an expose how he didnt pay shit in tax comqre to his administrative asssistant

 

[Stewox]

So what, I mean, they are the saviors, they really deserve it, you should pay the cost of your own slavery and worship them. You know, they kill your grandma with fake medicine and poisonous vaccines, they rape little girls so they end up sterile from the sheer force of it, they chop children's throats out and drink their blood, but we should all ignore that because Eva Mendes is pregnant and Miley Virus is really trendy right now.