Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'?
whygohome
Posts: 2,305
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533/Did_the ... Build_That
By: Robert Frank
CNBC Reporter & Editor
The Forbes list is an annual ode to the American dream. The roster of richest Americans is filled with stories of entrepreneurs who started with little (or at least not a lot) and built a business and personal fortune through hard work, good ideas and perfect timing.
Recent additions include Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook [FB 22.15 0.16 (+0.73%) ] and Sara Blakely, the founder of Spanx.
But a new report claims that the story of self-made wealth on the Forbes list is just that – a story. The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a “sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.”
Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.” (Read more: Tax Hikes Will Chill Giving, Say Billionaires)
“The truth is that Americans have never had an equal opportunity to become wealthy. Rather than concocting fables about our ‘opportunity society,’ the editors of Forbes should be examining the birthright privileges enjoyed by many of those on the list,” the report stated.
On its face, the question of whether a couple dozen billionaires made or inherited their wealth seems trivial. And even by United for a Fair Economy's calculations, the number of "self-made" rich is rising. In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune.
But the question of what counts as “self-made” is now in the political spotlight after President Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments and attacks on Mitt Romney’s family privilege.
United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle [ORCL 31.71 0.04 (+0.13%) ], who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Are Not Fit to Inherit)
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.
How do you define “self-made” wealth? Can you inherit your dad’s company and still be self-made?
By: Robert Frank
CNBC Reporter & Editor
The Forbes list is an annual ode to the American dream. The roster of richest Americans is filled with stories of entrepreneurs who started with little (or at least not a lot) and built a business and personal fortune through hard work, good ideas and perfect timing.
Recent additions include Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook [FB 22.15 0.16 (+0.73%) ] and Sara Blakely, the founder of Spanx.
But a new report claims that the story of self-made wealth on the Forbes list is just that – a story. The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a “sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.”
Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.” (Read more: Tax Hikes Will Chill Giving, Say Billionaires)
“The truth is that Americans have never had an equal opportunity to become wealthy. Rather than concocting fables about our ‘opportunity society,’ the editors of Forbes should be examining the birthright privileges enjoyed by many of those on the list,” the report stated.
On its face, the question of whether a couple dozen billionaires made or inherited their wealth seems trivial. And even by United for a Fair Economy's calculations, the number of "self-made" rich is rising. In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune.
But the question of what counts as “self-made” is now in the political spotlight after President Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments and attacks on Mitt Romney’s family privilege.
United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.
That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle [ORCL 31.71 0.04 (+0.13%) ], who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Are Not Fit to Inherit)
This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.
The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.
The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.
How do you define “self-made” wealth? Can you inherit your dad’s company and still be self-made?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
As for Trump - and I get he's mostly hated on this forum, not to mention that HAIR!! - if he weren't capable of running that empire, it would've fallen by now. So I don't disparage him for that, nor for all of those he employs.
Anyway, I find it interesting - and heartening! - that the self-made group has grown.
I don't care if someone got a hand-up along the way, or a monetary gift to get where they are. No man's an island, etc...
As long as they work their ass off and don't treat their employees like shit, they're alright by me.
(quick aside - why must reports have the "left- or right-leaning" thing attached? Can't shit just be reported without bias? Does that even exist anymore?)
CNBC actually leans more to the right; I feel it is a pretty good report, one focused on a study that was done.
Wh..wh...wh...whaaaattttt??
Let's say the US government seized all of the funds and assets of the Forbes 400 ... in 2010 that total number was $1,300,000,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_400.
The US government is in debt by $16,000,000,000,000. If the total of the Forbes 400 is injected into the US Government, the US is still $14,700,000,000,000 in debt.
There is no redistribution or equality, even if ALL their money is taken by our elected officials. At most, it will pay for a few years of interest on the total debt.
Quit focusing on the diversion and focus on the real issue ... our leaders.
This is still silly and really has nothing to do with the original post and the article linked. Start a new thread if you want.
So what is the point of the article? That there are a lot of people of the Forbes 400 list that inherited their money from their parents? And because of this, the other 306 million US citizens may never have a chance to crack the Forbes 400?
as far as the question in bold, not sure I understand why the distinction needs to be made at all
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No - you're raining on his parade. The Forbes 400 are evil and should all be killed because not everyone has a chance to become a billionaire. Because, that's what everyone should be striving for - to become a billionaire. It's not enough to earn a good living. There are people out there with billions, and they are evil. We must do something about them because they may or may not have gotten help from others.
Why would pointing out that taking all their wealth would have 0 impact on the jobs market or any other economic problem in the US have anything to do with the fact that they are evil, evil people that are screwing the rest of us poor schmucks?
Please stay on topic. Thank you.
I don't know why that was in bold, An oversight that is now fixed.
Yup. I think they are "evil."
Nice try....or were you going for a gross misinterpretation and a foolish response all along?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Corporate CEO: Yes, I'd like to take out a loan to build a new plant.
Loan Agent: All right, that should be no problem. Just have to run a quick credit check first.
Corporate CEO: (oh, fuck)
verses
Congress: Here is $500,000,000. Vote for me.
Crickets: cricket
Which ones were built by a person at some point and which were built by the government?
Is the point of the article to say it's ok to take someone's money once it is passed down a generation? Really?
interestng....
i didn't know that Abraham was the ceo of GE...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Nope. But an individual did, not the government. And the CEO built his own career.
I do think CEO pay is out of control, but lets not pretend that those companies that are worth a lot of $ were indeed built by business owners. I'd be all for a tax increase on funds/capital gains because this is where those CEOs get the most of their money. Tax the hell out of "bonuses" and capital gains after a certain amount (not sure what that is, but you can't discourage savings for low, middle, or even upper income people that don't fall into the CEO level of $.
Uncle Sam is more happy then I am if I get a bonus.
Well, I know they do our bonuses...I wonder if the CEO bonuses are taxed at that same 40% rate or whatever it is. I'm talking about the $10 million bonuses.