3 ms·
>35% of the Forbes 400 list was born into a middle class or lower household. Just to provide a little more clarity. Those numbers are from 2012. In 1997, 31% w
by sharkmerry 6y ago
>35% of the Forbes 400 list was born into a middle class or lower household.
Just to provide a little more clarity. Those numbers are from 2012. In 1997, 31% were in born "in the batters box"
However, there is a wide range of circumstances in the batter box. Defined as: "individuals and families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees."
Perhaps we differentiate on self-made, but some of those 35% I would not consider self-made either.
- eanzenberg 6y agoI think focusing on “self-made” is a red herring. No one is truly self-made. The point is, a good portion of the top wealthy people were not born into families of the top wealthy people, 1 generation ago.
- slg 6y agoIt depends on definitions of "good portion" and "top wealthy people", but I don't think the numbers show the conclusions you are drawing from them. The numbers vary by year as people enter or drop out of the Forbes list. However generally speaking you can probably divide that list into rough thirds. One third is the first generation experiencing any wealth. One third was born into enough wealth that they likely would never have to work a day in their life, except they decided to work and were able to compound that wealth into a obscene amount of money. The last third was already born with that extravagant wealth and may or may not have done anything to increase it. Back to the topic at hand, a wealth tax would not have prevented those first two-thirds from earning their fortune. It would only negatively impact the starting position of that last third. The primary impact of a wealth tax would be to decrease generational billionaires which serves to increases the meritocracy.