Quote Originally Posted by ggiese View Post
I suspect there was not a LOT of research put into his theory about inherited wealth...

Per Forbes (in its dicussion of the worlds 400 richest people):



Link to the Forbes article

Which leads me back to the original hypothesis put forward by my grandfather (as salty as he was)...

If you strip the wealthy and distribute it evenly - what it took to be a billioniare does not change. The billionaire will use his business saavy and prowess to again become a billionaire - most likely off of the person who does not possess that same skillset. Contrary to what some like Julia Issacs may say - history has repeatedly taught us - it more truly about passion, and much less about "silver spoons"...
Oh yes, the forbes list. You do realize that the only thing that was used to qualify as inherited money was for those people to have gained ALL of it without working for themselves. The vast majority still come from old money, they just have interests of their own also. So, just because someone has a job title, doesn't mean they didn't get it due to their family social status, or that most of their money didn't come directly from inheritance.
Lets use your favorite politician as an example. Old dumbya wouldn't have made 2 cents if it wasn't for his family money and status. He never would have been accepted to ANY major college in the U.S., something about him being a complete idiot.