Anonymous wrote:
It's not:
$1M per grandchild for private k-12
$1M per grandchild for college
$250-400k per year of retirement, pay ordinary income taxes on it.
XxxM to donate
yM to each adult child

Anonymous wrote:professor who teaches one college class

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In high-paying fields like BIGLAW, I banking, medical specialties etc. it may be harder to tell who is "truly" self-made and who has family money as well.

It's easier to tell when you have someone who works in a museum married to a freelance producer living in an expensive apartment in Manhattan etc.

I was in Biglaw and also went to boarding school, top college, etc. I don't know anyone who comes from family wealth who went into law or medicine. My friends and acquaintances from truly wealthy families generally did something very lucrative (in finance) or fun (in the arts or charity or the random race car driver I mentioned above).

So the children of very successful lawyers and MDs don't follow their parents' career path?

Those are UMC careers unless you're talking Hollywood litigator or Dr Oz. And many doctors have a parent who was a doctor. Follow the path? Depends if the kid is grounded and has the work ethic to do well at school for a long time. If they get a $20-50k check a month, maybe not. Most doctors and lawyers do not have $50m+ at retirement to pass along, $10-20m yes but not shitloads of sweat equity from founding a company and monetizing it years later. High risk, high Renard. md is not high risk and even if you are a $500-1000k surgeon, you bank half of that after taxes and insurance. At least you work shifts and not 10+ hours each weekday. I thank you for volunteering so much at my kids private school.

Yeah, $10 million net worth is not enough to finance your offspring into adulthood or to leave big inheritances.

Anonymous wrote:Freelance producer
Artist
Working at nonprofits

Anonymous wrote:Wow - I feel like I came from a very privileged background but I don't know even a fraction of the number of truly wealthy people as many on here appear to know!

The ones that I know is incredibly wealthy (as in his dad bought a professional sports team rich) is a partner at a small boutique law firm. Double Ivy (undergrad and JD) and nice as can be. Wife is a lawyer (also double ivy) and comes from a lot of money, although not as much as he does. She is a GC at a small PE shop. They have 3 kids.

I definitely have other friends with trust funds and there jobs all vary widely, but nothing else in the 10M+ range, which is what I put into the "do not need to work" category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freelance producer
Artist
Working at nonprofits

Working at non profit boards while kids in elementary school

Anonymous wrote:From the people I know:

Musician (semi big in the LA underground music world)
Capital Hill (not really sure what, but something swanky)
Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal (currently lives overseas)
Blogger
Nurse
IT start up (that is quite successful)
Chronic graduate student
Infectious Disease Doctor
Doctor who works for Doctors Without Borders
Non profit cofounder that supplies clean water in impoverished countries
Non profit founder who deals with education in impoverished countries
Non profit founder who deals with medicine in impoverished countries.
And various start up companies, some successful and some not

But perhaps the biggest long-term impact may come from the nonprofit institutions that the wealthy fund. Nonprofit foundations have been growing rapidly in size and influence since the late ’20s, paralleling the expansion of other parts of the clerisy like the universities and government. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent to more than 1.5 million. Their total employment has also soared: By 2010, 10.7 million people were employed by nonprofits—more than the number of people working in the construction and finance sectors combined—and the category has expanded far more rapidly than the rest of the economy, adding two million jobs since 2002. By 2010, nonprofits accounted for an economy of roughly $780 billion and paid upwards of 9 percent of wages and 10 percent of jobs in the overall economy.
Nonprofits, due to their accumulated wealth, are able to thrive even in tough times, adding jobs even in the worst years of the Great Recession.
In the past these organizations might have tended to be conservative, as inherited wealth followed the old notions of noblesse oblige and supported traditional aid to the poor, such as scholarships and food banks. But the new rich, particularly the young, tend to be more progressive, or at least gentry liberal. The direction of this rapidly expanding part of the clerisy will be increasingly important in the future, and already many of the largest foundations—Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and MacArthur—veer far toward a left social-action agenda.This is particularly ironic since their founders were conservative, or even reactionary, and generally held strong, sometimes fundamentalist, religious beliefs.
Much of this shift reflects the social phenomena of inheritors in general. Not involved with making their fortunes, and sometimes even embarrassed by how those fortunes were made, the new generation of “trust-fund progressives” often adopt viewpoints at odds with those of their ancestors. One particularly amusing, and revealing, development has been the recent announcement by the Rockefeller heirs that they would divest themselves of the very fossil fuels that built their vast fortune.
Of course, there remain many conservative foundations, such as those funded by the Koch brothers, who wield their fortunes for highly conservative causes. But roughly 75 percent of the political contributions of nonprofits tend to go in a left, green, or progressive direction.
This trend is likely to accelerate, as millennials—who will inherit the most money and may be the most inheritance-dominated generation in recent American history—enter adulthood. Schooled in political correctness, and not needing to engage in the mundane work of business, this large cadre of heirs to great fortunes will almost surely seek to shape what we think, how we live, and how we vote. They may consider themselves progressives, but they may more likely help shape a future that looks ever less like the egalitarian American of our imaginings, and ever more like a less elegant version of Downton Abbey.