June, 16 2021, 07:57am EDT

New Report: Silver Spoon Oligarchs: How America's 50 Largest Inherited-Wealth Dynasties Accelerate Inequality
Together 50 families hold about half of the wealth of the bottom half of all U.S.households, an estimated 65 million families, and their wealth grew at ten times the rate of ordinary families during the last 40 years.
WASHINGTON
A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) finds that the U.S. continues to suffer from the extreme and growing wealth and power of inherited-wealth family dynasties - and the growth of their extreme wealth accelerated during the pandemic.
The report, "Silver Spoon Oligarchs: How America's 50 Largest Inherited-Wealth Dynasties Accelerate Inequality," tracked the 50 wealthiest families from 1983 to 2020 using data from Forbes. IPS researchers found that by 2020, the 50 families had amassed $1.2 trillion in assets. For the 27 families on the Forbes 400 list in 1983, their combined wealth had grown by 1,007 percent and for the five wealthiest dynastic families, their wealth increased by a median 2,484 percent during 37 years. The Walton family led the pack with an increase of 4,320 percent, while the Mars candy family saw its wealth increase 3,517 percent.
"When we focus on the surging fortunes of first-generation billionaires - and their shocking tax avoidance - we forget to look at the troubling growth of dynastic families and the changes in tax policies that will enable the children of today's billionaires to become tomorrow's oligarchs," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and author of the new book, The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions.
"In a healthy democratic society with a functioning tax system, wealth disperses over decades as people have children, pay their taxes, and give to charity. But with a weak tax system on wealth - as confirmed by the recent leak showing low billionaire taxes - we are now seeing wealth accelerate over generations, leading to consolidated wealth and power," he said.
The report finds that inherited wealth dynasties are growing due to an inadequate tax system, excessive hiding of wealth in dynasty trusts, and low charitable giving by multi-generational wealth dynasties. It also finds that members of the inherited wealth generation are using their wealth and power to rig the rules to get more wealth and power. Some are even using their charitable donations and political giving to press for lower taxes.
Other key findings from the report include:
Dynastic wealth grows much faster than the wealth of ordinary families. The 27 families who were on the Forbes 400 list in 1983 had a median increase in their net worth, adjusted for inflation, of 904 percent over those 37 years. In contrast, between 1989 and 2019--the most recent year available--the wealth of the typical family in the U.S. increased by just 93 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The wealth of the very top grew even faster. The five wealthiest dynastic families in the US have seen their wealth increase by a median 2,484 percent from 1983 to 2020. For example:
In 1983, Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and his children were worth just $2.15 billion (or $5.6 billion in 2020 dollars). By the end of 2020, Walton's descendants had a combined net worth of over $247 billion, an inflation-adjusted increase of 4,320 percent.
The Mars candy dynasty has seen its wealth increase 3,517 percent over the past 37 years, from $2.6 billion in 1983 (in 2020 dollars) to $94 billion by 2020. The Mars family also stands out for the miniscule amount of money they have stored in family foundations--$48 million as of 2018--in contrast to the large sums they have spent on public policy advocacy to change tax laws.
Cosmetics magnate Estee Lauder and her descendants have seen their wealth grow from just $1.6 billion in 1983 (in 2020 dollars) to $40 billion in 2020. This is a growth rate of 2,465 percent. A hefty portion of that growth has come in just the past five years: the Lauder family's assets have grown 119 percent since 2015, for an average growth rate of 16.9 percent each year.
Dynastic wealth is persistent and consolidating. Of the 20 wealthiest families on the list in 2020, 13 were already in the top 20 in 1983. Only 4 of the top 20 wealth dynasties are new to the list since 1983.
Wealth for dynastic families has grown significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the top 10 families on the Forbes dynasty list have had a median growth in their net worth of 25 percent.
Dynastically wealthy families wield a great deal of political power, and use it to further their interests. The report profiles dynastic family members who spend millions lobbying for favorable tax, labor, and trade policies, give to candidates, campaigns and PACs, serve on policy advisory boards; and even serve in government themselves. For example, members of the Busch, Mars, Koch, and Walton families have together spent more than $120 million over the past ten years on lobbying directly for tax, labor, and trade policies favorable to their businesses and investments.
Dynastic families exploit their philanthropic power too, through charities and foundations. The report examined more than 248 foundations set up by the top 50 families, housing more than $51 billion in assets. While many move much-needed revenue to broader public interest charities, others fund groups working to reduce taxes on the wealthy and roll back regulations that constrain corporate profits. Some funnel millions to donor-advised funds, which can fund dark-money political advocacy. And in a few cases, family members have used them to compensate themselves.
The report profiles all of the 50 families, including the Waltons, the Kochs, the Mars family, and many others, some well-known and some relatively unknown. The report explains the dangers from the extreme consolidation of dynastic wealth and power with sections such as:
The dangers of dynastic wealth accumulation
Immense and tenacious fortunes
The political power of wealth dynasties
Philanthropy as an extension of dynastic power
The dynastiesThat might have been
A section of the report entitled, The Six Habits of Highly-Entrenched Dynasties, details how family dynasties hoard and protect their fortunes from taxes:
Defeat any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy
Don't give away too much to charity
Form a family office to sequester wealth
Create dynasty trusts and other loopholes to avoid estate and gift taxation (See the IPS Briefing Paper: "Dynasty Trusts: How the Wealthy Shield Trillions from Taxation Onshore.")
Use your wealth to promote self-serving public policy
Weaponize your charitable giving to advance your dynastic interests
Solutions to the consolidated wealth and power examined in the report include:
Existing Proposals:
Greater oversight and enforcement by the IRS
Emergency pandemic wealth tax
Annual wealth tax
Millionaire surtax
Progressive estate tax
Inheritance tax on heirs
State level estate and wealth taxes
New Proposals in the Report:
Establish a federal rule against perpetuities
Outlaw certain types of trusts
Step up administrative actions by the executive branch
The report concludes:
"These trends are alarming for the health of a republic that aspires to widely held prosperity and opportunity. If we stay on our current trajectory, families of inherited wealth will exert ever more control over public policy and the public pocketbook. But we can choose to move in a new direction: to enact economic policies that strengthen society as a whole, ensuring equal opportunity and dignity for all, not just the very few."
This report follows regular analyses from IPS on billionaire wealth gains during the pandemic, CEO pay, philanthropic giving and the racial wealth divide. In addition, recent reports have covered billionaire landlords and billionaire owners of companies with essential workers during the pandemic.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
Activists, Progressive US Lawmakers Oppose 'Xenophobic' TikTok Ban
"If you think the U.S. needs a TikTok ban and not a comprehensive privacy law regulating data brokers, you don't care about privacy, you just hate that a Chinese company has built a dominant social media platform," said one digital rights campaigner.
Mar 23, 2023
Civil and digital rights groups this week joined a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers in opposing bipartisan proposals to ban the social media platform TikTok, arguing that such efforts are rooted in "anti-China" motives and do not adequately address the privacy concerns purportedly behind the legislation.
The ACLU argues that, if passed, legislation recently introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate "sets the stage for the government to ban TikTok," which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance and is used by more than 1 in 3 Americans. The Senate bill would grant the U.S. Department of Commerce power to prohibit people in the United States from using apps and products made by companies "subject to the jurisdiction of China" and other "foreign adversaries."
"The government shouldn't be able to tell us what social media apps we can and can't use."
"The government shouldn't be able to tell us what social media apps we can and can't use," the ACLU asserted via Twitter. "We have a right to free speech."
In a Wednesday letter led by the free expression advocacy group PEN America, 16 organizations including the ACLU argued that "proposals to ban TikTok risk violating First Amendment rights and setting a dangerous global precedent for the restriction of speech."
"More effective, rights-respecting solutions are available and provide a viable alternative to meet the serious concerns raised by TikTok," the groups contended, pointing to a February proposal by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) to expedite a probe of the company by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States as a possible way "to mitigate security risks without denying users access to the platform."
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) has emerged as the leading congressional voice against banning TikTok, saying Wednesday that he fears the platform is being singled out due in significant part to "xenophobic anti-China rhetoric."
"Why the hell are we whipping ourselves into a hysteria to scapegoat TikTok?" Bowman asked in a phone interview with The New York Times while he traveled by train to Washington, D.C. to speak at a #KeepTikTok rally, where content creators, entrepreneurs, users, and activists gathered to defend the platform.
In his speech, Bowman noted that "TikTok as a platform has created a community and a space for free speech for 150 million Americans and counting," and is a place where "5 million small businesses are selling their products and services and making a living... at a time when our economy is struggling in so many ways."
Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the San Francisco-based digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred with Bowman, tweeting Thursday that "if you think the U.S. needs a TikTok ban and not a comprehensive privacy law regulating data brokers, you don't care about privacy, you just hate that a Chinese company has built a dominant social media platform."
Two other House Democrats—Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and California's Robert Garcia—joined Bowman in addressing Wednesday's rally.
In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel before his speech, Pocan acknowledged "valid concerns when it comes to social media disinformation and all the rest."
"But to say that a single platform is the problem largely because it's Chinese-owned honestly, I think, borders more on xenophobia than addressing that core issue," he stressed.
Garcia, a self-described TikTok "super-consumer," asserted on MSNBC Thursday morning that "before we ban it, I think we should work on the privacy concerns first."
TikTok "speaks to the next generation... LGBTQ+ folks are coming out, people are being educated on topics, I think we need to be a little more thoughtful and not ban TikTok," the gay lawmaker added.
Wednesday's rally came a day before TikTok CEO Zi Chew testified before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, some of whose members expressed open hostility toward the Chinese government.
"To the American people watching today, hear this: TikTok is a weapon by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on you and manipulate what you see and exploit for future generations," said committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).
Chew—who committed to a number of reforms including prioritizing safety for young users, firewall protection for U.S. user data, and greater corporate transparency—took exception to some of the lawmakers' assertions.
"I don't think ownership is the issue here," he said. "With a lot of respect, American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security."
"I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica—just one example," Chew added, referring to the British political consulting firm that harvested the data of tens of millions of U.S. Facebook users without their consent to aid 2016 Republican campaigns including former President Donald Trump's.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NLRB Says Amazon Illegally Union-Busted by Limiting Worker Access to Warehouses
"People should be outraged that Amazon feels that the law doesn't apply to them," said a lawyer for the Amazon Labor Union.
Mar 23, 2023
The Amazon Labor Union celebrated Wednesday as a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board in Brooklyn determined that Amazon acted illegally when it adopted a rule barring warehouse workers from being present at their workplace when they were not scheduled to work—a transparent effort, the board said, to limit union activity.
The company reached a settlement in 2021 with the NLRB, agreeing to notify workers of their right to form a union and to organize on company property.
Organizers with the ALU say the settlement was crucial in allowing off-duty workers to engage with their colleagues as they prepared to vote on unionizing—a vote that they ultimately won on April 1, 2022 in a result that one labor reporter called a "tremendous upset."
As the union prepared to vote last year, said Christian Smalls, a co-founder of the ALU and former Amazon employee, on Wednesday, "we were allowed to organize in the break room, feed the workers, feed our colleagues, let them know that we're building a culture that's here to represent the workers."
"Unfortunately, after our victory Amazon rolled a policy out that allowed no access to the building, meaning workers cannot report before or afterwards unless they're scheduled for shifts," he added. "We weren't allowed to organize because they were targeting us, retaliating, firing, writing people up."
The new policy, introduced last summer, barred workers from being in the building 15 minutes before or after their scheduled shift. The ALU says it made it more difficult for the union to engage with workers and enlist them to help pressure Amazon to bargain with them.
The company has claimed that it instituted the off-duty access rule only as a security measure and applied the rule fairly.
"The employer violated the [National Labor Relations] Act in implementing its off-duty access rule at the end of June in response to union activity," said the NLRB in a letter to the ALU. "The off-duty access rule has further been applied discriminatorily as relates to the disciplines pursuant to the rule which have been issued for union activity."
The board's announcement that it found merit in the ALU's charges regarding the rule could be "a precursor to the agency issuing a complaint or taking other formal actions," Bloomberg Lawreported.
"People should be outraged that Amazon feels that the law doesn't apply to them," Seth Goldstein, an attorney who represents the ALU, told Bloomberg Law.
"Workers can't organize if they don't have access to the break rooms and non-work areas before or after work, and the board recognizes that, and they're going to hold Amazon accountable," Goldstein told Law360.
The NLRB also said Wednesday that Amazon has illegally refused to bargain with the ALU nearly a year after the union won its election. The company is appealing the election outcome to the board, even though it was certified by regional officials earlier this year.
Smalls expressed hope that the NLRB's decision regarding the off-duty access rule will make it easier for Amazon workers to organize across the United States.
"We're letting them know we're going back in the building, we're feeding our coworkers," he said, "not just here at [Staten Island warehouse] JFK8 but all across the nation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Manhattan DA Accuses House GOP of 'Unlawful Incursion' Into Trump Probe
"The district attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference," wrote the district attorney's general counsel.
Mar 23, 2023
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Thursday accused House Republicans of an "unlawful incursion" into New York authorities' investigation of former President Donald Trump, who is expected to face criminal charges over a 2016 pre-election hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
In a letter to Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), and James Comer (R-Tenn.)—respectively the chairs of the House Judiciary, Administration, and Oversight Committees—the Manhattan DA's general counsel Leslie Dubeck wrote that the lawmakers' request earlier this week for confidential information pertaining to the Trump probe amounted to "an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution."
Dubeck wrote that the GOP lawmakers' Monday letter demanding that Bragg turn over communications and other documents related to the investigation "only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene."
"Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry," Dubeck continued. "The district attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference."
The reply from Bragg's office came just before news broke that the Manhattan grand jury tasked with considering possible criminal charges against the former president is not expected to convene again until at least Monday of next week.
Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend by claiming on his social media platform that he would be arrested on Tuesday and urging his supporters to mobilize in response. The arrest did not take place as the former president and 2024 candidate predicted, but the post did lead to a flood of donations from his right-wing political supporters.
As Insiderreported, Trump "raised $1.5 million in the three days after he claimed on Truth Social that he'd be arrested."
"The resulting average of $500,000 a day," the outlet noted, "is almost double the daily average from the weeks before and after he announced his bid for the White House in November."
In addition to requesting documents and testimony from Bragg, Jordan on Wednesday wrote letters demanding communications and other materials from two former prosecutors who previously led the Trump hush-money investigation.
As The Washington Postsummarized on Thursday: "Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and fixer," to stay quiet about an alleged affair.
"Trump reimbursed [Cohen] after becoming president, in installments that were designated legal fees," the Post added. "Bragg (D) has declined to give details of the investigation. But he is believed to be considering charges related to the payments that would include falsifying business records, possibly in commission of another, campaign-related crime. It is up to him to decide whether to ask the grand jury to vote on charging Trump with a crime."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.