[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesnt seem that surprising given that we are only talking about households with > 1M in net household assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think the numbers would change if you went to, say, $100MM?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think these numbers would remain unchanged if we went to, say, $100MM?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made no claims that they would or would not. I just asked for an opinion, since sam_h said that looking at $1MM+ made these numbers unsurprising - that implies that other numbers would produce different results, and I'm wondering what his basis for that is, and how he thinks those different numbers will look.

If I had to guess, I would reckon these numbers would be tilted even more heavily in favor of the self-made as you move up to $100MM. First of all, you'll note that the inherentance tax becomes much more significant at this level, decreasing the number of $100MM heirs for any given $100MM+ estate size. Secondly, estates of this size are much, much more likely to be heavily endowed to foundations, etc. Thirdly, there's no counter-balancing factor that makes estates this size *more* likely to be inherited rather than self-made.

So, what you got?