The buzz over Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century may have subsided somewhat, but the analysis of its conclusions is far from complete. Consider its discussion of inheritance, which emphasizes its rising share in household wealth over time. This seems like a shocking revelation, implying ever-rising wealth inequality. However, is it correct?
For many people, inherited wealth evokes moral repugnance. They associate it with the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, whose great fortunes have supported generation after generation, and more generally with “trust-fund babies,” who inherit so much money that they never have to work.
Critics are right that inheritances and gifts — collectively known as “wealth transfers” — are distributed unevenly. Only about one-fifth of families in the US in 2007 had ever received a wealth transfer. In general, recipients of any wealth transfer are likely to have larger incomes and to be in a higher wealth class. And the wealthiest young people tend to have wealthy parents and to have received larger wealth transfers than their poorer counterparts.
There is also significant inequality among those who receive wealth transfers. In 2007, only 7.4 percent of beneficiaries had received more than US$1,000,000. The top 1 percent received 35 percent of all wealth transfers, and the top 20 percent received 84 percent. In other words, wealth transfers are about as unequal among recipients as their household net worth.
However, these figures do not speak to Piketty’s thesis that inheritance has accounted for an increasing share of household wealth and exacerbates wealth inequality. In fact, the figures for the US from 1989 to 2010 — taken from the Federal Reserve Board’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finances — contradict both claims.
For starters, the average value of inheritances (in constant dollars) increased by only 24 percent over that period, which translates into an annual growth rate of 1 percent — less than the 1.7 percent annual growth in net worth. This means that wealth transfers as a proportion of net worth actually fell, from 29 percent to 26 percent.
Likewise, the share of a wealthy person’s net worth attributable to wealth transfers is, on average, less than 20 percent — that is, less than the one-third ratio for the middle class. And, for the wealthiest 1 percent, the ratio fell sharply, from 23 percent in 1989 to 11 percent in 2010.
Several factors have contributed to this decline. One is increased lifespans, which have led to a decline in the number of bequests per year and forced people to finance more years of life (including higher healthcare expenses). Moreover, the share of estates dedicated to charitable bequests has risen over time, particularly among the wealthiest group. In this sense, wealth transfers have an equalizing effect.
At first blush, this statement may seem counter-intuitive — not least because wealthier households receive larger wealth transfers than poorer ones. However, when taking into account existing wealth, even a relatively small transfer to a poorer household would have a greater impact, in percentage terms, than a much larger gift to a wealthy household. This means that net worth excluding wealth transfers and wealth transfers themselves are negatively correlated, and the addition of transfers to net worth reduces overall wealth inequality.
It helps that wealth transfers generally flow toward poorer individuals or households, especially from richer parents to poorer children. This effect becomes even more pronounced when the estate of a single person or household is divided among multiple heirs — a very common occurrence. The massive wealth of the original plutocrat is thus dissipated over several generations — as has occurred with the Rockefellers — with the rate of dissipation depending on how many children each heir has.
In short, the overarching claim that the share of wealth transfers in household wealth is rising is not accurate in all cases — and certainly not in the world’s richest economy. Even if it were true, it would not be particularly problematic, given that, in the long term, inheritances and gifts help to reduce wealth inequality. In fact, we might all be better off if people transferred more of their wealth to others, if just to members of their own families.
Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.