From Berkley, via ThinkProgress, we learn that the 6 Wal-Mart heirs have the same amount of wealth as the poorest 90 million Americans (30% of the US population):
For those of you out there who learn better visually:
Don't worry, all you nay-sayers out there - I'm sure these 6 fabulously wealthy people worked really hard for all their riches, and that their obscene wealth has nothing to do with the fact that they were lucky enough to be born into the top 0.00000002%.
But seriously, which outcome would be more beneficial for both society and the economy - for these 6 people to control that much wealth, or for the net worth of the poorest 30% of Americans to double? The fat cats themselves admit that things would be better off if there wasn't so much wealth inequality in the US. The wealth inequality in this country is so preposterous, I can't wrap my brain around it.
Sigh ... I now understand why Andrew Carnegie (yes, THAT robber baron Andrew Carnegie) advocated for extremely high estate taxes:
I guess Sam and Bud Walton died horribly disgraced.