https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
In the US it became custom to more or less equally distribute assets in death to all of the children, rather than concentrating it to one controlling heir. That's still the overwhelmingly common custom to this day.
For example with homes, when grandparents died in the 80s/90s a home was sold at a modest value and split among 3-5 heirs. Which amounted to very little per family after taxes.
Nowadays you have millennials set to inherit homes that are overvalued in the $1MM+ range and split among 1-2 heirs. Which can be a life changing sum of money. I personally know of people who feel little pressure in their lives because they know they stand to inherit a $1.5MM home plus whatever else their parents have at some point in their life.
There are currently around 11 to 13 million millionaire households (excluding primary residence value) in the US.
Credit Suisse claimed in 2015 that there were 15.7 million individual millionaires in the US, so perhaps that figure is approaching 18 to 20 million today. Per that report, the US had about ~47% of all the world's millionaires (since that was 2015, China has no doubt climbed further). In that report, they listed that nearly half of all people on earth worth more than $50m were in the US (around ~60,000 in the US, plausibly quite higher now).
There are 1.35 million households worth between $5m and $25m. And 172,000 households worth over $25m.
The stock market move in 2017 alone added 700,000 new millionaires for example.
The US has about five to six million high net worth individuals, that control at least $20 trillion in wealth.
You're right, but not in the way you think. It won't be the children of those old people who get the money; it'll be the people who provide services for the elderly. People are living much longer and they often don't have pension provision that scales well, so as they get older they have to rely on selling assets to pay for things like healthcare.
I'm about to give up, and let history repeat itself.
Yes--if an child inherits a house, they can inherit the property tax their parents paid, if they fill out the paperwork within 120 days-- I believe. Multiple children usually inherit the family home, with the eventual angry sale. The home goes back on the market, and full property taxes are paid.
Most kids aren't inheriting mansions. The're usually track houses in need of repairs. Most of the kids had blue collar parents, and never thought their bungalow would be worth a million dollars.
It's really getting old. If the younger set had any idea how politicians wasted that Prop 13 money; we wouldn't be blaming our current problems on Prop 13.
Blame your boss who who just has to live in the best neighborhood, with the best climate.
I guarantee if Prop 13 was repealed REITS, rich foreigners, and Zuckerburg types would swoop in and buy up most of the stock, and rent it back to employees.
Person who didn't see their dad crying at the dinner table, "But at least we would have more tax money?". Look at how your county spends your property taxes now; Not so good?
Life changiness scales with your environment.
Unless said parent(s) get clever with reverse mortgaging, and spend all the cash on travel or whatever ;)
Extract as much money as possible and don't care about the person. Drug them so they don't complain, and schedule as many medical procedures as possible. Use providers that give you kickbacks, and charge very high rates for things like haircuts, or even drug delivery (why buy in advance, when you can deliver, and charge for it, that same day).
All this changes when they have children who check in on them, ideally every day.
> because dying with no cash or credit would suck.
That all depends on if you retained your mental faculties until the end.
If yes, you are going to want lots of cash! You will need to pay someone to do so many things you used to do yourself.
If no, then any remaining cash will rapidly be taken from you anyway, so there's no point in holding on to it.
My advice? Have children and love them. You will be much happier as an elderly person if you do that.
Here in the UK, medical care is free at the point of use. Prescription medicines are free to to anyone over 60, including delivery if needed. Residential care homes are not automatically free, but your costs will be fully paid by the local authority if you lack the income and capital to pay the fees yourself. All care homes are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
If you lose the capacity to make your own decisions and have not granted someone lasting power of attorney, the Court of Protection may appoint a deputy to supervise your affairs. If you have no suitable friend or relative to act in this role, a panel deputy will be chosen; these deputies must be approved by the Office of the Public Guardian. All deputies must file an annual report with the OPG, listing and justifying every financial decision they make. If these decisions are not in the best interests of the individual, the deputy can be removed or criminally prosecuted.
I'm not saying that elder abuse is non-existent in the UK, but a lot of the issues you mention are failures of government rather than facts of life.
There is free healthcare, power of attorney, everything you described is the same in the US other than the terminology.
People out of the US have a very skewed view of healthcare in the US.
All children, all elderly, and poor people with serious illness are all covered fully.
Have you taken care of an elderly person there?
Every single thing you mentioned in your post happens in the US. All of it, all the coverage, the protection, the oversight. It's not any different.
> Is financial exploitation of the elderly
Maybe you misunderstood. They aren't directly exploiting the elderly - they are exploiting the government, who is the one paying for their care.
> or are there grievous systemic failings in the US health, social care and legal systems?
Please google: "over drugging elderly UK"
I read the articles that came up, it's pretty much identical here and there.
Yes. I have also worked as a welfare advisor, with direct involvement in cases involving issues of mental capacity, legal guardianship and residential care.
>It's not any different.
Clearly it is very different. There's no financial incentive here for over-treating elderly patients - NHS trusts are not paid per treatment. If a doctor or hospital chooses to administer unnecessary treatment, they have less money in their budget and their performance targets are negatively impacted. A service provider cannot arbitrarily rack up fees, because that's not how we fund health or social care.
In many states in the US, a completely unvetted person can apply for guardianship of someone they have never met. In many states, there is effectively no oversight of legal guardianship due to a lack of funding. In many states, guardianship is administered by local courts with no specific expertise.
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1046
>Please google: "over drugging elderly UK"
I did. On the first page of results I found some tabloid news articles, a Scientology front group and an NHS summary of the research paper they were all citing. The paper concluded that, while neuroleptic drugs are prescribed more frequently in care homes than in community prescribing, it is not clear whether that is due to inappropriate prescribing or selection bias.
I am not arguing that the UK is a utopia, but I cannot reconcile "Elderly without children to check in on them are seen as ATM's" and "Extract as much money as possible and don't care about the person" with my knowledge and experience of elderly care in the UK. Parts of our system are chronically under-funded, we have unreasonably long waiting times for many services, there's a shortage of care workers, but I've seen nothing to suggest that elderly people are being used as cash cows.
Half of Americans receive coverage via the government in some form. 70 million Americans are on Medicaid & CHIP (~22% of the population). Then you have Medicare, VA, SS disability, numerous state & smaller federal programs, and then partial subsidies via the ACA.
If you make minimum wage in the US, you're going to qualify for free healthcare in nearly all states via Medicaid. Via the ACA, the cost with subsidization when you're a little bit higher economically still comes out to tens of dollars per month (which is not a terrible price given how expensive healthcare is in the US, although the coverage is still not what it should be).
The bottom 25% is mostly able to get free or cheap healthcare. The next 25% bracket gets frequently royally screwed, they're stuck in a bad spot and often bounce in and out of having coverage. The top ~50% are covered by their employers commonly.
But I'm not the trusting sort. I have guns, and I know how to use them. And I'm planning to kill myself before I lose it completely. I have a cache of morphine and phenobarbitol. So maybe I'll die alone, but with luck, not exploited.
This is a common plan, but it doesn't work. When that moment arrives when you would want to, you no longer have the mental faculties to do it.
Before then, you'll be feeling like everything is going just fine, so why end it?
Assisted suicide or DNR's don't really work without family members to enforce them. Medical providers are incentivized to keep you alive: Both morally and financially (you can chose which counts for more depending on how cynical you are, but either way the two motives are in sync).
But re medical providers, why would they keep me alive if there's no money left? It's a pretty good bet that even AmEx would start declining charges, at some point.
They are bilking the government, not the individual. They actually prefer it that way since there isn't anyone checking on them.
Providers are happy to help you spend all your own money, and then be fully covered.
But I do agree that fraudulent exploitation of Medicaid and Medicare by the medical industry is all too common.
Ever heard the saying "Age is just a number"? If you took care of yourself you never feel like "Now I'm old".
It's typically only the young that look at the elderly and think "they are old".
In reality, he died at 83, after a heart attack.
For example, one euro plus the commitment to renovate for $25,000 buys you a house on Sardinia https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ollolai-italy-one-eur...
"Fortunately" we also have the shrinking working and middle class fortunes to counter-balance that.
Passing on more generational wealth will mainly be a problem for the rich...
If the estate is valuable (ie. a large land plot in Tokyo bought before the boom years), the heirs often can't afford to pay the hefty inheritance tax and thus the property is sold and then subdivided.
[0]: http://www.retirejapan.info/blog/japanese-inheritance-taxes
In past generations, where it was common for a successful person to have six, seven, or eight heirs, even a large inheritance was quickly dissipated over a few generations.
In a shrinking population, the opposite is true. A single child often inherits the wealth of two working adults. And childless couples will commonly leave anything remaining to a niece or nephew. This could have a consolidating effect on wealth distribution.