• Rich got richer during the recovery, and rest got poorer, study says

    By Allison Linn, TODAY

    The nation’s richest American households generally gained wealth during the first two years of the economic recovery, a new research report finds, while most American households saw their net worth drop.

    The report, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, found that the mean net worth for the 7 percent of American households at the top of the wealth distribution rose by 28 percent between 2009 and 2011, the most recent data available.

    Meanwhile, the mean net worth for the other 93 percent of American households fell by 4 percent during that period, according to Pew’s analysis of Census data.

    Overall, the aggregate net worth for all American households rose between 2009 and 2011. But Pew’s more detailed analysis showed that the gains were concentrated among the wealthiest Americans, and the wealth gap increased during that time.

    Economists say that’s a continuation of a trend toward more wealth being found at the top of the income scale.

    “There’s been a growing concentration of wealth in this country for quite a while now, and it’s just really accelerated in the last, really, 15 years,” said Joel Naroff, chief economist with Naroff Economic Advisors, who was not involved in the Pew study.

    The Great Recession officially ran from December of 2007 to June of 2009, but the recovery since that time has been weak and uneven.

    The Pew researchers said rallies in stocks and bonds, which benefited affluent households with major investments, largely drove the discrepancy in wealth gains during those two years.

    The housing market, where many other Americans derive a lot of their wealth, did not do that well during that period.

    The Pew researchers said they focused on the top 7 percent of the wealth distribution because that was the tabulation available from the Census data. The report found that the mean net wealth for those 8 million households rose to around $3.17 million in 2011, from approximately $2.48 million in 2009.

    For the other approximately 111 million households, mean net worth fell to nearly $134,000 in 2011, from nearly $140,000 in 2009.

    The report’s authors note that some less-wealthy American households no doubt saw wealth gains during the period. In general, however, more of the households in that 93 percent saw their wealth fall rather than rise.

    Naroff noted that income distribution is always shifting in one way or another, but the wealth gap has grown especially wide in recent years. That could pose problems for an economy that is largely driven by consumer spending.

    “We haven’t seen it at least in 100 years as heavily distributed to the upper income side as we’re seeing now, and we don’t know whether that pattern is readily reversed,” he said. “And if it’s not reversed what happens to the economy that’s built on a consumer base? That’s the uncertainty that we have.”

  • Rich will keep spending, despite higher taxes ... for now

    By Martha C. White

    Despite higher tax bills this year, the richest Americans will keep spending. If a pullback in savings continues over the long term, however, some economists say an unexpected consequence could be the erosion of investment capital.

    The top income tax rate is now 39.6 percent, and the top 1 percent of households will pay, on average, 35.5 percent in combined income and other federal taxes on income of $1.4 million, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group.

    "I think the way taxes are going up on the wealthy, it’s probably for the foreseeable future," said Maury Harris, UBS managing director and chief U.S. economist.

    In a recent report, Harris wrote, “[T]ax increases on the affluent... should not have much negative consumption impacts as the affluent trim their savings.”

    For now, this is good news — it's better to keep the wealthy spending their money, Karen Dynan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said via email. "One of the reasons that the economy hasn’t recovered more quickly from the Great Recession is that consumer demand has been weak."

    If companies see spending or confidence nosedive, they'll retrench at the expense of the labor market, she said. "If businesses come to doubt that people will keep spending, they’ll be even more reluctant to hire than they already are."

    Conventional wisdom would suggest that more consumer spending always is good for the economy, but Harris said this sustained spending, especially by the richest households, comes at an expense. “It’s not like this money was being stuffed under a pillow,” he said. “In the longer run, the consequence is that you’re reducing the amount of seed money in the economy.”

    As of 2004, the top 1 percent of earners socked away a little more than half their income, money that was funneled into the stock market, private equity, real estate and a host of other investment vehicles.

    One reason the affluent save so much is because they want a cushion against volatility or years when their portfolios could go into the red, said Jonathan Skinner, professor of economics at Dartmouth University. "Others may want to prepare for retirement... Still others may be accumulating assets in a company so that they can continue to control the company," he said via email.

    Skinner suggests a shortfall in investment by the 1 percent could be countered by a surge of investment from overseas. "This decline in new domestic savings could, however, be offset by foreign [investors] seeking a higher return in the U.S.," he said.

    Harris concedes that a pullback in savings and investment by the wealthy won't cause short-term pain in capital markets. "For the time being, there's plenty of investment capital," he said, thanks to loose monetary policy and a relaxation of bank lending standards.

    But over the long term, Harris said tax policy needs to encourage savings rather than spending to fuel the economic engine of capital markets.

    Dynan agreed, pointing out that countries where people save more have higher rates of business investment. "Higher investment is associated with stronger productivity growth. If wealthier Americans were to pull back on saving, it could hurt the productive capacity of our economy," she said.

    Related content: 
    Tax bills for rich could reach 30-year high

     

  • Tax bills for wealthy could reach 30-year high in 2013

    By Stephen Ohlemacher, The Associated Press

    The poor rich.

    With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.

    President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share if the federal government is ever going to fix its finances and reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level.

    A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979. Middle- and low-income families aren't paying as much as they used to.

    For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.

    Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

    The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group will get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, including payroll taxes. That will give them a negative tax rate.

    "My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes," Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said. "You can understand why they feel that way."

    Last week, Senate Democrats were unable to advance their proposal to raise taxes on some wealthy families for the second time this year as part of a package to avoid automatic spending cuts. The bill failed Thursday when Republicans blocked it. A competing Republican bill that included no tax increases also failed, and the automatic spending cuts began taking effect Friday.

    The issue, however, isn't going away.

    Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress insist that any future deal to reduce government borrowing must include a mix of spending cuts and more tax revenue.

    "I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things," Obama said Friday. "But what I can't do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we've got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, aren't contributing to growth, aren't contributing to our economy. It's not fair. It's not right."

    On Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Republicans are committed to reducing the budget deficit without raising taxes again. In a separate broadcast interview, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling called that position unreasonable.

    The Democrats' sequester bill included the "Buffett Rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It gradually would phase in a requirement that people making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes.

    The rule targets millionaires who make most of their money from investments — capital gains and qualified dividends, which have a top tax rate of 20 percent.

    "It's fairness," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "We're not raising taxes with the Buffett rule as much as we are correcting an inequity in terms of, one guy can be working at one end of the hall and because he's working with hedge funds, he gets taxed at 20 percent. Another guy at the other end of the hall is on a salary at an insurance company and he has to pay (39.6 percent). That's just not fair."

    On average, households making more than $1 million this year will pay 37.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. But there are exceptions.

    For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent.

    That's still higher than the tax rate paid by most middle-income families, but not by much.

    The middle 20 percent of U.S. households — those making an average of $46,600 — will pay an average of 13.8 percent of their income in federal taxes for this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Over the past three decades, the average federal tax rate for this group has been about 16 percent.

    The Associated Press analyzed two sets of data to compare tax burdens over time.

    The CBO produces data from 1979 to 2009; the center has overlapping data from 2004 through 2013. Both get tax data from the IRS, but they use slightly different methodologies to calculate federal tax burdens.

    Still, their numbers track closely enough to make some general observations. For example, it is clear that for 2013, average tax bills for the wealthy will be among the highest since 1979. It also is clear that federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period.

    Liberals and many Democrats say rich families can afford to pay higher taxes because their incomes have grown much more than incomes for middle- and low-income families.

    Average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled from 1979 to 2009, increasing by 155 percent, according to the CBO. Average incomes for those in the middle increased by just 32 percent during the same period while those at the bottom saw their incomes go up by 45 percent.

    "You've got to think about the context," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "We just had three decades in the United States where we had a tremendous increase in inequality."

    The growing disparity in income is a big reason why tax bills for the rich are approaching 30-year highs, Williams said. As the rich get richer, a greater share of their income is taxed at the top rate, he said.

    High-income families also have been targeted by tax increases this year, including a new tax law passed by Congress on Jan. 1 as well as tax increases in the president's health care law.

    The new tax law made the federal income tax more progressive, increasing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, on taxable income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples filing jointly. Lower tax rates on income below those amounts were made permanent. Also, tax breaks for low-income families first enacted as part of Obama's 2009 stimulus package were extended through 2017.

    Conservatives say raising taxes again on the wealthy would reduce their incentive to save and invest, hurting long-term economic growth.

    "Raising taxes hurts the economy, and raising taxes on upper-income individuals — whether those who work for salaries or those who save and earn capital income — always hurts the economy the most," said J.D. Foster, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Spite and envy are not sound bases for public policy."

    Besides, Republican leaders in Congress say, one tax increase a year is more than enough.

    "Let's make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Friday. "This discussion about revenue, in my view, is over."

  • Wealthy spoil their kids, even if they don't intend to, survey says

    CNBC's Robert Frank reports on the great paradox facing millionaire parents: how to avoid spoiling their wealthy children.

    By Robert Frank, CNBC

    It's the rich parent's paradox. The wealthy want their kids to have middle-class values. To be humble, hungry and hard-working and to know the meaning of earned success.

    But they also give their kids nearly everything they want: from cars and house payments to college educations and travel.

    Wealthy parents know they can't have it both ways. And yet, they still try.

    A new survey from PNC Wealth Management found that 82 percent of American millionaires said that their kids should be responsible for creating their own wealth. That's up from 65 percent in 2007.

    More than 80 percent also said that raising successful, hard-working children is their most important goal.

    More from CNBC: The costs of competitive kids

    They want, in other words, the same middle-class childhood they had themselves. The survey found that 75 percent of the millionaires said they grew up in an "average" financial situation. Only 12 percent grew up well-off and 12 percent grew up "poor."

    But when it comes to the lifestyle they're actually giving their kids, millionaire parents are anything but average.

    They study found that half of them are leaving their kids more than $500,000. Fully 61 percent plan to pass along a "substantial" inheritance to their kids. That's not to mention the financial support they give them along the way.

    More from CNBC: 'Rich kids of Instagram': Overserved and oversharing

    "It's a conundrum," said Stephen Pappaterra, managing director of wealth planning for PNC Wealth Management. "There does seem to be a gap. They want their kids to be responsible and self-sufficient and independent. At the same time they're dealing the practicalities of their economic situation."

    Pappaterra said that wealthy parents want their kids to make it on their own, but they also know that economic opportunities today may not be as plentiful as they used to be. Hence, the need for more help. Kids today also feel more entitled to support and material comforts, he added.

    "If they grew up in an affluent town, they might expect to have their college paid for, along with car payments, and other things," he said.

    So while wealthy parents may want their kids to be middle class, their economic reality is decidedly different.

  • The perfect income for happiness? It's $161,000

    CNBC's Robert Frank has the results of what people around the world say they need to make to be "happy."

    By Robert Frank, CNBC

    More than one study has tried to determine the financial price of happiness. Some look at wealth. Others look at income.

    One well-publicized study last year put the optimal income for happiness at around $75,000. Rising income, it turns out, produces greater happiness until you get to around $75,000. After that, there are diminishing returns, with more income leading to little or no gain in real happiness. 

    This is a fraught question, of course. “Happiness” itself is not easily defined, and money doesn't always guarantee it. And the financial requirements for happiness usually depend on geography, peer groups and other external factors. 

    The latest to weigh in on the issue is Skandia International’s Wealth Sentiment Monitor. It found that the global average “happiness income” is around $161,000 for 13 countries surveyed. The United States wasn’t specifically measured. (Read more: Why Millionaires Prefer Dogs) 

    But there was a wide range of answers depending on the country. Dubai residents need the most to feel wealthy. They said the needed $276,150 to be happy. Singapore came in second place, with $227,553, followed by Hong Kong, with $197,702. 

    The region with the most modest needs for happiness is Europe. Germans only need $85,781 to be happy, placing them lowest on the list. The French need $114,000, while the British need $133,000. 

    The survey doesn’t ask about total wealth needed to feel happy. But it does ask about the amount of wealth needed to feel “wealthy.” Globally, the average amount needed to feel wealthy was $1.8 million. 

    Singaporeans took the lead on the “wealth” needs, with $2.91 million needed to feel wealthy. Dubai ranked second with $2.5 million, followed by Hong Kong with $2.46 million. (Read more: Where to Live If You Want to Be a Millionaire) 

    Surveys show that among Americans, most say they need $1 million or more to feel wealthy.

     All of this shows that wealth and financial happiness is not an absolute number, but is relative to your peers and surroundings. Living in Dubai, with all those oil barons and oligarchs, the needs are higher. In Germany, where wealth is more evenly distributed, the needs are not as high.

     How much wealth or income would you need to feel happy?

    Follow Robert Frank on Twitter: @robtfrank

    CNBC's Robert Frank looks inside one of the world's most expensive apartments.


  • Millionaires hurting (a bit), but billionaires sitting pretty

    By Ben Popken, NBC News contributor

    Would you believe that despite everything that's happened in the economy, there are more billionaires this year than last? 2,160 of them, to be exact. That's a 9.4 percent increase, according to a report by research company Wealth-X. Billionaires even made more billions, increasing their total wealth 14 percent to $6.2 trillion.

    However, not everyone in the “ultra high net worth individual” category, those making $30 million plus, went unscathed by the global economic turmoil. Folks in the $200 million to $249 million bracket saw their fortunes tumble by 12 percent, and their ranks thin by 8.1 percent, said the report, which used data through July 31.

    Even when both groups can afford to have fresh caviar helicoptered in daily, guess the richer still get richer and the not-nearly-as-rich can’t take as many expensive vacations.

    More money and business news:

    Follow NBCNews.com business on Twitter and Facebook

  • No fair! Weak economy leads to adult sibling rivalry

    By Allison Linn, TODAY

    In most families, any discussion about money and inheritances is going to be awkward at best and emotionally fraught at worst.

    But these days, financial planners say, the already uncomfortable topic has become even more tense because the weak economy has prompted more families to give their adult children a financial hand. That’s causing tempers to flare among the other siblings, who may feel like they are being treated unfairly, or getting less of an inheritance, because they did everything right.

    “The parental guilt, combined with the perception that it’s a difficult time in our society to find a job – for almost anybody – has produced a kind of a new (economic psychology) in families,” said Stephen Goldbart, co-founder of the Money, Meaning and Choices Institute, which advises very wealthy clients on family financial issues.

    Of course, the perception of favoritism among siblings is nothing new, and money issues tend to amplify any sibling rivalry that already existed. But Goldbart, also the co-author of the book “Affluence Intelligence,” said the current economy has made people more anxious about finances.

    Goldbart doesn’t necessarily have to look to his client base to see these issues. They’re also playing out among his friends of more average wealth, who are watching their adult kids struggle to find a job and get a good start in life. The unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds was 13.5 percent in July, far above the overall jobless rate of 8.3 percent.  

    “We grew up with a certain American dream in mind and it kind of worked for us,” he said. “Clearly, that’s all shifted in the current generation.”

    That explains the impulse to help your kids financially. And, Goldbart noted, there are times when it’s completely appropriate to help out adult children, such as a medical emergency or to pay for a child or grandchild’s tuition.

    But in many cases, he thinks, it’s better for the family, and the child, to let them tough it out on their own.

     “Most of the bailouts I have seen have failed,” he said.

    For example, he recently dealt with a young couple who bought a house based on their dual incomes, but started struggling after one of the two lost a job.

    After several months of trying to find work, the couple turned to one of their sets of parents for what was supposed to be a temporary help with the mortgage. But a month or two stretched into a year, and pretty soon the other sibling found out, and got angry.

    “It splintered the family,” he said.

    What’s more, he said, the financial aid didn’t end up helping. The couple still ended up having to sell the house at a loss.

    “The art of parenting is the art of saying no. Saying yes is easy,” Goldbart said. “When it comes to money, that’s really true.”

    Of course, most parents are hard-pressed to say no if their kids need help, financially or otherwise. And with economic conditions the way they are, many parents have come to expect that they will have to help their kids out.

    A TD Ameritrade survey conducted last year found that more than four in 10 boomer parents expected that they would have to provide some financial support for their kids. Most said they would feel obligated to do so if they were asked.

    Other financial advisers say they also are dealing with more frequent adult sibling rivalry.

    “It’s coming up more and more,” said Sean Dowling, president of the Dowling Group, a wealth management firm in Stamford, Conn.

    For Dowling, a typical scenario goes like this: The client comes in and says they are trying to help out one kid who has lost a job, is going through a divorce or has other money problems. But, they say, the effort to help out one kid is making the other siblings feel slighted and jealous.

    Dowling’s first question is usually whether the parents can actually afford to help the kid out. His concern: That Mom and Dad will sacrifice their own financial future to help their children.

    CNBC personal finance expert Sharon Epperson offers tips on paying down student loan debt.

    If a family decides they can and should help out one sibling, Dowling said they will often adjust their inheritance plans so that the other child is equally compensated later on. But he conceded that even those measures can sometimes fail, because money issues tend to be more emotional than practical.

    In fact, it’s often not even about the money but about the feeling of being slighted by Mom and Dad. Dowling said he often finds himself acting as more of an emotional counselor than a numbers guy as he tries to work out an inheritance plan that will seem fair.

    “You’ve worked so hard for whatever nominal amount that is, whether that’s a $100,000 estate or a $100 million estate,” Dowling said. “You don’t want your legacy to be that you were unfair or unjust.”

    Although many parents are helping out their kids, they aren’t necessarily doing so happily. Fred Taylor, president and co-founder of Northstar Investor Advisors, said the frustration he hears is often coming not  from siblings but from parents. They complain that they sent their kids to expensive colleges in order to get a good start in life and now instead find junior back at home, on the couch, unable to land a job.

    “I think where the resentment’s probably going to be is in the parents,” said Taylor, whose Denver-based firm advises clients with at least $750,000 in assets. “They don’t want to take care of their kids anymore. They’re done.”

    In fact, he said, some siblings may feel more pity than resentment toward the brother or sister who is still relying on Mom and Dad.

    “The Americans dream is not to go after college (to) live with your parents,” he noted.

  • Rich Gen Y, Gen X help families more than baby boomers

    Wealthy baby boomers are ready to cut kids out of their will, and don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about it, according to a new survey. Keith Banks, U.S. Trust president, explains.

    By Eve Tahmincioglu

    Who would have thought the younger, spoiled generations would be more generous than baby boomers when it came to looking out for their families?

    A study of wealthy Americans found that 40 percent of adults younger than 46 — the Generation X and Generation Y set — already have established financial plans to help care for their parents as they age, compared to only 20 percent of baby boomers who have done so, according to a survey released Monday by U.S. Trust, the global wealth and investment management unit of Bank of America.

    And, the poll found, 54 percent of Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers paid some medical costs for their parents and other relatives, compared to 42 percent of boomers.

    The online survey, conducted in March, polled 642 adults with at least $3 million in assets, not including their primary homes. It points to different financial attitudes among the generations, “most likely shaped by personal experience and societal responses to economic realities,” said Keith Banks, president of U.S. Trust.

    “I don’t think the boomers are stingier,” Banks maintained, pointing out that some boomers may no longer have parents to care for anymore, or at least are not as likely to be doing so as younger folks.

    What concerns him is that the younger and older generations both have to help family members at such high rates when it comes to things like medical care.

    Overall, he added, there more commonalities among the generations than differences, except when it came to wealth transfer.

    The poll found that when it comes to leaving money for their kids, the younger group said they were more inclined to pass along an inheritance than boomers, at a rate of 76 percent versus 55 percent.

    Indeed, even high net-worth individuals are cautious about their wallets these days.


    “Many boomers are beginning to realize that they are underfunded for retirement in any traditional sense,” said Jim Lee, a financial planner and author of “Resilience and the Future of Everyday Life,” which includes a chapter on how perceptions of retirement are changing.

    “Given record low interest rates and a decade of minimal returns for the stock market, some boomers have been spending down their portfolios sooner than they anticipated,” he explained. “Add longer life expectancies into the mix, and you've got a recipe for smaller inheritances.”  

    Here are some additional findings from the U.S. Trust survey:

    • 61 percent of wealthy parents are not fully confident their children will be well-prepared to handle any financial inheritance left to them, with baby boomers having the least degree of confidence. Among those, 32 percent of baby boomers, compared to 52 percent of Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers and 54 percent of older respondents ages 67 and older, are confident their children will be prepared emotionally and financially to receive a financial legacy.
    • And only 37 percent of wealthy parents have fully disclosed their family’s level of wealth to their children, and 51 percent have disclosed only a little information on the subject.

    More money and business news:

    Follow msnbc.com business on Twitter and Facebook 

  • Huguette Clark book coming from Random House

    Associated Press

    Huguette in her last published photograph, in 1930, on the day of her divorce in Reno, Nevada. The heir to a copper fortune died in 2011 at 104.

    A nonfiction book on the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark and her family is being written by an NBC News reporter and one of Clark's cousins.

    Ballantine Bantam Dell, a division of Random House Publishing Group, has acquired "Empty Mansions," by Bill Dedman and Paul Clark Newell Jr.

    Bill Dedman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for NBC News who introduced the public to heiress Huguette Clark and her empty mansions through his series of narratives on NBCNews.com and NBC's TODAY Show. He lives in suburban Connecticut, where he discovered the first of Clark's three vacant palaces. His narratives on the Clark family have been the most popular story in the history of NBCNews.com, topping 100 million page views. He received more than 1,000 letters and emails from readers of the Clark series, many of them confessing to an obsession with the mystery heiress. As a young woman in New York, actress Kimberly Belflower, explained to her Twitter followers: "Don't mind me, I'll just be reading about Huguette Clark for the rest of my life."

    Paul Clark Newell Jr., a grandnephew of W.A. Clark, has researched the family history for 20 years, gathering a unique collection of Clark family photographs, letters and memoirs. He shared many conversations with Huguette Clark about her life and family, and accepted her invitation for a rare private tour of Bellosguardo, her $100 million oceanfront estate in Santa Barbara, Calif. A grandson of W.A. Clark's sister, Newell is Huguette Clark's cousin, not a descendant of her father, and he therefore is not a party to the legal action by relatives to inherit her fortune. He lives in the mountains of San Diego County, Calif.

    Executive Editor Pamela Cannon made the deal for North American rights with agent Michael Carlisle of Inkwell Management.

    Though she inherited one of the great mining fortunes of the 19th century, Huguette Marcelle Clark lived quietly into the 21st century, secluded under fake names in hospital rooms for more than two decades. Intensely shy, she was almost entirely alone. One of her attorneys represented her for 20 years without meeting her face to face, instead talking to her through a closed door.

    Her father, William Andrews Clark, was one of the Copper Kings of Montana and a controversial U.S. senator, believed to be as wealthy as John D. Rockefeller in his day but largely forgotten since his death in 1925.

    His youngest daughter, the reclusive heiress Huguette, became a well-known name again in the last year of her life, after her three empty mansions and sales of her personal property drew the attention of investigative reporter Dedman. Clark soon became a subject of public fascination, a trending topic of searches on Google and Yahoo, with fan pages on Facebook, though the last published photograph of her was made in 1930.

    When she died in May 2011 at age 104, her obituary appeared on the front page of The New York Times. A legal battle has begun for her $400 million fortune, even as criminal investigations continue of the men who managed her money.

    Previous stories in the Huguette Clark mystery series on NBCNews.com:

    Archive of all stories, photos and videos

    Photo narrative, "The Clarks: An American story of wealth, scandal and mystery," Feb. 26, 2010.

    Printable version of the photo narrative, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Clark family notes and sources, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Investigative report, part one, "At 104, the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark is alone now: Relatives are kept away. Only her accountant and attorney visit. Who protects HuguetteClark, with 3 empty homes and no heirs?" Aug. 19, 2010.

    Investigative report, part two, "Who is watching Huguette Clark's millions? Reclusive heiress's assets are sold by two advisers, one an accountant with a felony conviction. Another elderly client signed over his property to the same accountant and attorney," Aug. 20, 2010.

    "Criminal probe begins into the finances of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark: Manhattan DA's Elder Abuse Unit is on the case. The same unit prosecuted the Brooke Astor case; Clark has about four times the wealth," Aug. 24, 2010.

    "Report sparks welfare check on heiress Huguette Clark," Aug. 25, 2010.

    "Generosity of an heiress: four homes for a nurse, gifts for attorney's family," Sept. 1, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive heiress, has signed a will, attorney says," Sept. 2, 2010.

    "Family of copper heiress asks court to protect her from attorney, accountant," Sept. 3, 2010.

    "Attorney for 104-year-old heiress defends his handling of her finances," Sept. 7, 2010.

    "Judge leaves pair under investigation in control of heiress Huguette Clark's fortune," Sept. 9, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive copper heiress, dies at 104," May 24, 2011.

    "Family excluded from Huguette Clark burial," May 26, 2011.

    "Heiress Huguette Clark's will leaves $1 million to advisers," June 22, 2011.

    "The 1 percent of the 1 percent: How Huguette Clark's millions were spent," Nov. 19, 2011.

    "A $400 miillion twist: Huguette Clark signed two wills, one to her family," Nov. 28, 2011.

    "Tax fraud alleged in estate of heiress Huguette Clark; accountant resigns," Dec. 21, 2011.

    "Nurse, in line to inherit millions, battles family of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 22, 2011.

    "Judge bounces attorney and accountant from estate of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 23, 2011.

  • More see class conflict between rich and poor

    Mark Boster/Reuters

    One key issue for the Occupy movement has been the rift between the nation's wealthiest residents and the remaining 99 percent.

    By Allison Linn, NBC News

    More Americans are seeing a significant rift between rich and poor people, with most people saying there is a strong or very strong conflict between those who are wealthy and those who are not.

    A survey released Wednesday by Pew Social & Demographic Trends finds that 66 percent of Americans see strong or very strong conflicts between rich and poor people. That’s a 19 percentage point increase over 2009.

    Another 23 percent said there was conflict, but it wasn’t very strong.

    Only 7 percent of respondents said there is no conflict between wealthy and struggling Americans, according to the survey of more than 2,000 Americans conducted in mid-December.

    The strife between rich and poor people is now seen as a bigger issue than other social conflicts, including conflict between immigrants and native-born Americans and tension between black and white Americans, according to the Pew study.

    Despite the perception that there is a growing conflict, the Pew report said they did not find clear support for things like government measures to address income inequality.

    In addition, people’s perceptions of how the rich get rich have not changed much in recent years.

    Pew Social & Demographic Trends

    More than 4 in 10 respondents said they think people are wealthy because they were born into wealthy families or know the right people. But a nearly equal percentage said they think they earned their money through hard work, ambition or education.

    “While the survey results show a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy,” the report said.

    There’s no question the gap between rich and poor has been a particularly hot topic in recent years.

    As millions of Americans have struggled with high unemployment and other lingering effects of the recession, the nation’s median household income has actually fallen slightly.

    Meanwhile, the wealth gap between the richest Americans and the rest of the country widened during the recession, which officially ended in 2009.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has been perhaps the most visible sign of people’s frustrations over the gap between rich and poor, prompting national attention and similar protests throughout the country.

    Some have focused their attention on the tax system.

    In August, Warren Buffett generated a huge national debate when he asked lawmakers to tax the rich more, chastising what he called the “billionaire-friendly Congress” for coddling him and his wealthy friends.

    Many elected officials are wealthy themselves. The New York Times noted last month that nearly half of all members of Congress are millionaires, and many Congress members have actually gotten richer in the past six years.

    The Republican presidential candidates’ wealth also has been a sensitive issue over the course of their primary campaign.

    Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest presidential candidates in years, has been criticized for being out of touch after gaffes such as jokingly offering fellow candidate Rick Perry a $10,000 bet.

    Meanwhile, Romney has taken shots at his rivals’ wealth, last month insinuating that Newt Gingrich was out of touch because he’s “a very wealthy man.”

    Related:

    The rich got richer and, well, you know the rest

    Downturn takes heaviest toll on younger Americans

     

  • Chatzky: Unusual case? Get a mortgage broker

    Today Money financial expert Jean Chatzky joined us for a live Web chat Wednesday to answer your questions.

    Here’s one of his answers to questions from the live chat. (See below for the full Q&A and video of Jean’s TV appearance this morning.)

    Bob asked:

    “I have a 830 credit score. I know because the Bank sent it and my refi refusal on the same day. Every loan officer goes straight to my net taxable income and says I have too many tax write-offs to qualify. How can I refi? I'm at 6.5% fixed and owe 1/3 of the home value, NO debts, perfect credit.”

    Jean replied:

    “You're an unusual case and the best way for unusual cases to get home loans is through mortgage brokers -- they have connections with the lenders and know how to work the system to get you what you need. And it shouldn't cost you any more than dealing directly with a lender.”

    Here’s the full chat archive and Jean’s TV appearance:

    If you have a question for our TODAY Money experts, submit it here. 

    To sign up for an e-mail reminder for our next chat, click here.

  • David Bach: Five smart financial moves for the year ahead

    Today Money financial expert David Bach joined us for a live Web chat Wednesday to answer your questions.

    Here’s one of his answers to questions from the live chat. (See below for the full Q&A and video of David’s TV appearance this morning.)

    Teisha asked:

    “With the new year coming up, what five pieces of advice would you offer in terms of becoming better financially fit to start out a new year?”

    David replied:

    “Teisha great question. Are you a Today Show Producer, we can write the segment right now for you.

    Okay my five pieces of advice for 2012...are...drum roll!

    1) PAY YOURSELF FIRST. That means the moment you earn a dollar, you direct at least the first hour of income in the day to retirement account (like a 401k plan, IRA, Roth IRA or SEP IRA).

    2) SAVE MONEY AUTOMATICALLY. That means that everything you save for you make the money move automatically. You have your earnings deposited automatically for you, and it's moved automatically at your bank into the various savings accounts you set up for retirement, emergency, college savings, home etc.

    3) PAY DOWN YOUR DEBT. If you have credit debt, rather than worry about investing right now focusing on paying the credit card debt down. Go to www.finishrich.com/dolp and download my tool to help you pay down your debt or go to www.debtwise.com which is a site I promote with Equifax that helps you pay down your debt. Debt reduction is the key to financial security and freedom...so get serious about paying it down in 2012.

    4) REFINANCE FROM 30 YEAR TO 15 YEAR. If you can afford to make extra payments on your mortgage do it., and you are really ready to get serious about being debt free, refinance from a 30 year to a 15 year mortgage. The rates on mortgages are the lowest we have practically ever seen, and now is a great time to do this.

    5) GET SMART FINANCIALLY. To me the best investment you can make financially in 2012 will be in your own financial education. Learn more, read books, take classes, tune into us each week on Money 911, visit money.today.com ... make learning about money learning everything you can about YOUR MONEY, what you own and invest in a 2012 reality.

    Thanks for the question....hope you enjoyed today’s chat!”

    Here’s the full chat archive and David’s TV appearance:

    If you have a question for our TODAY Money experts, submit it here. 

    To sign up for an e-mail reminder for our next chat, click here.

Older posts