I should have stayed in Brasil!

Neither do I, and while I don't support myself and my family, I do prop them up from time during the year, while looking forward to building a relationship and ultimately a family with my g/f.

Who is to say that Arlie isn't any different off the board than Allan? Hmm. You, I, Mike, many others are in the positions to do what we can and are accepting of that.

However, a majority of people, don't think like you and I. If they do, they don't do anything about it. I think of the top 1% that control 20% of the wealth, the top 25% who control 65% of the wealth and you and I contribute far more then either of these two groups of people.

When I came back from the service, I remember distinctly hearing on the radio that a vast majority of the millionaires, those with $1M or more in physical or liquid assets, earned it putting in 12-15 hour days 6 days a week and that less than 10% of all wealth was inherited. When we reach this point, will we too forget the shoes we once filled?

Sunny

 

FWIW, having spent a few years in Seattle I think that most of the locals would agree that Paul Allen and Bill Gates bankroll so much of the public works, schools (incl. substantial depts of UW), libraries, sports teams, museums and charities in the area that they should be able to enjoy whatever luxury they bloody well please. They've "paid their debt." Which is pretty freaking ironic because they were the ones that developed one of the most successful branded products in the history of the world and now they "owe" society?

Does anyone find that peculiar? That success over a certain intangible line means that you owe others? Now, I think that the wealthy should be socially (and fiscally) encouraged to donate, and donate more than others. But the proportion is up to them. And if they want to enjoy expensive goods (provided it's not made from endangered animals or humans!), I say go right ahead. It is the ability to have infinite goals that gives powerful economic incentives.

But if Allen's boat shocks your conscience, then go to Canada and the Liberal goverment will guarantee that such luxury is never a reality for you!!

 

Dave, Mike, I think we see eye to eye on things, but we have some different ideas on what we would like to see happen to wealth and society in general.

I would become a judge or be in the service or out making a difference if I didn't have to fight tooth and nail to keep afloat. By nature I'm altrustic. I give away money to friends and family, if its extra its gone. As I become wealthy so do those around me.

I have hardly any material possessions.

1 1997 Jag sedan with 103k miles on it bought used with 35k miles
2 weeks worth of clothes
Several boxes of fantasy, sci-fi, and technical books
A bed I've had since I was a teenager with three sets of linen (one old, one relatively new, one new) and a homemade bedframe my dad made
A nice computer desk I bought for 375DM when I was in Germany in 1998
A 29" TV I never use
A $3k desktop computer setup
A collection of 325 audio CDs, 50 licensed software programs, 5 DVDs
A playstation 2 with Gran Turismo 3 and Gauntlet
An ipod
A simple and well worn office chair I bought with my desk in 1998
Two end tables
A simple entertainment center made out of oak
A Sony GA8ES receiver, CD player, and 5.1 Cerwin Vega/Yamaha sub system bought in 1999
2 pairs of MB Quarts in the box (one used, one pair bought from E-bay)
Tolietries
1 condo I rent in Burbank with a roommate and best friend
1 place I rent in San Diego
Utilities
Help to my parents
No investments, no property, no 401k, no savings
1 CC with $4k debt on it

Thats all I own. There's a couple minor things in there I missed but they were minor enough to not make the list. I took a $2k and a $3k bath on two separate classic cars. My federal tax rate has never been below .22 and is currently .26 ... help me account for the rest.

Pretty altrustic, you might say? If those who enjoy such a lavish livestyle would give up a small percentage of their income that would not change their lifestyle a single bit compared to the sacrifices we make in the name of friends, family, and (if wealthy enough, society too), the Arlie's and the people like me would have no reason to ***** at all.

Sunny

 

Doesn't anyone find it peculiar that someone becomes so rich, powerful, whatever so quickly could give up 50%, or more, of it and not change the lifestyle for the rest of their life doesn't already do so? Rumor says Mr. Gates' wealth will be donated when he dies. True or not, its greed that keeps him, and so many others, holding on to what they have until that final moment.

Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy means you must manage or have people manage money very well. Take lottery winners, for example. They cannot manage their money or know how to keep it making more or finding someone who can and plenty of them lose nearly all of it.

Don't you find it peculiar that more money is being made that is not needed and not being donated?

They should be able to do anything they want legally and probably a lot that is illegal too. But they can be doing so much more.

Its not the yacht that shocks the conscience, but how someone with so much business and money sense doesn't relize they could be doing so much more and overcome their greed. We're not expecting rich people or anyone else to sacrifice anything because they owe others or society, but rather to make the difference they can without sacrifice and that is percisely the thing they are not doing. Capitalism vs humanity. Which side are they on, which are you?

Bag 'em, tag 'em. Next!

Sunny

 

So are you. I admit I'm a bit jaded, but I love playing devil's advocate. I'm very opinionated and love to shout it from the rooftops (re: post count), but I came here ultimately because I want a Ferrari. The one aspect of a fat cat lifestyle I'll not only enjoy, but obsess about, as long as I cherish it and never forget what I gave up to obtain it.

Sunny

 

Sunny,
>>Doesn't anyone find it peculiar that someone becomes so rich, powerful, whatever so quickly could give up 50%, or more, of it and not change the lifestyle for the rest of their life doesn't already do so?

Well, not really. Paper wealth can be rather fickle; because you can lose billions overnight (ask Mr. Gates) and considering the way interest rates affect long-term increases I would say it's saavy to hang on to a lot of it because it produces more interest/revenue that can be used to build more wealth OR donate more in the long run. $50 billion accumulating interest could possibly give $2-8 billion to donate every year, whereas cashing out $20 billion to different organizations would spend it very fast.

>>Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy means you must manage or have people manage money very well. Take lottery winners, for example. They cannot manage their money or know how to keep it making more or finding someone who can and plenty of them lose nearly all of it.

Very true. They couldn't manage money in the first place, and that usually doesn't change. Joe Schmoe fantasizes about $1M but that can go PDQ. This point doesn't fit your argument against wealth though - you could say then that the wealthy with proven management skills (or the right bankers) would be the proper stewards of wealth awaiting donation.

>>Don't you find it peculiar that more money is being made that is not needed and not being donated?

Not really - "need" is such a fuzzy concept. Ask an economist! I'm not trying to dodge this, but 'needed' is so personal. Try telling a Depression-era person that they don't need to be a frugal packrat... it's hard to understand people's comfort zones with their own wealth. For some, $1M might be more assurance than they ever need, for some $240 million won't satiate their fear and insecurity of going bankrupt or instability. It's not always greed as an evil green demon - fear is a good motivator too.

You could always say that the gov't makes sure 37%+ of every wealthy estate is donated anyway upon death.

>>But they can be doing so much more.

This is very easily said.

>>Its not the yacht that shocks the conscience, but how someone with so much business and money sense doesn't relize they could be doing so much more and overcome their greed. We're not expecting rich people or anyone else to sacrifice anything because they owe others or society, but rather to make the difference they can without sacrifice and that is percisely the thing they are not doing. Capitalism vs humanity. Which side are they on, which are you?

Why is this greed? You're quick to classify his choices. Why isn't driving a Jaguar luxury automobile greedy? Regular Ford not good enough? I think it was you that brought up relative wealth earlier. To him that's probably the relative economic expense of an '85 Escort without A/C.

I read your paragraph at least a dozen times, and find it rather circular in reasoning. I would argue that you are in fact trying to say they should sacrifice what they have. Because you say he shouldn't have to sacrifice his lifestyle but give what he doesn't "need" (use?), but your evidence is a 400' yacht which you imply he shouldn't have, because he should sacrifice. Are you saying the yacht is ok, as long as he gives up the rest of his unused capital?

I will also argue that capitalism and humanity are not opposed. Regulated capitalism is the catalyst or even the fuel for humanitarian activity. I don't think there needs to be a choice of 'one or the other.' I give the United States as an example: overall the most charitable society on Earth BY FAR. It's wealth has given more to everyone worldwide. Forcing the choice sounded poetic, but I think it's a false dichotomy.

>>Bag 'em, tag 'em. Next!

Hang on. Got a pulse here ;-).

 

As you say need is personal and each person must be find their own comfort zone, I realize its easy for me to say, I'm comfortable, why aren't you (to those who have more material wealth than I)? Having or earning wealth doesn't define what a person needs. So where else does it come from?

By your example I understand your point about managing money, keeping those assets collecting interest will give greater returns in the long run. I would argue that the differences those assets could make now might be greater, in what way, I don't know. I'm neither a philanthropist or wealthy. Does Bill Gates' leave more for society by hoarding it and collecting returns after the government takes away a chunk when he dies or by giving away most of it now?

No one needs a 400' yacht like I need a Jaguar, or a Ferrari. We spin a complicated equation when we mix in relative wealth and actual wealth. For all we know, the expenditure on a 400' yacht for him was like a Jaguar for me, not an easy one to decide make but both give the illusion of having wealth, don't they? The difference is I've made a sacrifice while giving money away. Can the same thing be said of Paul Allen? As we are well aware, a 328 can appear to be a $100,000 car, my g/f spent more on her 2001 Toyota Solara than I did on my car, most SUV owners did after 1 more year of depreciation (my first) with the car but you wouldn't know it. However, the numbers don't lie.

I'm sorry if the logic appeared circular, my brain goes unused most of the time. What I'm saying is that the Paul Allen's of the world should be more than capable of taking care of their basic needs, with all the extras they desire, and have extra capital left over. Like our aforementioned lottery winners, people spend so much time going after what they want, people far too easily lose sight that they should be luckily to have their needs taken care of.

Why can't Paul Allen take care of all of his wants as well as his needs and then give the rest up? Greed? I'd really like to know. I'm sure many people would. Thats the point I'm driving at. I have my needs taken care of, my wants, and I gave the rest away. Regardless of the fact that I was more greedy (figuratively speaking!) in opting for the Jaguar instead of an Escort before giving the rest away, why can't those with more money get what they want and move on? Does that make sense? Especially someone able to make such a difference as Paul Allen.

I agree that capitalism can be a catalyst or fuel for humanitarian activity. It was meant to sound poetic and nothing more. I'm a poet in my spare time, I can't help it. People less wealthy are able to give wealth away. What really keeps Paul Allen and many others like him who can really make a difference holding on to theirs?

Sunny

 

Yeah but where are the thong girls? That is Brazil is it not?

 

Here's a quote that fits well with the current debate:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Author: Winston Churchill

Take your pick of the above gentlemen. History has shown time and time again, you can't have it both ways.

 

As for everyone hating on the rich guy....
DON'T HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME!!!!!!

Whatever he did to get that much money he made the right moves and you can't hold that against him. Imagine the odds of starting a company with your friend and a 20 years later you and him are two of the top 5 richest people in the world. Bill Gates has dropped a billion dollars at a time for charity. Not a few thousand or hundred thousand but a BILLION DOLLARS. Sure he may have seventy billion but nobody can deny to simply hand off a billion dollars is no small chunk of change. But no matter what some people do you can never satisfy everyone and somebody always wants more. I think they deserve every penny and every yatch, jet, and house they own.

Now back to the yacht...

 

Gorgeous Boat

I wonder if he lets his favorite Employee, Steve Balmer barrow it on the weekends?

Here are some of my favorite video's of Steve.

http://jokke.dk/media/balmer.html

 

Slightly tangential, but something I've been thinking of recently.

1) Just about anyone really can succeed in this country. The founder of Starbucks grew up poor in a bad section of the Bronx. My friend David's parents escaped from Vietnam as Saigon fell. They had nothing but a work ethic and drive and now own multiple properties and a small business.

2) I so often hear moaning about others having such a head start thanks to their family but that's just the way it is. Nearly all of us have it to varying degrees. Both of my parents grew up poor. My dad in Brooklyn, my mom in the sticks of Kentucky. I've been able to stand on their shoulders. Hopefully, someday my children will do the same. The thread is a common one among my friends, most 1st or 2nd generation in the US, all exceeding their parents' success thanks to the advantages their parents provided.

 

Sunny, I understand what you're saying. I just thought of what might be a better illustration for your point: Oskar Schindler. Will Allen be standing there in the end, lamenting that he could have sold his yachts to save one more life? Will he tear off his wristwatch and see what that money could have done to educate a child or feed a multitude?

I've heard many who say we should "give 'til it hurts." Where that line is is different for everyone, and it loses its sense of charity when it's forced or expected.

LOL. Tifosi69: What's funny is that that is what I had suspected this thread was about before I saw the boat!

 

Great minds think alike, or so they say.

 

Oppie, excellent quote. If it was my boat, I would loan it out.

Matt, who says we hate the rich guy? One billion is an enormous sum of money. Offline I was talking about Bill Gates and it was brought up that he's leaving his kids 10 million USD each and the rest will be given away (and taxed by the Government). I guess a billion is not enough for him to live on but 69 billion should be enough right? Remember, by the worlds standards, all of us are the rich guy. To you, 1 billion is enough and I think 69 billion is a little bit of an overkill to hold in reserve to achieve anything he wants. Why not leave his kids 1 billion too? Obviously he thinks that 10 million is "enough," just not for him.

I'm a 2nd generation American and grew up middle class. The things my parents gave me were knowledge, work ethic, and values.

Dave, can I get one or both to go?

Ryan, regarding the saying give 'til it hurts, I'm sure it hurts Bill Gates to sacrifice 1 billion to charity, give 10 million to his kids when he dies, and hold onto 60+ billion in the meantime. The "line" we are talking about is not straight. Society needs a few more Oskar Schindlers and I shouldn't be surprised that none of them are in the top wealthiest people, based on the examples given so far. Excellent illustration, thanks!

"If all the rich people in the world divided up their money among themselves there wouldn't be enough to go around." - Christina Stead

Sunny

 

Daddy likes the thongs .... Daddy likes a lot!!

 

Sunny,

One thing you are completely missing is that Bill Gates doesn't HAVE $70 billion. He may be 'worth' that, but there is a difference between what someone is worth and what they have. Gates could never cash in on his wealth, because doing so would decrease the value and he'd end up getting much less. Ironic, isn't it?

Furthermore, Gates never said he will give it all away when he dies and his kids will get $10MM each, what he said was that he intends to give away all his wealth before he dies except a small (relatively speaking) amount for his children. Giving away billions of dollars is a tough chore. Who do you give it to and how much do you give? He already has a foundation that does some truly wonderful things, and he gives hundreds of millions, if not billions to it. I wonder who else on this board donates 10% of everything they own (not just their income, but 10% of their worth) to charity??? Not many, I bet. And I bet none of the critics do.

I think a lot of people are criticizing Gates without really understanding his position in life and what he does for people.

 

Mike, the actual wealth we know he has in physical assets is plenty enough to illustrate my point. Its easy for me to be an armchair critic, but I give more than 10% of my time and money and have trouble enough taking care of those around me. I wish I had the tough chore of being in a position of enough "wealth" to help others. Its not the level of the differences we make but the lack of desire in others to make them is what I'm criticizing.

Some other google quotes...

One must be poor to know the luxury of giving. - George Eliot

The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to have any. - Katharine Whitehorn

Sunny

 

Bill Gates gave away over $6 Billion in one year alone. That's when his net "worth" was hovering around $40 billion.

The Gates' expenditures on their lifestyle is easily lower than that of many people whose assets don't add up to even 100th of the Gates fortune. They live, and give, very quietly.

 

All this talk about Bill Gates and a few other billionaires is concentrating on a few rare individuals who happen to become ultra wealthy. Even the vast majority of the "wealthy" don't achieve that level. When I talk about "fat cats", I'm talking about the wealthy individuals who control basically everything in every town in America. Think about any town in the country. Now think about who owns the most valuable land in that town, the most successful businesses in that town, etc. It always comes down to one or two rich families whose grandfathers settled the land, started the businesses, got rich, and then passed the wealth down to the next generation who then had the luxury of being born with a silver spoon in their mouths while the kid across the tracks was born into a family in debt to the rich guy. Everybody always says that anybody can make it with enough hard work. Well please tell me, how hard did those rich kids work in order to earn Grandpa's land and money? Not very hard. But you can bet that the kid from across the tracks will never stand any chance of buying any of the choicest land for developement at the west end of town because THAT LAND is ALREADY owned by the rich kids and has been owned by them for 50 years. So the little guy doesn't really have the same opportunities at all that the rich kids had, or that their Grandpa had. I read somewhere once that there is one family that owns 800 acres of land in downtown London for multiple generations going back several hundred years. Therefore, the next generation of that family will be born wealthy, while the kids of the people renting their property will be born into debt. Not exactly a great way to start one's life.
And as far as everybody extoling the wonderful virtues of rich fat cats donating money to charity; do you think that it is just "given" away with no records for a corresponding tax deduction that will benefit themselves in the long run? I doubt it. The only billionaire that I've heard of that actually gave money away was John D. Rockefeller who gave away shiney new dimes to people that he met. Henry Ford was also a shining example of a wealthy guy who gave away much money to charity. But what about the time that he hired Pinkerton Security agents to break a strike at one of his plants using very strong "armed" tactics? Nobody talks too much about that.
And what about that story I saw on a news magazine about numerous wealthy folks who walk into the U.S. embassy in the Bahamas and renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to escape paying U.S. taxes, yet they still are allowed to live in the U.S. for 6 months each year? Now that's a true American don't you think?

 

tifosi69...i'm with ya!

bring me da thong tha thong thong thong!

 

Arlie, I am still missing the point of what your talking about. So what if someone inherits money, a good parent should their kids to have more than they did. Were you the poor kid that you are referring to, otherwise I just don't follow your logic. Speaking of tax deductions, most of us keep records for our taxes, that doesn't spoil the reason for giving.