It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
avatar
AndrewC: Going back to the whole beer tab, considering that a single bottle of whiskey can go up to $2000 it can certainly add up to a huge sum without even drinking that much.
Thats why you buy cheap whiskey and a waterfilter for camping. Saw it on mythbusters.
Maybe put it in a cool old bottle and wear a monocle while drinking it at room temperature with a splash of water so people think you're being fancy.
(most people you share it with won't be able to tell and those who can will be so embarrassed for you they don't point it out)
Post edited January 31, 2013 by pseudonarne
Ultimately, other than a vague sense of jealousy, I really don't care. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that she's spent £30k on a night out any more than if she hypothetically spent £5m on a huge house in St Georges Hill or £1m on a hypercar. It has no impact on me. It's not like she has unfairly taken any of her money from me. If she didn't have it I wouldn't benefit in any way - other than potentially not having F1 motor racing to watch.

Sure, she could have given it to an orphan or a homeless person. Maybe she does make huge donations - who knows? Odds are that, given her spending power, she's almost certain to have given more money to worthy causes than I have, so I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Stop equating vastly different levels of luxury.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Stop pretending that different levels are different things. :P
Yeah that makes sense.
avatar
Licurg: What? Someone else dares pride himself with your knowledge ?!?!?! How dare he ?!?!?!
avatar
Mervert: SHAME!
I changed it and I thanked Licurg for the heads up. Please put down your torches! :P
avatar
tinyE: This is getting old. I don't think anyone has a problem with how anyone spends their money. The problem people have is that a lot of these people who spend their money recklessly don't care. A lot (not all! I don't want people ripping me for generalizing) who spend like this (see 1st post) have no concept of what they are doing, and THAT is not only annoying, it's borderline offensive. I live well, I buy shit I don't need, I'm hanging out in this forum while other people are killing themselves in coal mines. SHIT, right now I'm debating at this very minute if I should fork over $5 for a silly virtual pinball game when there are people out there who havn't had an extra $5 to play with their whole lives. However, as someone who has seen his share of hard times I get down on my knees everyday and thank my lucky stars that I am where I am now. In turn, my respect, appreciation, and admiration for those not as lucky as me remains limitless and unconditional. Do you think your average debutant gives a shit about the homeless!? These are people that think money grows on trees for everyone and just don't give a shit. Oh sure, from time to time they snap a polaroid in front of a childrens hospital and call it charity, but do you honestly think for a second they would ever take a homeless person in and help them get back on their feet? Do you think they would spend time working in a soup kitchen if there were no cameras rolling?

I'm ranting again. I'll stop for a while.
+10!
avatar
tinyE: This is getting old. I don't think anyone has a problem with how anyone spends their money. The problem people have is that a lot of these people who spend their money recklessly don't care. A lot (not all! I don't want people ripping me for generalizing) who spend like this (see 1st post) have no concept of what they are doing, and THAT is not only annoying, it's borderline offensive. I live well, I buy shit I don't need, I'm hanging out in this forum while other people are killing themselves in coal mines. SHIT, right now I'm debating at this very minute if I should fork over $5 for a silly virtual pinball game when there are people out there who havn't had an extra $5 to play with their whole lives. However, as someone who has seen his share of hard times I get down on my knees everyday and thank my lucky stars that I am where I am now. In turn, my respect, appreciation, and admiration for those not as lucky as me remains limitless and unconditional. Do you think your average debutant gives a shit about the homeless!? These are people that think money grows on trees for everyone and just don't give a shit. Oh sure, from time to time they snap a polaroid in front of a childrens hospital and call it charity, but do you honestly think for a second they would ever take a homeless person in and help them get back on their feet? Do you think they would spend time working in a soup kitchen if there were no cameras rolling?

I'm ranting again. I'll stop for a while.
avatar
DieRuhe: +10!
Indeed.
avatar
tinyE: This is getting old. I don't think anyone has a problem with how anyone spends their money. The problem people have is that a lot of these people who spend their money recklessly don't care. A lot (not all! I don't want people ripping me for generalizing) who spend like this (see 1st post) have no concept of what they are doing, and THAT is not only annoying, it's borderline offensive. I live well, I buy shit I don't need, I'm hanging out in this forum while other people are killing themselves in coal mines. SHIT, right now I'm debating at this very minute if I should fork over $5 for a silly virtual pinball game when there are people out there who havn't had an extra $5 to play with their whole lives. However, as someone who has seen his share of hard times I get down on my knees everyday and thank my lucky stars that I am where I am now. In turn, my respect, appreciation, and admiration for those not as lucky as me remains limitless and unconditional. Do you think your average debutant gives a shit about the homeless!? These are people that think money grows on trees for everyone and just don't give a shit. Oh sure, from time to time they snap a polaroid in front of a childrens hospital and call it charity, but do you honestly think for a second they would ever take a homeless person in and help them get back on their feet? Do you think they would spend time working in a soup kitchen if there were no cameras rolling?

I'm ranting again. I'll stop for a while.
*claps* Well done, this is why I love stories about the haughty getting taken down a few pegs. She may have the right to spend that money, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve a boot to the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFldBVWFgWo
In a way she did even a good thing. In UK the VAT is now 20% iirc. So one fifth of it went to the government and some of this will end up supporting homeless or people with low income. So adding a luxury tax she could do even more good. And buying glasses at least doesn't waste much resources, which are precious and are needed by us and our children and their children and ...

So as long as millionaires buy things that do not cost much to produce at incredibly high prices and pay a decent tax on that... please go on, do more of it. :)
I agree that what we do here is not reproach her to spend this money (it's indeed better than hoarding it, which is the main issue about it), but we reproach a system that allows for such different universes, in which what saves one's life is just futile amusement for another - and we're speaking at whole other scales than what $5 would respectively do in the third world or for a western student.

I also agree with most of what TinyE says, about the futility of the charity excuse, but I don't think it's a camera thing. Charity is often spontaneous and sincere, and the giver is his main public. The ambiguity resides in the fact that it is a good deed, both an important and a superficial one : it helps, but it doesn't challenge the situation that makes it necessary to the reciever. In fact, it reinforces the status quo, maintains and validates the privilege of the giver. Charity is an act of free will, that makes the giver heroical and puts the reciever in moral debt, adding a moral hierarchy to it. In other words, it adds another layer of symbolic domination : the giver buys himself good consciousness, doesn't change anything to the situation (especially when, on the other hand, voting for the very laws that maintain this poverty and wealth differential) and gets thanked for the heroism of, at some point, having had his selfless moment.

This is why charity and generosity get so often opposed to each other. What is to be avoided at all cost, for the proponent of the "charity solution", is : the loss of individual control over redistribution (it still has to be "when he feels like it", and has nothing more fun in mind at that time), the questioning of the very system of domination that puts him in the crumbles-giving role and puts the other in the crumbles-begging role (let's not challenge the social system), and, in the worst cases, his ownership of "his poors" with whom he may have a self-flattering, direct or indirect, patron relation (with, sometimes, a competition between givers, or a bitterness towards the emancipation of "his poors", or anything resembling to "ingratitude" in front of the expected, bought, submission).

So, lots to say about charity business. Giving is better than not giving, but living in a society where people depend on capricious and self-serving charity instead of actual institutions and social support, is an issue itself, that charity doesn't solve, and that is often avoided by people who prefer to maintain the most spectacular inequalities and the power (practical and symbolic) that it gives them upon others. Social support, generority, implies that everyone is entitled to decency and survival. Charity implies that the recievers should be all surprised and moved and grateful and humbled and guilty of being offered some help by some ostentatory generous hearts. Social support and actual generosity imply that this help should just be a normal system, the very ground and purpose of society in the first place, and that participating in it is mandatory anyway.

This is why I care more for state help and state-based redistribution than charity patches. The latter should exist in addition to the former, but is unfortunately most often a ponctual excuse to avoid the responsability of actual social solidarity, and to excuse undermining it. But it's even more an excuse given to oneself, than publicised for others.

There. Aaaand, I do my best with my english, but I'm quite insecure about it, so, thanks for the encouragements on that. Bear in mind that any mistake grants me ruthless PM-whiplashes by Krypsyn, so I kinda have an incentive to keep the standards as high as I can...
Today Carsten Maschmeyer, a german multi-millionaire, gave an interview where he agreed to the idea of a luxury tax on the things that millionaries like to buy. He said afair that this would be a good reallocation from exactly the right persons. He made a fortune in a company selling financial advice and sold it for about 600 million, although the company had a bad image for giving bad advice to its customers. Assuming that his wealth creates a 3% interest after inflation and taxes (reasonable) he still has about 50k to spent each day or he will become richer. I think that explains the observed behavior. But as long as you pay taxes on the spending...
Post edited February 03, 2013 by Trilarion
So in other words, "HOW DARE SOMEONE DO WHAT HE/SHE WANTS WITH HIS/HER OWN MONEY!!!!!1111onehundredandeleven"

Who the hell cares other than the bar owner and whoever got tipped? If it was your money, you can do whatever you want with it. Sure I believe that person made a bad choice but that was hers and not mine.

Let people do what they want with their own money and properties.

Of course, the moment someone who bitches about what she did gets rich like the through the lottery and spends it on some fancy consumer good or service, he/she would never call himself/herself spoiled or rotten. That same person who made the complaints would then try to rationalize it and say that he/she "deserves it."