Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, so, my wife works at a company where one of their clients had a photo shoot recently, for her (the client's) personal marketing.

This shoot costs somewhere over $9,000, for all the various staff involved, not including travel, etc.
She brings 9 pairs of shoes, most in the four digit price range
She brings several dresses, one of which was a $3000 impuse buy because an actress she liked wore it the night before


We figure out that we're probably talking about this woman spending $30,000 for one day, mostly for vanity (since things are anonymous, here, she's not so successful/skilled at what she does that she's likely to recoup the costs, and she married in to money, so she didn't earn it to begin with...). I'm not too proud to say that this is more than my wife makes in a year.

Now, I understand inequality in wealth, and all that, but, really? Really? How can someone argue that they can use enough of it that it matters, let alone that they somehow need that amount of wealth protected because they deserve it? I just don't understand that level of wasteful... living.

Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?

Would you rather she be a vain person that sits on her money stash, or that she be a vain person that actually spends her money so that it changes hand and actually contributes to the economy?

I'd rather a combination of proportional (or even disproportionately high) taxation for the wealthy and some tendency towards charity, since you asked, but I was more criticizing the disparity wealth than the conspicuous spending.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Would you rather she be a vain person that sits on her money stash, or that she be a vain person that actually spends her money so that it changes hand and actually contributes to the economy?

Yeah, this is what I think.

Although I'd argue that there is no way that any photo shoot is actually worth $30,000. I mean, it could cost that much, and one could spend that much on it, but it's not actually worth that much, you know?

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I'd rather a combination of proportional (or even disproportionately high) taxation for the wealthy and some tendency towards charity, since you asked, but I was more criticizing the disparity wealth than the conspicuous spending.

I used to think that we should have an income cap, somewhere around the 1.5 or 2 millions, and where the taxable excess could be volontarily given to whichever charity or governmental institution of your choice. But imagine the clusterfeth that'll cause to any State when preparing their budgets!

But that's just idealistic spanking.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?

Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I'd rather a combination of proportional (or even disproportionately high) taxation for the wealthy and some tendency towards charity, since you asked, but I was more criticizing the disparity wealth than the conspicuous spending.

I used to think that we should have an income cap, somewhere around the 1.5 or 2 millions, and where the taxable excess could be volontarily given to whichever charity or governmental institution of your choice. But imagine the clusterfeth that'll cause to any State when preparing their budgets!

But that's just idealistic spanking.

But... idealistic is the best kind of spanking! (Yes, a hard cap would be pretty amazing, and probably equally impossible to execute or enforce.)

Not really offended, or angry. I have enough money to be happy with what I have. So I don't need to stare at the idle rich and seethe with rage because they have more then I do.

That said I vastly prefer that the rich stay in their little world (country clubs, etc) and I stay in mine (reality), as having worked as a security guard for a country club I know most rich people are complete donkey caves (old money, people who made their pile are usually okay)

OP I have to ask, why are you so upset about your wife getting work?

It is entirely possible this wealthy couple you know donates large sums of money to various charities and causes.

Does that change how you feel about them being taxed more?

I would rather wealthy people spent their money than sit on it.

Am I offended? nope, not in the slightest. What does this woman's husband do to make his money and how do I also do it?

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
It is entirely possible this wealthy couple you know donates large sums of money to various charities and causes.

Does that change how you feel about them being taxed more?

I would rather wealthy people spent their money than sit on it.

Am I offended? nope, not in the slightest. What does this woman's husband do to make his money and how do I also do it?

From OP's comment of "married into money" I'd guess her husband has a combo of old money and law school backing him up. Or a business degree and a cushy corner office at the family business

 azazel the cat wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?

Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.

It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.

I think it depends on how the person gets their money.

If a person works hard, brings innovation to a field, and produces a genuinely better product they deserve to be rich as a reward for their contribution to society.

If a person "earns" their money passively, whether by inheritance or being incredibly overpaid (professional athletes, for example), and just benefits from the fact that once you're wealthy you and your descendents will continue to be wealthy simply by doing a bare minimum of investing and letting the inertia of money do the rest, they don't deserve it.

If a person earns their money by doing unethical things (for example, investment bankers, some military contractors, etc), or uses their money to do unethical things, they really don't deserve it.



Of course usually the people whining about "don't envy the wealthy, earn your own!" aren't talking about any kind of communist-style plan to eliminate wealth, they're getting outraged about any potential threat to reduce the ability of wealthy people to become even more wealthy. Let's not pretend that "rich people should not pay less in taxes than everyone else" or "investment banking should be regulated to prevent another financial collapse" are the same thing as "nobody should be allowed to be rich".

Relapse wrote:


It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.

If only more people were like this guy

Tibbsy wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.

If only more people were like this guy

The real kicker is that the company went from 50 people when I started to employing over 700 and is fairly profitable.

Money that just sits in the bank is still in the economy. Thats where the bank gets its loan money from. The money is then lent out to businesses and individuals.

This is actually how most money is created, not by printing more physical bills. But by banks lending it to people.

Its called the Money Multiplier and its quite facinating. Money just multiplies when it gets spent, and if it was borrowed money even more so.

 azazel the cat wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?

Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.

Would you really?

I mean, many people just say they would do all these nice things if they got loads of cash. And I'm sure you mean well, but what would you really do if you got the money?

/sarcasim


That said, lots of wealthy people do donate to charity. And in many cases its ALOT of money.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Money that just sits in the bank is still in the economy. Thats where the bank gets its loan money from. The money is then lent out to businesses and individuals.

Wait, you mean that banks have actually gone back to only lending out money they already have, and not just inventing imaginary money to give out?

They can't lend out money they don't have.

In fact, there is a legal limit to the amount of money they can lend out. They must keep a certain % of the money their depositors have locked in their vaults. The rest they can lend out.

Lending out money and charging interest is how banks make money. Thats why they pay interest on savings accounts instead of charging you to guard your money.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Okay, so, my wife works at a company where one of their clients had a photo shoot recently, for her (the client's) personal marketing.

This shoot costs somewhere over $9,000, for all the various staff involved, not including travel, etc.
She brings 9 pairs of shoes, most in the four digit price range
She brings several dresses, one of which was a $3000 impuse buy because an actress she liked wore it the night before

Its an honest way to spend money. It's a very female way to spend a husbands money. If he is happy with her doing that that is ok.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

We figure out that we're probably talking about this woman spending $30,000 for one day, mostly for vanity (since things are anonymous, here, she's not so successful/skilled at what she does that she's likely to recoup the costs, and she married in to money, so she didn't earn it to begin with...). I'm not too proud to say that this is more than my wife makes in a year.

Even in these liberated times it is acceptable for a woman to be successful by choosing the right partner. Its even getting more acceptable for a man to do this also.
As for success perhaps she hostesses her way into success, or has to look the part while on the arm of her partner. This could be an investment as well as a splash out.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Now, I understand inequality in wealth, and all that, but, really? Really? How can someone argue that they can use enough of it that it matters, let alone that they somehow need that amount of wealth protected because they deserve it? I just don't understand that level of wasteful... living.

i personally do not need to have such luxuries, but than I am a bloke. I dont understand the need for having more than three pairs of shoes unless they are specialist items for sports. Women think differently.
So the waste first needs to be translated across the gender divide.

As for waste. How many armies do I have, far more than I need. No they don't cost $30K, but a hobby collection could cost proportionately as much as a wealthy woman might spend.

As for real waste. Its when thousands are spent on a night out I draw the line. At least she has the shoes and the portfolio and the dress the morning after.


The real tragedy might be buying these things to be happy or for self worth. To be happy one must first be 'poor' to some degree. Not necessarily to go without but to able to be without. Unless one can appreciate the simple life first then great wealth can never bring happiness. So very few learn this lesson.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
It is entirely possible this wealthy couple you know donates large sums of money to various charities and causes.

Does that change how you feel about them being taxed more?

Not particularly. I donate what I can, and don't expect a tax cut (which, by the way is based on total donation, not proportional donation).

Am I offended? nope, not in the slightest. What does this woman's husband do to make his money and how do I also do it?

I don't know his line of work, but (not to work too much off of conjecture) his cheating on his wife for a decade with a prostitute and her family doesn't speak much to his character :/

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Would you rather she be a vain person that sits on her money stash, or that she be a vain person that actually spends her money so that it changes hand and actually contributes to the economy?

I'd rather she be a vain person who gets taxed through the nose, and has a more appropriate amount of personal wealth

I blew up to 40K in one month. Does that put me up there with the lady 30K photo shoot?

Grey Templar wrote:Would you really?

I mean, many people just say they would do all these nice things if they got loads of cash. And I'm sure you mean well, but what would you really do if you got the money?

Yup. Wouldn't even think twice.

Somewhere is a hungry child who would be outraged to know the people on this message board don't flinch at spending what that child's parents earn in a month on a single, poorly made resin figurine.

 Ouze wrote:
Somewhere is a hungry child who would be outraged to know the people on this message board don't flinch at spending what that child's parents earn in a month on a single, poorly made resin figurine.

They probably wouldn't have the energy to be outraged. Ya'know from poor nutrition and all that.

 Ouze wrote:
Somewhere is a hungry child who would be outraged to know the people on this message board don't flinch at spending what that child's parents earn in a month on a single, poorly made resin figurine.

I'm with this dude.

30k on a personal photo shoot is dumb, but that's money into the economy. I don't care. As J G Wentworth says, it's your money...

 Kaldor wrote:

I'd rather she be a vain person who gets taxed through the nose, and has a more appropriate amount of personal wealth

How is her wealth innappropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I don't know his line of work, but (not to work too much off of conjecture) his cheating on his wife for a decade with a prostitute and her family doesn't speak much to his character :/

How is that not slut bashing? How is the fact that the guy likes hookers any relevant toward his income, or how his wife spends her part of his?

 kronk wrote:


30k on a personal photo shoot is dumb, but that's money into the economy. I don't care. As J G Wentworth says, it's your money...

Maybe saying. I have my photoshoot done at parlour z while wearing a dress from boutique x and shoes from boutique y. Maybe the social access is worth $30k to her, possibly it opens $30K's worth of business doors, or political doors for her husband.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

I'd rather she be a vain person who gets taxed through the nose, and has a more appropriate amount of personal wealth

How is her wealth innappropriate?

In my opinion, magnificent wealth is almost never earned or deserved, and given the current disparity of wealth and the depressing future of employment for most people, especially in developed nations, I think allowing such huge amounts of wealth to be concentrated into the hands of such a tiny proportion of people is inappropriate.

 Kaldor wrote:
In my opinion, magnificent wealth is almost never earned or deserved, and given the current disparity of wealth and the depressing future of employment for most people, especially in developed nations, I think allowing such huge amounts of wealth to be concentrated into the hands of such a tiny proportion of people is inappropriate.

Well, your value statement have been noted and will be properly dismissed by anyone who could do anything about it.

Until La Revolution!

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Okay, so, my wife works at a company where one of their clients had a photo shoot recently, for her (the client's) personal marketing.

This shoot costs somewhere over $9,000, for all the various staff involved, not including travel, etc.
She brings 9 pairs of shoes, most in the four digit price range
She brings several dresses, one of which was a $3000 impuse buy because an actress she liked wore it the night before


We figure out that we're probably talking about this woman spending $30,000 for one day, mostly for vanity (since things are anonymous, here, she's not so successful/skilled at what she does that she's likely to recoup the costs, and she married in to money, so she didn't earn it to begin with...). I'm not too proud to say that this is more than my wife makes in a year.

Now, I understand inequality in wealth, and all that, but, really? Really? How can someone argue that they can use enough of it that it matters, let alone that they somehow need that amount of wealth protected because they deserve it? I just don't understand that level of wasteful... living.

Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?

If she never complained about your warhammer purchase, then you shouldnt either, even if its $30,000.
She'll see her mistakes when she is bored of the shoes, wait till then, do not act now.