Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Anybody catch this last night? it was a look at children born into some extremely wealthy families.
Summary:
The older the money, the more fucked up the kids are.
Summary:
The older the money, the more fucked up the kids are.
HBO's documentary "Born Rich"
- Thread starter MattTheSkywalker
- Start date
Didn't see it,but I've seen that scenario played out in real life way too many times,and more often then not it ends up ugly.Kids that have never had to work for anything and have been spoon fed their entire lives end up being walking disasters more often than not.I had a friend I grew up with who fit that scenario,he inherited a few mill.By the time he was in his mid 20's,he squandered it all on drugs and worthless shit,and now he's struggling going minimum wage job to job just trying to pay for a little shithole studio.He never had a clue on how to survive in the real world.
Stangfriik
New member
Kinda sounds like the Hilton sisters
HUCKLEBERRY FINNaplex said:
That's about right.
These are kids who are inheriting hundreds of millions and have family businesses through which they are trustees, so they can never really run out of money.
It was interesting - they had Mike Bloomberg's daughter on there - but she was pretty normal - Bloomberg made the entire 4 billion himself.
Trump's kids were on there too and seemed (for that group) well adjusted - if nothing else I suspect that Trump has given them a sense of pride in the family name and business, plus he did go through some relatively hard times with debt and other stuff.
They had heirs form Johnson & Johnson - this money is so old that the kid's dad was a complete shithead.
Anotehrkid who was an heir to the Newhouse fortune (the richest of them all) actually seemed pretty normal.
The most fucked up was a kid who was an heir to the Vanderbilt & whitney fortunes (the oldest money) ...this kid had done a ton of drugs and was clearly abused by others at prep schools and such. A complete waste of space.
There were also two european heirs...street trash.
Interesting stuff...
Some of you 80's BB'ers might remember John & Phil Poteet, two twins who were related to the DuPont fotunes. Tall, good looking, both BB'ers. One of them dated Tonya something, a Miss Olympia contender. They were on allowances that were like $25K/month until they hit some age.
Big Rick Rock
istrator
These could be your kids in some years Matt. . . . Better stop making all that money, or lie to them and tell them you are broke until they get out of college
Big Rick Rock said:
Shit bro...these are empires...not a few million bucks. If I am lucky enough to have that success I'd likely give most of it away anyway.
supernav said:
Nope.
These are inherited forutnes over 100 years old. Parents weren't making it except in the bloomberg example. And she was normal.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I actually know those two families.
Without naming names.... (for obvious reasons).... I personally know the heir and his son of a company that is recognized around the world. The company invented a world changing device that ultimately (in some ways) led right up to what you are using right now... to read this... and possibly reply.
This family had money coming out of their asses... but yet, the father worked every single day. And not in the family business either. He is actually President of an exclusive club that turned down Bill Gates, ex Mayor Rudy, and George Clooney membership requets. The son however... is another story all together.... Never went to college, wanted to be a boxer, took too many blows to the head... became a tile layer in Beverly Hills, CA... met a girl, got said girl pregnant, got scared, convinced girl to go to Mexico for a "vacation", the vacation however was endless alcohol until she passed out and then an abortion by a doctor that made house calls to hotel rooms. Ran back to Daddy, though Daddy was in Canada at the time, so Daddy's partner sends the boy to Italy to enroll in a year long glass blowing school to become an artist. Unknowing to the Daddy, because it is suppose to be "their secret"... Daddy's partner dies a few months later and thus the tuition each quarter never makes it there.... last anyone heard from this guy was last month, he was in Holland with no clue to who he was or how he got there.
javaguru
Banned
My ex mother in law was good friends with an heir to the Champion spark plug fortune. Her children/grandchildren did nothing with their lives but attempt to squander the fortune. It seems the farther one gets from the source of the wealth the more fucked up they become, hence the Vanderbilts.
pitbullstl
New member
HUCKLEBERRY FINNaplex said:
That's a good example, but a better example would be my buddy, "Walt" he has never had a job, and never will....his grandfather invented the pop top, and the way that those Pillsbury Rolls open (no idea what that is called). Anyway, he inherited $112,000,000 when he was 21. Talk about a dude who is out of touch with reality.............he has so much, but in reality so little. I don't want for much, but I work smart for my money. Sure it would be great to have that as my net worth, but I really enjoy my work.......his life is so fucked up, he can't maintain a normal relationship with a girl, or even a normal friendship with guys. He has "going out buddies", I've known him since I was 4 so I consider myself a friend, I want nothing from him, but the dude is so warped, I find it hard to even have conversation with him........
Big Rick Rock
istrator
the Du Pont Family has along history of family members blowing themselves up in labs during experiments and shit... these little fuckers should be proud of their family name and not act like such assholes.
MattTheSkywalker said:
Maybe in american society. Thats not really the case in European ones.
The older the money, the more importance they place on culture and education.
In american society, money = power = success = respect
Thats what i call fake respect.
In Europe its Money + education = cultured = respect = power
Obviousy there are exceptions to this, but they are not many from my experiences.
Fonz
Re: Re: HBO's documentary "Born Rich"
Well, you should watch the documentary when it re-runs.
The europeans that they showed were more fucked up than any of the American heirs, and the Americans were pretty fucked up.
One of them was heir to an Italian textile forutne, and another was a grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II and was also an Italian Viscount.
These guys made the American heirs look like the very definiton of class.
Fonz said:
Well, you should watch the documentary when it re-runs.
The europeans that they showed were more fucked up than any of the American heirs, and the Americans were pretty fucked up.
One of them was heir to an Italian textile forutne, and another was a grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II and was also an Italian Viscount.
These guys made the American heirs look like the very definiton of class.
Re: Re: Re: HBO's documentary "Born Rich"
When will that be?
You piqued my curiousity. Most of the really screwed up kids I have met that came from rich families were american.
Fonz
MattTheSkywalker said:
Well, you should watch the documentary when it re-runs.
The europeans that they showed were more fucked up than any of the American heirs, and the Americans were pretty fucked up.
One of them was heir to an Italian textile forutne, and another was a grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II and was also an Italian Viscount.
These guys made the American heirs look like the very definiton of class.
When will that be?
You piqued my curiousity. Most of the really screwed up kids I have met that came from rich families were american.
Fonz
NoDaddyNo
New member
I went to school with a lot of these people. The most screwed up ones I knew were not American - the American ones were just assholes. But the most screwed up they were was perhaps that they didn't grasp our views of "value" and they leaned towards date rape a lot.
There was one prince that was quite a character - partly paralysed on one side due to a water sports accident in the French Riviera - hired hit men to kill anyone that he thought was sleeping with his nymphomaniac girlfriend.
The hit men found several guys that were nailing her, but instead of killing them, warned them that this guy was nuts and then ran off with the money.
He then hired another guy to be her bodyguard while he was on trips and said bodyguard ended up dating her and she kind of settled down with him.
And then lots and lots and lots of drugs
There was one prince that was quite a character - partly paralysed on one side due to a water sports accident in the French Riviera - hired hit men to kill anyone that he thought was sleeping with his nymphomaniac girlfriend.
The hit men found several guys that were nailing her, but instead of killing them, warned them that this guy was nuts and then ran off with the money.
He then hired another guy to be her bodyguard while he was on trips and said bodyguard ended up dating her and she kind of settled down with him.
And then lots and lots and lots of drugs
collegiateLifter
New member
sounds like atleast a partial plug for the estate tax.
pitbullstl
New member
2Thick said:
He wholy and truly believes that money is the end all be all of every last thing and being. He paid an ex-girlfirend $250,000 to pretend she was still with him for a month after they split up......she's fucked but he's even more fucked......the truest definition of warped IMO, is when you can no longer seperate fiction from reality, and vice versa.....when you honestly believe that your net worth is a bullet proof vest, that is when you have officially gone off the deep end.......
Tiervexx
New member
I am far away from super rich but my dad still makes quite a bit more than just about anyone else I know.
Despite this he still gives me a lot less money than just about everyone I know gets from their parents, and I am the only one I know who got nagged at constantly to get a job even though I did not need it. I hated this at first but a few years ago I heard my friends talking about how they viewed money and I realized that this is one of the best things a parent can do for a child.
Despite this he still gives me a lot less money than just about everyone I know gets from their parents, and I am the only one I know who got nagged at constantly to get a job even though I did not need it. I hated this at first but a few years ago I heard my friends talking about how they viewed money and I realized that this is one of the best things a parent can do for a child.
pitbullstl
New member
2Thick said:
That's another thing I don't understand about the filthy rich, why the dishonesty?????
?? And about trivial shit to boot??? I just don't get it........it's so hypocritical to believe that your net worth is the answer to everything, but yet still feel the need to lie to any and everyone........
pitbullstl
New member
Tiervexx said:
You and I are (were) in the same boat......while growing up, I never suffered, but nor was I spoiled, and for the most part (education excluded) I provided for myself, my father was a very successful businessman who retired at 49......and now enjoys a very wealthy retirement......but I am a self-made man (education excluded) he does however spoil my daughter rotten......
pitbullstl said:
That's another thing I don't understand about the filthy rich, why the dishonesty?????
Maybe it is because you get away with it.
When you can buy your way out of things you keep pushing the envelope...
Until you videotape yourself having sex with drugged girls and get sent to jail for daily anal raping for the rest of your life...like that one guy.
pitbullstl
New member
2Thick said:
My father imparted like wisdom unto me........
He said......the only way to be "truly" successful in this life is to do it for yourself.
I have. He's proud. So am I.
pitbullstl
New member
2Thick said:
Strange dude...............
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
No. What is being mentioned is no different than poor trash who have the same problems from poor parenting. The wealth is a factor but incidental to the shitty parents.
I knew a really rich kid in High school. His two older brothers were drug addicts. The father did not want the 3rd boy to become this way so he gave him NOTHING.
The poor kid used to ask me (and lots of others) for change during school. It was sad. I understand the dad did`nt want him buying drugs etc. but give him SOME money.
I think father went OVER board with the youngest boy. The kid was such a decent human being as well. REALLY laid back and quiet. I think the family problems got to him.
He did`nt deserve the brunt of his brothers mistakes.
The poor kid used to ask me (and lots of others) for change during school. It was sad. I understand the dad did`nt want him buying drugs etc. but give him SOME money.
I think father went OVER board with the youngest boy. The kid was such a decent human being as well. REALLY laid back and quiet. I think the family problems got to him.
He did`nt deserve the brunt of his brothers mistakes.
F
Frackal
Guest
2Thick said:
Ben Franklin
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
MattTheSkywalker said:
believe or not even though they come from money, i feel sorry for them.
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
strong correllation, some confounding factors, nevertheless lots inherited money seems to amplify the problems.
Boom put in the estate taxt and we cut the correlation, a part of the cause, and do some good.`
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
Race is correlated to some criminalities, shall we institute reproduction limits on certain races to lower crime rates? Do we deprive men of their rights because of statistics?
Rights are not dependant on cost/benefit ratios or statistical correlations. Also, correlations are not causations.
FreakMonster
New member
What about that O'nassis girl that inherited $1 billion at the age of 18. I can't imagine how fucked up she's gonna be.
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
the problem is the situation IS very complex but you in you seem to know exactly the reality of it.
Then you offer me a strawman to ponder, which is a waste of my time.
If you accept Skywalkers' "the richer they get, the more fucked up the kids" that is a definate correlation between extremes of money and messed up kids. The explanation that they are just like white trash in that the kids grow up fucked up really does nothing to explain the given correlation. My proposition is that there is a lot of confounding factors (which you seemed to have missed in educating me that correlation doesnt equal causation), but rediculous amounts of inhereted money exacerbates problems in these people growing up. This is a plausible explanation to atleast in part explain the correlation.
the implication that taxes and rights of people are mixed is rediculous is weak at best but really just another little strawman you made up.
Perhaps you are coming from the radical/anarchistic position that no taxes are just and therefore any taxes at all deprive people of liberty, but that is another issue in and of itself and a rather nonsensical one at that.
I see a lot of rhetoric but not much reason.
F
Frackal
Guest
collegiateLifter said:
Wow
collegiateLifter said:
It's "the older the money, the more fucked up the kids".
Hence the DuPont and Vanderbilt kids being more f-ed up than Buffett's kids, even though Buffett is far far richer.
Don't re-write things to suit your argument.
collegiateLifter said:
The more money one earns but is unable to keep, the less ability they have to exercise rights.
Handing over money to the group via taxes is saying that an individual cannot keep the fruits of their labor, but rather must turn a portion of them over to "the group".
In a society that uses money as the basis of commerce (as opposed to barter), taking money that an individual has earned and redistributing it against the individual's will is certainly restrictive of rights.
I don't see how that is debabtable...what am I overlooking?
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
No, that is your incorrect assessment of my post. YOU are addressing this issue as a simple direct causation of wealth and dysfunction; the greater the wealth, the greater the dysfunction. I addressed it as not being directly causative, simply correlative.
Then you lack an understanding of this issue.
Try and find a post on this board where I advocate an anarchist view of government, where I advocate a complete removal of taxation from society. Nice try, but no. As for taxation and rights, they are linked, but I am sure it is a waste of your time.
So, in the direct issue that is being discussed, the right to property and the ability of government to confiscate said property is not an issue of rights vs. taxation/government power? The idea which you presented of heavy taxation of inheritance for the "good of the indvidual" is not related to rights vs. taxation?
What I addressed was that no matter what statistical calculations prove, rights are not contingent on statistics, they are inherent. Freedom involves consequences. Rich people have the right to raise their children in such a manner as to condition them to be dysfunctional, without the intrusion of society, no matter if the correlation of money and dysfunction is highly linked. I see no contrary position by society to deprive poor people of their property for raising their children fucked up. Why? Because inheritance tax is a bullshit tax concocted to placate the lower classes, to confiscate a man's earnings and distribute it to the envious masses, in the guise of "social good".
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
ok good now we are on the same page. You in the past you were presenting an argument that was not explicitly spelled out. For instance if the gov may justly tax people directly sometimes then it is an entirely different case than 'pre-emptive' punishment which is never justifiable in American doctrine. My case was never that the inheritence tax is for the good of the individual, only that it seemed to be a nice added benefit. Further it seems before we can go any farther, I need further clarification on "the right to property and the ability of the government to confiscate said property...." is it then your position that you are against all forms of direct taxation? or is it another position entirely.
atlantabiolab said:
Before I can properly address this I do need said above clarification. However, I do disagree about the inheretance taxt being a bullshit tax thats aim is toi placate the lower classes. The fact that wise men such as Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet are supporters of it, tell me that there is clearly something else to it.
Tarheel
New member
Indeed, Buffet was nearly paranoid that his kids would grow up spoiled.
Once they got a certain age (18, 21, 25?) he did give them a pretty good sized chunk of stock, which most of them sold (dumb move).
His son Howie wanted a farm so Warren shopped around for like 6 months and bought one, and now he leases it to Howie at the market leasing price.
Once they got a certain age (18, 21, 25?) he did give them a pretty good sized chunk of stock, which most of them sold (dumb move).
His son Howie wanted a farm so Warren shopped around for like 6 months and bought one, and now he leases it to Howie at the market leasing price.
collegiateLifter said:
They are for it becauaswe it does not affect them. They'll be dead.
Tell them that it starts today and they will protest.
XBiker
Well-known member
I saw this special the other night.
Did you happen to notice that all the guys (with the exception of the Italian model kid) were butt fuggin ugly?
Especially the kid that was heir to the German "Baron"
Good thing he's rich cause he wouldn't pull much (if any) ass with a face like that.
Did you happen to notice that all the guys (with the exception of the Italian model kid) were butt fuggin ugly?
Especially the kid that was heir to the German "Baron"
Good thing he's rich cause he wouldn't pull much (if any) ass with a face like that.
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
I do not agree with direct taxes, such as income tax, inheritance tax, property tax, etc. These taxes are designed to tax individuals selectively and not equally.
What is the "added benefit" of the inheritance tax? To "potentially" protect the descendant? Ludicrous. The offspring are not corrupted at the point of inheritance, but from upbringing, which is prior to the tax being implemented.
Then present this "something else to it". Naming men means nothing, since I can name you the founders names who opposed direct taxation. Are they not worthy of notice? Issues are debated, not men.
It is a placating tax. Those who vote for it tend to be those whom it will never affect, no different than vice taxes, which are voted for by those who do not partake of said vice. Men tend to vote for others to pay their tax burden.
Dial_tone said:
Sales tax is an example of a tax that is not selective by person.
I taped it yesterday morning and watched it last night. It was pretty interesting to hear the 'insider' perspective in wealth. These people don't have to worry about their bills (apart from D. Trump) or where the next meal is coming from. Some of them talked about what to do for a living when they really didn't have to do anything. S.I Newhouse did mention that if he didn't put in the work he wouldn't get shit. Apparently his parents didn't raise him to be lazy. The other person on the show who seemed really down to earth was Josiah Hornblower. He was raised sparingly: given few gifts. He didn't know until his uncle took him for trips through Manhattan and saying what belongs to him.
Robert Jan
New member
The statements made on tax in this thread are crazy.
I know a few rich kids, some are fucked up, some are not
I know a few rich kids, some are fucked up, some are not
atlantabiolab
New member
Robert Jan said:
They would be to a Marxist
Funny
Horatio Hornblower is the best-known character in nautical fiction. C.S. Forester's protagonist is not built of the same cardboard as many naval heroes of earlier adventure novels. He is a fully rounded person with the same fears, doubts, passions, and yearnings as any man. Hornblower's briny adventures and his breathtaking battles against Bonaparte's navy are the memorable sagas to which the works of Kent, Pope, and O'Brian are inevitably compared.
C.S. Forester is also the author of The African Queen, a novel that was the basis for the Katharine Hepburn—Humphrey Bogart film.
Josiah Hornblower is the heir of the Vanderbilt-Whitney family. If you saw the HBO show some of his Vanderbilt relatives are represented by statues in front of Grand Central Station in NY, which they had built.
"Mr. Whitney was a descendant of General Josiah Whitney of the Revolution, who in turn was a descendant of Sir Robert Whitney of Whitney, Herefordshire, England. Mr. Whitney was also a descendant of William Bradford of the Mayflower, Governor of Plymouth Colony."
http://www.whitneygen.org/archives/biography/williamc.html
Dial_tone said:
Horatio Hornblower is the best-known character in nautical fiction. C.S. Forester's protagonist is not built of the same cardboard as many naval heroes of earlier adventure novels. He is a fully rounded person with the same fears, doubts, passions, and yearnings as any man. Hornblower's briny adventures and his breathtaking battles against Bonaparte's navy are the memorable sagas to which the works of Kent, Pope, and O'Brian are inevitably compared.
C.S. Forester is also the author of The African Queen, a novel that was the basis for the Katharine Hepburn—Humphrey Bogart film.
Josiah Hornblower is the heir of the Vanderbilt-Whitney family. If you saw the HBO show some of his Vanderbilt relatives are represented by statues in front of Grand Central Station in NY, which they had built.
"Mr. Whitney was a descendant of General Josiah Whitney of the Revolution, who in turn was a descendant of Sir Robert Whitney of Whitney, Herefordshire, England. Mr. Whitney was also a descendant of William Bradford of the Mayflower, Governor of Plymouth Colony."
http://www.whitneygen.org/archives/biography/williamc.html
Last edited:
NoDaddyNo
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
I much prefer the consumption based tax system personally. Have a very low tax (flat or not, as long as it is around 5%) for basic municipal needs and then generate the rest through consumption based tax.
That way saving and investing is rewarded instead of punished.
I personally have no issues with the luxury tax - it is essentially just a higher tax on consumption based on exceeding need. If anything, it gives those that care about the price on something (equating higher to mean better) to value their expense more.
Vaguely similar to some state taxes on food - necessity items (flour, milk, bread) aren't taxed, but non-necessity items (candy, ice cream, etc) are taxed.
To be honest, I never paid too much attention to taxes in America since I am young and the majority of the youth in America can file and get all of their money back.
After college I started seeing more of what I had learned in economics in real terms everday.
Then I moved out of the country and see firsthand everyday how different systems work and I have to admit that I don't personally agree with the system in the US.
The size of the government doesn't particularly help either.
In the end, I wish I were rich - born that way or self made - either way, I'd like the luxury of the problems that they have.
atlantabiolab
New member
NoDaddyNo said:
The problem involved with luxury taxes is the problem of who gets to decide what is a luxury item and the agendas of certain groups who use taxation as a disincentive for certain choices. Take your examples, groups with anti-"junk food" agendas, such as Center for Science in the Public Interest, use the idea of heavy taxation on certain items: candy, ice cream, chips, even GMO foods, to force individuals to choose "better". Some groups have advocated heavy taxes imbedded into the purchase of cars, electronics, TV's, etc. to create a disincentive to there desirability.
NoDaddyNo
New member
atlantabiolab said:
Agreed - the issue of who is making the decisions is always going to fall to someone in power - a government role. I don't suppose there is an effective way of doing it by vote, so you try to vote in someone that you feel will represent you well - or at least says that they will.
Luxury taxes in the cases where it is obvoius - tax a Rolls Royce or a Maclaren as a luxury, a Honda Accord doesn't need to be (unless they start charging $700K for one).
In the case where it is something well above and beyond the median.
I agree that once someone else is making the decision (and again, it has to be someone else, so that is always the case), then they are open to what are essentially bribes from various groups to further their cause.
That said, I personally still don't particularly care much if they are taxing cigarettes, candy, Maclarens, or yachts (sp?) since those are things outside of my normal purchase circle. If I decide that I start wanting to buy them, then the tax is something I will consider in my concept of what needs to be met to own such things.
But yes, once that line is allowed to be set, what is to stop those in charge of setting it from moving it closer and closer to the median so that it effectively becomes a new universal consumption tax on top of an existing one.
I was over at my in-laws house today moving furniture and my fiancee came back from lunch with her friend. Said friend is worth a few million dollars and they had an interesting discussion.
This girl sees the world through the eyes of natural selection - suvivial of the fittest.
I *very much* tend to see things that way. But as with any of us, there are differences in how she sees it.
She has this idea that she is better than everyone else, and therefore deserves the money that she has. If everyone else would just work harder, they too would be able to have her money.
She doesn't seem to notice that she was born into this money - her *father* worked his ass off and made the millions that she has since inherited. The only thing that she hasn't done is blow it all.
She has gone on to get her law degree and a job that pays well (around $100K a year - she is 25), which is all a testiment to her hard work. But it is not what got her millions of dollars - and she wouldn't have been able to go to the school that she did without it - and she wouldn't have had the strings pulled for her to get the jobs that she has.
I agree with her on many points - there are people out there that are just flat out lazy. They are fat and disgusting and just expect everything handed to them. I hate those people.
But this girl tends to break it down into "all black people" are in that category.
Or that all "poor" people (people that aren't making over $100K a year as a family in her eyes) just don't want it enough.
I think that there are plenty of cases where she is totally right - but to say that *all* of anything is the case is not going to make a very strong arguement and it likely implies that you need to look at it from another angle.
There are people here (and everywhere) that work their asses off and still just barely get by. They don't have the same connections available to them, and they start at a disadvantage.
If you are running a marathon and you are given a 5 mile head start over the rest of the group, if you then win the race do you turn around and say that everyone else in the race didn't want it badly enough?
This lunch got my fiancee all flustered - she is a teacher and has a very different persepective on it. Part of that being the schooling she has had herself has been much more varied, part of it is her upbringing, and part of it is personal life experience (outside of her family upbringing).
But, like I have said before, I would love to have the problems of the wealthy.
Similar threads
