lol my point was nepotism. both are unfair advantages given to same spoiled brat. personally i prefer the dumb rich spoiled brat over the poor smart hard working person. there are more synergies with the rich 1.
is 100m your definition of a small inhertiance? also i understand you think not giving your kid an advantage is helping him. i get what you are trying to say with your oh so ironic and cheesy wisdom. what i am trying to say is that what you think is retarded.
imo state should take everything. everything resets at death. but if that is not the rule. i feel it is important for people to take advantage of this and exploit it so bad that they are forced to create a rule. kind of like the shaq rule.
If you’ve spent time around trust-fund kids (like, actually rich, not own a wedding venue or p0rn shop or something) the differences in how they were raised is apparent really quickly. The ones that were given everything and without any work ethic do drugs and lose the money or die or do something else stupid in a search for meaning. They are never happy. The ones that were raised with a work ethic but given advantages are go on to great lives (heads or corporations, successful entrepreneurs, public service, etc.). They feel fulfilled and are happy. Spoiling kids is a really bad idea and if you’ve ever led a team of employees you would know that nepotism breeds distrust and lack of respect among employees who lose motivation and eventually get you fired. I’ve seen it multiple times.
that dude is goign to inherit 5m. no idea why you think that’s not rich. went to school for 7 years in cal state lb, never graduated. lol
i do have another buddy who’ll prolly inherit 8m. he is a vp for his daddy’s co. he is also in public service. will very likely be a mayor soon. i think he was able to raise 500k in campagin funds last time. the next person raised only 50k. ucr biz.
i also have another buddy who’ll inherit 15m and is trying to learn finance so he can manage his money. doesnt do drugs, but understands that poor investments will prolly cost him more than a lavish lifestyle. ucla econ
this guys bro who’ll inherit same amount net of estate taxes is running the co that made his fam rich. he is investing in other cos too, hes a lil all over the place. some of his investments went belly up, but i think 1 50k investment is now generating 200k per year. weed retail. usc bio eng.
another buddy who’ll inehrit 20m. he lives in a large guesthouse prolly bigger than most your houses. he was actually featured in rich kids of isntagram. anyways he speaks 4 different languages. travels the world. just does drugs and clubs. he’s prolly the most awesome dude i ever met. does what he pleases and veery generous. pomona. japanese major. (hes white, yella fever).
i got another buddy who’s a literal trust fund baby. not sure on what he’s worth. but hes jus a cop. prior to that he was making 200k though as a sales rep. his grand daddy was ceo of a bank.
anyways. after you meet 1 rich dude. you kind of meet them all since they run in similar circles. anyways i do know more rich people. but im never too sure abotu their stories. but these are the ones im pretty close with.
Yeah see, this is exactly the kind of under thinking that leads to your other false dichotomies. I get it, when people are young they think everything should be binary, like “I’m not getting married unless my girlfriend is pregnant because investment”. But then you grow up a little and realize your earlier ideas were stupid and a little more nuance goes a long way. Like the idea that ruining your kid because some other jack off is ruining their’s. There are offsets in life, some kids parents pay for college or get them into UCLA through a donation. But via the lion king song, it allows another kid to go via scholarship / grants. If we’re talking about inheritance taxes, sure I’ve advocated them being higher, but again, binary is usually the worst option put forth by people that still haven’t figured things out.
Anyhoo, no, the $100M is orders of magnitude higher than what I had in mind as appropriate. Was thinking like $1-2M real dollars (Buffett level inheritance), at death, presumably when they’d already be 40+ so they’d have to have sorted out themselves by then and it would be conditional on deserving it, not giving cash to a f*ckboi to go overdose with and blow on divorce settlements.
LOL, these things aren’t even remotely alike vs what we’re talking about I think you made brain wash’s point and earned a chuckle from me. No Nerdy, these are not rich amounts, if you want to talk about single digit millions and equate that to whatever nepotism $5-10M gets you at the dollar store then yes, that’s fine. But as someone who grew up in actual rich circles I would never do it, it’s still more than enough to ruin your cuck kid with and my point holds (nothing justifies raising your kid to be weak for a short term gain) but no, not the same.
lol fair enough. you prolly run in richer circles. anywho what they are getting is rich enough for me. tbh i think if ur parents leave you 500k at their death (per kid), you should be happy.
for the majority of people, id say 60%. i think their parents will cost them. senior care ish expensiveeee
If i had all the power in the world - let’s call me grand emperor for ease - I would probably only favour family members with a bit of extra leniency for the huge number of capital offenses that I would put in place.
For example, I might let them off for the offense of standing in a doorway blocking the way with defenestration from a 1st floor window rather than a 5th floor window.
I think Nery is very wise sometimes. Kushner paying $3 million to Harvard for admittance is not unfair just because the donation is signed by someone higher in the organization? You don’t need $100 million to realize it’s all pay to play in the end. People here spending too much time and effort here, and in general, trying to prove that they are smarter than they are by confusing things and making them more complicated than necessary (in my humble opinion).
^ Not remotely the same although not surprised you think that.
(Consensual to all involved parties, legal, within agreed terms, no one harmed etc)
If the $3M donation Kushners of the world all went somewhere else, then the gross poors relying on their scholarship grants and handouts would be banging down the door to get in there for the better facilities. Harvard didn’t build its $40B endowment because some idiot savant got a perfect SAT.
Except for the smart Asian dude that got his space jacked by the rich brat. Pretty sure that wasn’t consensual.
anyways I’m with you. I don’t mind the donations. But let’s cut the bs euphemisms. It’s a bribe. It’s just like a club. Pay 10x the price and you get priority line with models and bottles! Some of the poorer people bribe the bouncer instead. While the poorest ones go in line and holler at the bishes around them.
Except class sizes are flexible and these people create the opportunities and the facilities to make the institution great. Again, the bribing the doorman isn’t really correct. A better analogy would be the people that get in by ordering mega bottle service and cut the line. Having the ballers even if they’re rich brats, makes the club work for the poor but good looking people that get in on their own merits. The whole system doesn’t work without both parties. Harvard just put in a $1.5B science facility, which brings the faculty and students that make it great. Schools without $40B endowments can’t do that.
Not really. It’s a good school cuz everyone wants to go there and they can cherry pick the best. They aren’t great because of some library or science lab. Everyone has it.
Actually no one gives a shit about a hot dude for the most part. The only way to get in with priority is to have a bunch of hot chicks around you. They typically get discounts for bottle service or can easily get in for free. You need rich people money to finance the club. But you need hot bishes to attract the rich people. The best clubs I’ve been typically have the best guy to girl ratios filled with mostly hot chicks. They are very selective about who they let in. Most clubs, however, sardine their area to generate a cheap cover!
Right, but if they aren’t having high rollers spending $10K a night at VIP, they’d have to sardine and you wouldn’t have the hotties, it’s an ecosystem. This is basic economics.
I was talking to a few of the SEAS professors about the new labs when it was announced, the equipment in that building is largely unique to Harvard and few other universities in the world will have that kind of ability to produce high end research. Because of that they, get the best professors and researchers as well as grants, which draws the best students. A $40B endowment goes a long way to securing the status of an institution. To say people just go here because inexplicably everyone applies to the same place is pretty simplistic, you can’t hold a spot at the top that long just based on crowds. There are lots of schools with similar acceptance rates, few that pull of what they do, and none really that do it without a large endowment.
also look! USC just got a pic of black hole. couldnt have been done without the generous donations of top men. the top men should be conducting the interview. why the poor smart prof taking credit. this is highly irregular!
