Soaking the Rich will not solve Spending Problem

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) And there are plenty of people dumber than you making much more money, so that's capitalism working against you right there. I'm sure those morons at the MTA that are giving us a hard time about our proposals are making at least what you make, if not more.

 

Oh I'm sure those board members earn more than I do. I'm thinking a good 150 - 200k a year no? Walder was earning a good 300k a year. As far as I'm concerned I could care less though. Good for them. You'd be surprised at how many folks earn over 100k a year and they're barely making it because their expenses are so high. Me, personally I feel like a save a ton by not having a car. I'd say I save a good $400 a month right there. No gas, no car payment, no insurance and no maintenance. Basically my transportation for the express bus is $200 - 250 a month and then about $40 - 60 a week for car service, so $360 - 490 a month in transportation compared to say $850 a month for having a car. It's not necessarily about what you make but how high your expenses are monthly.

 

2) I think that's a little extreme. You'd probably get a small apartment in a good area for $800 (some houses are built with an apartment that can be rented out). In the "hood", you'd probably get a decent-sized apartment.

 

Yeah, that's true. I spoke with my broker who said that my mortgage payments would be around $1,300.00 a month, which is pretty decent with the interest rate that I'll get. That of course includes me having my down payment and such. I was actually paying more than that for the apt. I was renting in Florence back in college, which was 1,200.00€ a month. The exchange rate at the time was something like $1.28 - 1.34, so I was paying a bit more than $1,500.00 - 1,600.00 US, which I didn't even realize until now, since I never thought about how much I was paying in dollars... :eek: lol Most of the money I had saved up through working and such, so I only needed a small loan from my university plus I also got a grant as well from my college, but the place was certainly worth it. :cool:

 

 

The only one I know of is the ones being planned for the Gateway Mall in Spring Creek.

 

For now there will probably be just one, but they're keeping their options open as to where they will build, so it may or may not be in Brooklyn. Their main focus is that when they build it on land where no one can oppose it the like City Council.

 

 

There you go. You're not living solely on $32,000: You have relatives pitching in and have some savings.

 

It is possible to live here (for a family of 4) on less than that, but you'd probably need some form of government assistance (or you'd live a really poor quality of life).

 

 

$32,000.... :confused: Maybe I have high standards, but I see that is practically impossible to have 4 people living off of that. I can't even see one person living off of that, although if their expenses are quite low I suppose they could, but they'd have to live in a crappy area. I'm assuming that is after taxes???? :eek: :eek:

[checkmatechamp13]

Replies in bold.

 

Oh I'm sure those board members earn more than I do. I'm thinking a good 150 - 200k a year no? Walder was earning a good 300k a year. As far as I'm concerned I could care less though. Good for them. You'd be surprised at how many folks earn over 100k a year and they're barely making it because their expenses are so high. Me, personally I feel like a save a ton by not having a car. I'd say I save a good $400 a month right there. No gas, no car payment, no insurance and no maintenance. Basically my transportation for the express bus is $200 - 250 a month and then about $40 - 60 a week for car service, so $360 - 490 a month in transportation compared to say $850 a month for having a car. It's not necessarily about what you make but how high your expenses are monthly.

 

The board members don't get paid by the MTA. They're volunteering their time and probably hoping to get something in return. A lot of them are lawyers and other professionals doing this on the side.

 

But as far as expenses go, you could still control the expenses you have. Your friend who "needed" to drive luxury cars could've saved himself money by buying a cheaper car and/or moving to a more transit-friendly area.

 

Yeah, that's true. I spoke with my broker who said that my mortgage payments would be around $1,300.00 a month, which is pretty decent with the interest rate that I'll get. That of course includes me having my down payment and such. I was actually paying more than that for the apt. I was renting in Florence back in college, which was 1,200.00€ a month. The exchange rate at the time was something like $1.28 - 1.34, so I was paying a bit more than $1,500.00 - 1,600.00 US, which I didn't even realize until now, since I never thought about how much I was paying in dollars... :eek: lol Most of the money I had saved up through working and such, so I only needed a small loan from my university plus I also got a grant as well from my college, but the place was certainly worth it. :cool:

 

The high rent was probably because it was right near a university. Plus, you said that the cost of living is higher in Europe than in the U.S. (we were talking about frugal tourists and such)

 

For now there will probably be just one, but they're keeping their options open as to where they will build, so it may or may not be in Brooklyn. Their main focus is that when they build it on land where no one can oppose it the like City Council.

 

That's probably why they picked the area they did: It's kind of out of the way (so it's harder to make the "destroying local businesses" argument), and the surrounding area isn't too great, so they can make the argument that it would (somehow) revitalize it.

 

$32,000.... :confused: Maybe I have high standards, but I see that is practically impossible to have 4 people living off of that. I can't even see one person living off of that, although if their expenses are quite low I suppose they could, but they'd have to live in a crappy area. I'm assuming that is after taxes???? :eek: :eek:

 

The official poverty limit is something like $20,000 (before tax) for a family for 4, but that doesn't take into account the higher cost of living here.

 

If you think about it, a person could live on that little if they just spent on basics (food, clothing, shelter), and gave up things that are unnecessary (no car, rarely going out to eat, etc)

[B35 via Church]

1) And there are plenty of people dumber than you making much more money, so that's capitalism working against you right there. I'm sure those morons at the MTA that are giving us a hard time about our proposals are making at least what you make, if not more.

 

 

 

There you go. You're not living solely on $32,000: You have relatives pitching in and have some savings.

 

It is possible to live here (for a family of 4) on less than that, but you'd probably need some form of government assistance (or you'd live a really poor quality of life).

1) Thank You..... A small reason as to why that is, is a little thing called nepotism... and/or what you might call the corporate "hook up".... aint what you know, it's who the hell you know....

 

2) 32k in a household of 4 people in Bensonhurst sounds like BS to me either way..... unless you're livin above a store, or livin in someone's raggedy ole (illegal) basement or somethin..... unless there's some other unreported funds Mr. Roadcruiser there is conveniently leavin out...

 

wink wink....

[SoSpectacular]

1) Thank You..... A small reason as to why that is, is a little thing called nepotism... and/or what you might call the corporate "hook up".... aint what you know, it's who the hell you know....

 

 

Its how they stay in power... If you have friends in high places you're going to live the good life...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The board members don't get paid by the MTA. They're volunteering their time and probably hoping to get something in return. A lot of them are lawyers and other professionals doing this on the side.

 

Yeah, I know that. What they're hoping for is greater visibility, which could mean more $$$ down the road.

 

But as far as expenses go, you could still control the expenses you have. Your friend who "needed" to drive luxury cars could've saved himself money by buying a cheaper car and/or moving to a more transit-friendly area.

 

True, but I couldn't see my friend giving up his two cars for his life. I know had a Jeep and a Mustang, both of which I've rode in, but he got rid of those two and got two other cars. The next time we hang out I'll find out. He's Venezuelan and came from a upper middle class area near Caracas, so he's used to the nicer things in life. :cool: I went w/him to a car show over by the Jacob Javits Center last year and he had his eye on a BMW, but I know for sure that he didn't buy anything like that. Then again he lives in NJ and it's cheaper to live there than here in NYC.

 

The high rent was probably because it was right near a university. Plus, you said that the cost of living is higher in Europe than in the U.S. (we were talking about frugal tourists and such).

Nah, it was because I wanted a chic apartment in a ritzy part of Florence. I was living in an area that would be the equivalent of say the Upper East Side. I was a good 20 minute walk to the my university [scuola Lorenzo de' Medici] about a 5 minute walk from being up in the Tuscan hillside, so it wasn't all that close. To be honest, my rent was supposed to be something like 800€ (something like $1,000 US) a month, but I just lied to the university about what my expenses were since I had my own money to pay the difference or whatever and be more comfortable. I was not dealing with a friggin' small apartment, which by European standards is REALLY small. To hell with that. :mad: :tdown:

 

That's probably why they picked the area they did: It's kind of out of the way (so it's harder to make the "destroying local businesses" argument), and the surrounding area isn't too great, so they can make the argument that it would (somehow) revitalize it.

No, it has to do with certain areas being out of the control of the City Council. There are plenty of areas of Manhattan that they can and may set up shop in for this reason too, that's why that area isn't necessarily a done deal yet. They're looking at all options right now.

 

The official poverty limit is something like $20,000 (before tax) for a family for 4, but that doesn't take into account the higher cost of living here.

 

If you think about it, a person could live on that little if they just spent on basics (food, clothing, shelter), and gave up things that are unnecessary (no car, rarely going out to eat, etc)

 

$20,000 for 4 people in NYC??? Jesus. :eek: I suppose one person could live off of that, although I would argue that one needs monies for entertainment. I mean I like to have a good meal in a fine restaurant at least once a month, not including my lunches from time to time by Bryant Park or some restaurant in Grand Central and with Restaurant week back in July I ate out several times.

[checkmatechamp13]

Replies in bold

 

Yeah, I know that. What they're hoping for is greater visibility, which could mean more $$$ down the road.

 

But I doubt they are that much smarter than you or I to ahieve their higher salaries

 

True, but I couldn't see my friend giving up his two cars for his life. I know had a Jeep and a Mustang, both of which I've rode in, but he got rid of those two and got two other cars. The next time we hang out I'll find out. He's Venezuelan and came from a upper middle class area near Caracas, so he's used to the nicer things in life. :cool: I went w/him to a car show over by the Jacob Javits Center last year and he had his eye on a BMW, but I know for sure that he didn't buy anything like that. Then again he lives in NJ and it's cheaper to live there than here in NYC.

 

I know, but those higher expenses still mean a higher quality of life. This isn't comparing an apartment in NYC to an apartment in a cheaper area (like the South). This is comparing a decent car (or no car) to luxury cars

 

Nah, it was because I wanted a chic apartment in a ritzy part of Florence. I was living in an area that would be the equivalent of say the Upper East Side. I was a good 20 minute walk to the my university [scuola Lorenzo de' Medici] about a 5 minute walk from being up in the Tuscan hillside, so it wasn't all that close. To be honest, my rent was supposed to be something like 800€ (something like $1,000 US) a month, but I just lied to the university about what my expenses were since I had my own money to pay the difference or whatever and be more comfortable. I was not dealing with a friggin' small apartment, which by European standards is REALLY small. To hell with that. :mad: :tdown:

 

$1,600 per month would be pretty good for the UES.

 

No, it has to do with certain areas being out of the control of the City Council. There are plenty of areas of Manhattan that they can and may set up shop in for this reason too, that's why that area isn't necessarily a done deal yet. They're looking at all options right now.

 

So they're looking in Upper Manhattan as well?

 

$20,000 for 4 people in NYC??? Jesus. :eek: I suppose one person could live off of that, although I would argue that one needs monies for entertainment. I mean I like to have a good meal in a fine restaurant at least once a month, not including my lunches from time to time by Bryant Park or some restaurant in Grand Central and with Restaurant week back in July I ate out several times.

I wouldn't argue that. I'm happy with the basics thank you very much. Some good food from the supermarket is all I need.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So they're looking in Upper Manhattan as well?

 

Basically they're looking anywhere where they can get a decent amount of land and built with little to no opposition being successful in stopping so while I can't confirm that the Upper East Side is an area, there are certainly areas in Manhattan that they are looking at.

 

But I doubt they are that much smarter than you or I to ahieve their higher salaries.

 

Perhaps but most of them are business coats or lawyers, so they have something to work with upstairs. Believe me I work with quite a few lawyers for translation projects and they are the biggest con artists out there, always scheming for a deal. :mad:

[Roadcruiser1]

I said I have an extended family as well that works.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I said I have an extended family as well that works.

 

I would certainly hope so...

[checkmatechamp13]

Basically they're looking anywhere where they can get a decent amount of land and built with little to no opposition being successful in stopping so while I can't confirm that the Upper East Side is an area, there are certainly areas in Manhattan that they are looking at.

 

 

I meant further up in Manhattan, like Washington Heights or Inwood. Generally poorer areas aren't as well represented (probably why they're doing it in Spring Creek), and while they are gentrifying, they probably still don't have the influence to stop them (if indeed, they're looking in that part of Manhattan)

[engineerboy6561]

Yeah, just keep skipping around the issue. If you had it your way, there would be no rich people because they'd all be taxed to death, so in that scenario we wouldn't have anyone to "bail us out" of this mess created by overspending.

 

 

And you tell me why a CEO shouldn't get paid more than a plumber? Hell I run my own department (albeit a small one in comparison to other bigger companies) and oversee EVERYTHING as the coordinator of the department. A CEO has to oversee the entire company (several departments in most cases) and manage hundreds of employees, along with everything else in the company and if they fail, the company fails. That is a HUGE responsibility to undertake and quite frankly, licensed plumbers are well paid. If they want to complain about losing money they can thank the illegals for undercutting their pay. :mad: :tdown:

 

I have no problem with guys who work their way up the food chain to the top office making extra, but there's a difference between that and CEOs making millions of dollars when the rank and file employees are making under $40K per year. It's not the presence of wealth at the top that we have a problem with, it's the ridiculous disparity between the guy at the top, the guy in the middle, and the guy on or near the bottom. Quite frankly, I'm a firm believer in the 1/40 rule, namely that the newest guy in the company doesn't make anything less than 1/40 that of the CEO. It ties the welfare of the board and the CEO to the welfare of the hourly guy actually responsible for creating the product in a way that's been missing from companies ever since the Reagan years. Now I don't care how you phrase your response to that, but you can't call that a punishment because there is no limit to what you can earn. All we ask is that when times are good you let the rest of the company share in the bounty and when times are hard you shoulder your fair share of the cost. Is that really as much to ask as your posts imply?

[SubwayGuy]

The American dream has always been to strike it rich and "punishing" those who have accomplished the American dream LEGALLY through hard work is completely wrong. We reward hard work in this country and if someone works hard and makes a lot of money, well good for them. That's the American way. :cool: :tup:

 

I can understand going after deadbeats and so forth, but there is no need to punish folks who have earned their money the honest way. You are trying to "punish" them simply because they have more money than the next guy. Last I checked that is NOT a crime, but a product of capitalism. :tup:

 

NO IT IS NOT AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN. The American dream was that a poor immigrant could come over with nothing but the clothes on their body, obtain legal citizenship, and WORK HARD to live...earning enough money in the process to live a decent, happy, middle-class lifestyle where they would never want for anything.

 

The American dream is dead for all but the very rich.

 

"Rags to riches" is a misnomer. The American dream was never about scheming your way to power and influence and taking advantage of loopholes to profit off America by selling out the workforce that allowed you to obtain your privileged standing in life.

 

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." -Thomas Jefferson.

 

One of our founding fathers did not say this because the rich are some benevolent force that must be c*ckworshipped, which always "puts the best interests of the nation at whole" at heart.

 

The rich must be watched at every twist and turn. Why? Human nature. Every society ever has proven this time and time again. Open a history book and stop saying what you think things "should" be simply based on your own misinformed ideals of what is fair to a group of people that do not give a shit about you.

[SubwayGuy]

I have no problem with guys who work their way up the food chain to the top office making extra, but there's a difference between that and CEOs making millions of dollars when the rank and file employees are making under $40K per year. It's not the presence of wealth at the top that we have a problem with, it's the ridiculous disparity between the guy at the top, the guy in the middle, and the guy on or near the bottom. Quite frankly, I'm a firm believer in the 1/40 rule, namely that the newest guy in the company doesn't make anything less than 1/40 that of the CEO. It ties the welfare of the board and the CEO to the welfare of the hourly guy actually responsible for creating the product in a way that's been missing from companies ever since the Reagan years. Now I don't care how you phrase your response to that, but you can't call that a punishment because there is no limit to what you can earn. All we ask is that when times are good you let the rest of the company share in the bounty and when times are hard you shoulder your fair share of the cost. Is that really as much to ask as your posts imply?

 

Privatized profits, and socialized losses. The mantra of the filthy rich.

 

And those f*cksticks have the nerve to try and call ME a communist.

[SubwayGuy]

That's because you've never been one.

 

Dumb argument. Might does not make right. Try again.

 

To extend your logic, since you've never been an executive, you can't truly say they "are" worth it either.

 

The only one who can, by your logic, is an executive, who can't make a rational decision because they have a conflict of interest in the matter.

 

And that's the problem with boards made up of executives determining executive compensation.

 

Tax codes that penalize the recipients of high income salaries when everyone else is getting little are a way to use policy to encourage companies to balance the pay scale better among their entire workforce (while still allowing an income disparity - just not a massive one), and also to encourage companies to invest domestically by reducing the corporate tax rates (which are skirted anyway by companies moving operations offshore).

 

You expand your corporate and individual tax base (fewer unemployed and more corps paying less US taxes), and you collect more from those who are compensated out of line with reality.

 

No CEO is worth 4,000 times what any worker is. Shoot the CEO's f*cking head off, and the company will still make money tomorrow provided it was successful today.

[SubwayGuy]

Oh I'm sure those board members earn more than I do. I'm thinking a good 150 - 200k a year no? Walder was earning a good 300k a year. As far as I'm concerned I could care less though. Good for them. You'd be surprised at how many folks earn over 100k a year and they're barely making it because their expenses are so high.

 

Ah yes, the whining of the rich. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them.

 

No way. If they can't make it on 100k, they need to do like everyone else and cut their expenses. Get a less expensive phone plan, get rid of HBO, refinance the Mortgage, get the Focus instead of the Lexus, and get the $1,500 kitchen remodel instead of the $2,500 one.

 

They need to take the advice they're telling everyone else and budget better. No one on this planet is entitled to anything, and no American is entitled to anything except freedom, the right to register to vote (and do so if they choose), life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness provided that any of these does not encroach on anyone else's right to same. That's it.

 

The rich are not entitled to a disproportionally higher salary just because "100K isn't enough". There are a lot of people for whom "25K isn't enough" and they're still muddling through somehow...perhaps the rich could learn something from them for a change instead of whining about how expensive their Verizon bill is getting.

 

But with all of that said, 100K is still decidedly MIDDLE CLASS. Nothing I've proposed would raise taxes on them. The people I'm suggesting going after are the ones making $250,000 and up (which is a very high salary). For a couple filing jointly, for any new taxes to get them they'd have to be making half a million dollars a year! This is hardly a tax I'm proposing on middle class America.

 

If you are making 250k (individual) or half a million dollars (family) and can't get by with money left over you have serious problems and need to cut your spending NOW.

 

BTW Walder is a bad example cuz he is rich. 300K may have been his base salary, but he also had a housing allowance of $60,000 / year ($5,000 a month rent!) and a golden parachute if he was terminated.

 

Personally I think golden parachutes are a luxury no one but the richest rich get, and they exist to prevent hostile takeovers in corporate maneuverings. They should be taxed at 95%. Why let the departing CEO get rich for getting laid off - golden parachutes exist not to reward the CEO for getting fired, but to serve as a barrier for an acquiring company to simply "get rid" of the CEO...so put that money towards the deficit instead.

 

But no, that's too arcane for some here. MUST let that CEO keep the money so he can start a new "made in china" company with his industriousness and business acumen...

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Thank You..... A small reason as to why that is, is a little thing called nepotism... and/or what you might call the corporate "hook up".... aint what you know, it's who the hell you know....

 

2) 32k in a household of 4 people in Bensonhurst sounds like BS to me either way..... unless you're livin above a store, or livin in someone's raggedy ole (illegal) basement or somethin..... unless there's some other unreported funds Mr. Roadcruiser there is conveniently leavin out...

 

wink wink....

 

As my dad says, "It's not who you know, it's whom you know"

[Tokkemon]

No one on this planet is entitled to anything, and no American is entitled to anything except freedom, the right to register to vote (and do so if they choose), life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness provided that any of these does not encroach on anyone else's right to same. That's it.

 

 

But what if a man's pursuit of happiness IS making lots and lots of money? Human history shows this is almost always true, especially in this country.

[Roadcruiser1]

The problem is money doesn't make a person. A person's personality makes up a person. Humanity keeps on forgetting that.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I have no problem with guys who work their way up the food chain to the top office making extra, but there's a difference between that and CEOs making millions of dollars when the rank and file employees are making under $40K per year. It's not the presence of wealth at the top that we have a problem with, it's the ridiculous disparity between the guy at the top, the guy in the middle, and the guy on or near the bottom. Quite frankly, I'm a firm believer in the 1/40 rule, namely that the newest guy in the company doesn't make anything less than 1/40 that of the CEO. It ties the welfare of the board and the CEO to the welfare of the hourly guy actually responsible for creating the product in a way that's been missing from companies ever since the Reagan years. Now I don't care how you phrase your response to that, but you can't call that a punishment because there is no limit to what you can earn. All we ask is that when times are good you let the rest of the company share in the bounty and when times are hard you shoulder your fair share of the cost. Is that really as much to ask as your posts imply?

 

Naturally there is a difference and the issue here is risk. The office workers work is important of course, but a f*ck up from the CEO could very well be the demise of the company. Therefore companies are obliged to pay top dollar to find the best talent out there in the business world to grow the company, and more importantly to avoid the risk of going under. Being a CEO requires a multitude of skills that not every Tom D1ck and Harry has.

 

Some of the skill is acquired and a lot of it is instinct and know-how, and that you can't teach as you can with a plumber. I work for an international company and the president that was in charge nearly bankrupted the entire franchise in just a few years time after the franchise had been built up over some 30 years to become practically a household name in the industry. I think clearly that you're underestimating the importance of CEOs and the power that they hold.

 

Aside from that, I think this whole just tax the rich in hard times crappola is a bunch of BS. You start heavily taxing them now and then when the economy improves, folks will be yelling for them to still be heavily taxed because they'll be yet another reason to heavily tax the rich. It never ends. It's like the people that ALWAYS cry that the fare is ALWAYS too expensive. When the economy was booming, oh we can't afford the fare because people are "struggling". Now the economy is in the tank and they're still crying the same story that they were crying when times were good and that won't change with the rich either.

 

Albany isn't giving enough money for transportation? Let's tax the rich to make up for Albany stealing from the and diverting the funds elsewhere.

 

Not enough money being given for education? Let's tax the rich to make up the difference even if the economy is doing well.

 

Tax the rich is the new black and this tax the rich campaign will always exist, so that excuse of the rich needing to pay more ONLY because of the bad economy is so not true.

 

I meant further up in Manhattan, like Washington Heights or Inwood. Generally poorer areas aren't as well represented (probably why they're doing it in Spring Creek), and while they are gentrifying, they probably still don't have the influence to stop them (if indeed, they're looking in that part of Manhattan)

 

No, it has to do with a clause (I forget the particulars), but there is certain land here in the city that the City Council has no control over in terms of which businesses move in and want to build on the space. The issue of the whether or not the area is poor isn't that much of an issue, but of course if it is a poor area, the land would be cheaper of course.

[SoSpectacular]

Note the key word: power.

 

The power to over-inflate their paychecks

The power to bend the law to their will

The power to put those "like them" in higher positions

The power to abuse their own company policies

 

...and the list goes on.

 

As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility but some let the successes get to their heads and they wind up selling out the very people that helped them reach the top

 

When I say I want to be able to live happy it doesn't mean I want to line my pockets with endless amounts of cash, why would I want to become the very thing I hate the most? I'd look like a hypocrite

[checkmatechamp13]

As my dad says, "It's not who you know, it's whom you know"

 

For the record, that wasn't a correction, that was just a variation of the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know".

 

For example, if you're talking to a friend who believes that you can get a good job based on skill alone:

 

You: It's not who you know.

Friend: Exactly

You: It's whom you know.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Note the key word: power.

 

The power to over-inflate their paychecks

The power to bend the law to their will

The power to put those "like them" in higher positions

The power to abuse their own company policies

 

...and the list goes on.

 

As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility but some let the successes get to their heads and they wind up selling out the very people that helped them reach the top

 

When I say I want to be able to live happy it doesn't mean I want to line my pockets with endless amounts of cash, why would I want to become the very thing I hate the most? I'd look like a hypocrite

 

In other words, you hate being successful??? :confused:

There is nothing wrong with earning a lot of money nor with having the desire to do so. It seems like many folks don't have the balls to take that big leap and make it happen and that's the beauty of capitalism. The go getters go out and make the money and haters stand back and look for handouts from those making the money.

[Urbanfortitude]

The problem is money doesn't make a person. A person's personality makes up a person. Humanity keeps on forgetting that.

 

Yes and you seem to forget that money can easily change a person's personality and the way they act.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes and you seem to forget that money can easily change a person's personality and the way they act.

 

Oh please. You're going to sit here and tell me that if you won the lottery that your life wouldn't change one bit? You wouldn't go out and get either a fancier apartment or house??? Come on now. Let's be real. I've always preferred the nicer things in life even as kid and perhaps that's due to my parents spoiling me as a single child. I didn't get everything that I wanted, but I got most of what I wanted. The thing is they also taught me to appreciate the simple things in life, and that hard work is needed if you want things in life. However, that doesn't mean that my personality has remained the same now that I'm earning well as a young professional when compared to say my college days where I had my odd jobs (private tutoring, etc.) on the side. When you start earning a certain amount of money, generally the more you earn the more you spend. It's only natural.

 

You start to frequent certain high end restaurants, go to exclusive places and so on.