BF2S Forums What's wrong with being rich?

8

2.2

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-10-23 07:53:44)

7,5 or 8 i guess ...

My mother - 3.75 (coincidentally, she just changed our landline phone number to stop calls from some company called NCO Financial)

I live with her and have for most of my life (except for 2004-2005 when I lived with my father) and it's gotten really, really bad lately. And to top it all off, my dad payed $2100 a month in child support when it was my brother and I living together but $1400 when it was just him while I was living with my dad...now he only pays $750. Pretty ridiculous. My mom works and gets disability payments too, but with bills and car payments, she really can't afford much per month besides the necessities. Most of my royalties come from my father. And now onto him..

My father - 9.5

He pretty much perpetuates the Jewish stereotype...he can be cheap but he's been VERY good with his money and is very intelligent when it comes to financial matters. He's got a very large house in a very rich neighborhood with a waterview that can see CT at night during the winters, a 2008 S550, a 2008 ML550 (which my Stepmom drives), a hot tub, a pool, Islanders season tickets, goes to Mohegan Sun a lot...etc. He's got it pretty good. Only recently has he finally stopped being really cheap though and is helping me out a bit.

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-10-23 06:37:59)

Nothing wrong with being rich, no one said there was. Being greedy is another matter altogether, but it's also very subjective.

I'd be somewhere between 5 and 7 I suppose seen as I'm a paid researcher doing a PHD.

7 = I have little worries, I have some nice things, and have disposable income

I have no debt bar my mortgage. Have my own Architectural Planning Consultancy. Have some disposable income and a decent standard of living.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being rich. I got a good start in life. Parents put me through and part funded a good education which got me a well paid job. I worked part time from 14. I bought a field of them for £3000 (what they bought it for) and got planning permission for my house in that field which I was then offered £200 000 for. (Exceptional views of the sea, mountains and forests made it worth lots of money) I declined and built my house for £175 000 and its valued at £500 000. So I got to thank my parents wise move to buy said field 10 years ago or I would be in a 3bed terrace row in town with no amenity space.
I say this because I want to make it clear I got a good start in life and I attribute most of my success to that. I don't know how I would have got on if say my parents were drug addicts or benefit scrounging lay abouts. Possibly the same, most likely not.

This is why I have no problems being part of a socialist system and paying taxes to help others with a bad start in life get the hand up they want and need because I appreciate the help I got.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Also, you never said what you are.

I said optional.  But to narrow it down a bit I'm not married to a 23 year old.

By the way I am between 6 and 7, just call me "lucky"

Last edited by lowing (2008-10-23 07:40:09)

all these crazy liberals seem to do well

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Whats wrong with being rich? Well, if ya ask a liberal/socialist it is wrong because you obviously sotle the money from the poor, you did not earn it or take risks for it. IT is also wrong for you to "NOT SHARE" what you have earned ( like you earned it ) with all those that could not be bothered to earn it themselves. After all, you were just "lucky" right?

I mean we are talking real world, and luck and destiny and karma play more of a factor in real world than ambition determination, and drive.

Read some of the posts by people who are frequently labelled 'liberal' on these boards... I don't see many advocating what you have just outlined in your post.

Really? Ya mean liberal here are not blaming the rich for the poor? You yourself blame luck as your real world issues for the poor being poor and the rich being rich. The liberals on here do not think the rich should be forced t o"spread the wealth"? Everything I have said is BECAUSE of the liberals on this board. Including you Braddock

WRONG.

I said other factors come into play in real life situations, luck being one such factor. You call it "spreading the wealth" lowing, others would simply call it making the tax system more conducive towards middle class prosperity rather than allowing it to continue to perpetuate super-rich plutocracy.

Im not rich, thats whats wrong.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Read some of the posts by people who are frequently labelled 'liberal' on these boards... I don't see many advocating what you have just outlined in your post.

Really? Ya mean liberal here are not blaming the rich for the poor? You yourself blame luck as your real world issues for the poor being poor and the rich being rich. The liberals on here do not think the rich should be forced t o"spread the wealth"? Everything I have said is BECAUSE of the liberals on this board. Including you Braddock

WRONG.

I said other factors come into play in real life situations, luck being one such factor. You call it "spreading the wealth" lowing, others would simply call it making the tax system more conducive towards middle class prosperity rather than allowing it to continue to perpetuate super-rich plutocracy.

Actually Braddock I didn't call it "spreading the wealth" Obama did, his quotes