Old Money

[Mman]

Wow...all this arguing over a simple idea.

Anyway, these kids would not be super rich. they would have enough money for 250K a year, which yes, is a lot. It is not enough to spend wildely, just very comfortably. And nobody said that you did not have to work. You can...you can do anything you want. That is the advantage of money. Not all rich kids turn out spoiled and worthless. I would say that the worthless percentage for any demographic is about the same (depends on your def of worthless of course).

Because life isn't about doing what you want unfortunately, life is unfair and it sucks, the faster you accept this the more content you'll be in life (or at least in my case).

Wow...you are seriously the most emo kid on the board...negative nelly. Wrong, life is about doing whatever you want. You just have to accept the sacrafices it takes to do those things. If you really want to do something you can do it (put ya mind to it..heh). I know this sounds like something your guidance counsler would say, but I know pleanty of people that are doing what they want or are en route toward that.

[g0zen]

Instead of using the wealth to make your progeny worthless leeches, how about donating it to improving the lives of those who can't even afford to feed their children? You could make an impact and probably still have enough to keep your own descendents well fed, clothed, and educated.

[Mman]

Instead of using the wealth to make your progeny worthless leeches, how about donating it to improving the lives of those who can't even afford to feed their children? You could make an impact and probably still have enough to keep your own descendents well fed, clothed, and educated.

Um...did you not see the part were any extra money accumulated is donated? Personally, I think a certain amount of wealthy people who do not have to work is good for society. But only if some of them apply themselves. Maybe I have some misgiven trust in man, but I think that not all of his descendents would sit around all day. Undoubtely some of them would go through school and be able to use their education and their time to do some really awesome things, such as fund research for curing a disease or work pro-bono cases or teach the underprivleaged. Not all rich people are worthless.

[gamevet]

I don't think single-example allegories are strong enough evidence.

I think Hollywood's child actors, are a fine example of having life easy growing up and then crashing down to earth when reality hits. There are exceptions like Kirk Cameron, but there a more examples of the opposite (Gary Coleman, Ashley Olson, Willy Aimes and such.)

[g0zen]

Um...did you not see the part were any extra money accumulated is donated?

Yeah I didn't read that part clearly it seems.

[kedawa]

I want to make it so that none of my descendents ever have to work again.

IE, my children, my childrens children, my childrens childrens children, I want to have a fortune large enough that everyone who will ever come even partially from my mighty loins will be able to live off of a trust fund, instead of working. Their trust funds will be generated off of the interest compounding off of my initial investments.

Is that a noble goal?

Also, how much money would it take to create that sort of perpetual fortune, to guarantee that no one who descends from mr will ever have to work again?

Let's make a couple of assumptions. You can average about 5% return on investment after inflation (this is high but not exactly unreasonable, I think). You will have 2 kids at age 30, and they will have 2 more kids when they turn 30. You lock up your fortune in a country with no death tax, that has a bulletproof trust fund program that will dole out your money exactly the way you want it to.

We will also say that a person needs about $250k a year in income to be able to do just about anything they want to do.

This means that you need an amount of money, returning 5% a year, that can provide you with $250k a year in investment income, and can also grow large enough so that in 30 years, it has essentially tripled in size - become large enough to support you, your first kid, and your second kid, giving each $250k a year down the line.

How much is that? I calculate about $20 million at year 0. 1.25% of the 5% interest is deducted every year to give you your $250k income. The other 3.75% interest is compounded every year. Within 30 years, that 3.75% interest will have tripled your $20 million, creating $60 million.

When you hit 60 years old, that $60 million in your bank account is enough to split between you, your first kid, and your second kid - starting the cycle all over again.

What happens when you die when you hit age 90? Your share of the fortune gets donated somewhere - to a school, to a library, whatever. (Remember, this happens every generation, once, when you die, but then twice, when your kids die, four times, when your grandchildren die - think about the sheer amount of endowed wealth that would be going to charity in the future because of you.)

----

What incredible power. Your $20 million has essentially freed everyone you will ever have any part in creating from ever being forced to work again, AND has created an ever-replicating source of charity for the rest of the world. Fucking awesome, I say. Capitalism is the greatest thing ever.

In Canada, we have a system set up that lets you do more or less what you're talking about.

It's called social assistance. It may not involve earning money, but it will provide for your offspring. Seriously, I know of people that are 3rd generation on the dole. It's like we pay stupid lazy people to sit around and have kids while everybody else works like a dog to pay for all this. In general, educated and successful people have 0-2 kids, while the ones on welfare have 3-5. So much for natural selection.

I think your original idea, which to me seems more like an exponentially-growing philanthropist club than a system for spreading your genes, would make more sense if you adopted orphans or something instead of having kids of your own, and raised them the way you described.

[Clash!]

You guys seem to be thinking that Stone would be the exact same parent as the Rich Jerk kids you have heard of or met in your life. Perhaps Stone would pay attention to his kids and be there for them rather than just paying people to raise them or something. He just wants enough money so that he can provide his children with their dreams, it says nothing about his prenting skills.

[MVS]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever fucking heard.

That may be the least noble goal in the history of goals.

Mommy and Daddy not buy you enough toys as a kid?

[Tracer]

Dunno about all of this. I was raised by a lower middle-class family with bad credit. I don't know if that made me what I am today (I hope, surely, there were other more signifigant shapers to my mold) I do think it has had a hand in my sisters materialism. She has not had, therefore she really wants. Perhaps it's lent to my desire to do absolutely nothing (because I have always had to get what I want and need, not have it handed to me on a silver platter). Maybe all this not having money business is over-rated? I think I, personally, would like to be living off of some trust fund, heh.

[Bacon McShig]

I'd like to leave a nice supplemental, time-released income so that my progeny could live a little more comfortably than just what they're earning personally, but not so much that they didn't need to work. That's best, I think. Leaving money to the point that they don't even have to work at all is a surefire invitation to complacency and laziness, and that excess money would be much better spent on people that really need it.