Posted on 09/28/2023 1:39:02 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Legendary rocker Mick Jagger may be swimming in his millions thanks to the Rolling Stones, but he most likely won’t be sharing his wealth with his eight kids.
The 80-year-old musician hinted to the Wall Street Journal in a recent profile that he doesn’t want to sell the band’s post-1971 music inventory.
Jagger teased that the money should go to charity instead of his offspring.
“The children don’t need $500 million to live well. Come on,” he joked to the publication.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Yes ... it's so much better to give it to (or create) a "Foundation" that will sooner rather than later be taken over by marxists.
By and large, most recepients of large inheritances squander it away in a life of idleness and excess. Which I guess is their right, but gives me pause with regard to my own children.
I never said to give it to a foundation.
I did some work for a company. The old man started off with a dump truck and turned it into a huge profitable company. Now into all sorts of things - development, real estate, mining, etc.
The son and daughter ended up inheriting it. But they were also brought up in the business. They are continuing to grow and expand into new markets.
The company had some employee management team come in for some training. The consultant said that it was one of the few companies that he has dealt with where the kids didn’t end up destroying the business.
I guess he’s planning to take it with him ...
... or maybe just not going ...
The country may be nothing.
I would give the money to my kids, but with strings attached.
They could go to school/college forever, if they wanted - as long as they passed and maintained a good average.
If they worked, they could not collect more than a certain amount.
If they get fired they lose it for that year.
If they are unemployed they get nothing.
$500 million over a 60 yr career?
Sounds a little lite there Mick.
Not bad. I was thinking along same lines.
I read where Jimmy Buffet was worth 1.3 billion at the time of his death. Of course it was him and a back-up band rather than big name musicians next to him.
McCartney is something like 1.2 billion. Ringo is about $500 million.
Russell Wilson, 5 year contract with the Broncos: $242 million.
Right. Even if he put $10MM for each in a trust making 5% they could live pretty comfortably the rest of their lives. That leaves $420MM to give to charity.
“I can’t get no.... satisfaction”
I would give them the seed money to start their own business, and let them sink or swim.
Pretty good for a entertainer that NEVER had a number one single. I believe “Come Monday” was his biggest hit.
Probably the biggest favor he could do for them.
In the modern world, the children are often retired by the time they get the money.
It is useful at that age.
Jimmy Buffett built an entire industry around his “tropical rock” lifestyle. His actual record sales became very insignificant to his fortune.
Headline is garbage. He has no interest in selling the back catalog, and that half-a-billion is speculative, they haven’t been offered that. Bowie only got 250M for his back catalog and he had far more UK Top 40s than the Stones, albeit in the US the Stones had 8 No. 1s to Bowie’s 2. Mick would rather have the pre-71 catalog in his possession, much like Macca finally got the Beatles catalog back from Sony/ATV in 2017.
In the 60s and early-mid 70s a concert ticket could easily be bought for $5. In ‘72 I saw them (back in the Mick Taylor era) at a doubleheader in Ft. Worth. $10, $5 each show.
I’d give it to churches that ‘adopt’ a pregnant girl in trouble with no support.
Watch all there girls get knocked up out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.