Posted on 01/23/2009 9:43:42 AM PST by marshmallow
I didn't say it was my prerogative. She can do with her fortune what she wished. I wouldn't think of taking away that right of hers. I can still call her foolish, because she was a fool-- not primarily for investing her retirement with one guy, but for learning to love money. She lived a luxurious lifestyle and let her money define her and now she feels alien among her so-called friends. She should have asked God for wisdom every night instead of gold.
I’m not envious of her at all. Just the opposite. God doesn’t want us to be rich, because we become like this woman and treasure that gold too much. Also, DUers would have the government confiscate her wealth. I don’t advocate that at all.
Certainly. I agree. But she wouldn't be in such awful shape now if she'd lived modestly all this time. She had that right and I wouldn't take it away. But, she has to deal with the consequences.
Let’s look at the facts.
The lady claims to have lost 400K, and was getting a 5.5% return on her money before Madoff ponzied-out.
So she was getting an income of perhaps 22K a year out of it, assuming she was purely living on income, and not depleting capital in the process. If, more likely, she was taking income AND drawing down capital, she probably had 20-25 years of money there.
Sounds like fairly smart planning, but a lousy implementation. . .
I am still surprised Madoff isn’t hanging from a lamppost yet.
Her income from the 7.3 million was 400k.
It sounds like all her money was invested with one person or in one fund. That is not smart planning, actually it is pretty stupid.
I don't think you can assume that at all. It doesn't say she spent that much-- just that she was receiving it as an income. But, regardless, the fact that she lives in a house and has a condo and that neither are paid for, yet, that she spent money all the time on trips and art and jewelry and new furniture and new cars and such (according to another story about her) tells me that she could spend with the best of them. It's no different than hearing about rappers being broke because of how poorly they spent their windfall. Millionaires spend money in ways you can barely imagine, in sums you can barely imagine. I don't assume at all that she donated a large share of her income to charity. There's no evidence of it.
And I'm not bitching about her being rich or even how she spent it. I just said I don't have any pity for her. I don't waste energy pitying fools.
And who builds those cars? I'll wager it's people poorer than she was.
Who makes the jewelry? I'll wager it's people poorer than she was.
Who builds the furniture? I'll wager it's people poorer than she was.
Who delivered the furniture? I'll wager it's people poorer than she was.
How about the sales people who sold her the car, the jewelry, the furniture? I'll wager it's people poorer than she was.
I'll wager that ALL the people I just mentioned were grateful for her business, and pleased that she willing chose to share her good fortune with them by willingly giving them some of her money.
I propose we shoot anybody making either more or less than me!
It depends what you are using the money for, I guess. Smart investors can use the equity in their homes as a sort of low-interest bank to fund other investments. It can work very well, if you know what you're doing. A lot of rich people like to remain as liquid as possible.
(no link)
Doctor’s widow wins $2.9 million negligence suit - A jury agreed doctors waited too long to operate on her husband. It awarded $2.9 million.
Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) - Thursday, March 13, 2003
Author: Barbara Boyer and Tina Moore INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS
A Delaware County jury has awarded $2.9 million to a West Chester widow who sued doctors she said were negligent in caring for her ill husband, also a doctor.
Maureen A. Ebel had told the jury that when her husband was on his deathbed in July 2000, she vowed: “Marc, I am going to find out what happened to you.”
On Tuesday, a jury awarded Ebel $2.9 million after finding doctors had been negligent in treating her husband for Hodgkin’s disease, a form of cancer.
Marc S. Ebel , 53, was a gastroenterologist at Crozer-Chester Medical Center in Upland for more than two decades. He was found to have Hodgkin’s in January 2000 and was admitted to Crozer that June after reacting to chemotherapy.
Maureen Ebel , a retired registered nurse now living in Florida, was at her husband’s side after doctors had performed a biopsy.
(snip)
(no link)
Doctor’s widow wins $2.9 million negligence suit - A jury agreed doctors waited too long to operate on her husband. It awarded $2.9 million.
Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) - Thursday, March 13, 2003
Author: Barbara Boyer and Tina Moore INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS
A Delaware County jury has awarded $2.9 million to a West Chester widow who sued doctors she said were negligent in caring for her ill husband, also a doctor.
Maureen A. Ebel had told the jury that when her husband was on his deathbed in July 2000, she vowed: “Marc, I am going to find out what happened to you.”
On Tuesday, a jury awarded Ebel $2.9 million after finding doctors had been negligent in treating her husband for Hodgkin’s disease, a form of cancer.
Marc S. Ebel , 53, was a gastroenterologist at Crozer-Chester Medical Center in Upland for more than two decades. He was found to have Hodgkin’s in January 2000 and was admitted to Crozer that June after reacting to chemotherapy.
Maureen Ebel , a retired registered nurse now living in Florida, was at her husband’s side after doctors had performed a biopsy.
(snip)
“Certainly. I agree. But she wouldn’t be in such awful shape now if she’d lived modestly all this time. She had that right and I wouldn’t take it away. But, she has to deal with the consequences.”
That just doesn’t compute. If she had lived more modestly, she would have had more money to be stolen from her. If she was a saint and had given 90% of her worldly possessions away to the poor, she would have still have had all of her money stolen and left destitute at the age of 60. She was the victom of a crime.
To harden your heart to the plight of this woman is just not right.
If she’d lived more modestly, she would be living in a home without a mortgage right now.
Shocking really. A woman has lost her life savings to fraud and people throw her under the bus because she was once “rich”. Call me disappointed.
Sounds rather leftist...
Work hard. Invest. Get bilked by a criminal. Get ridiculed here.
Wow.
If she lived more modestly, she would have had $10 million stolen. Would you feel sorry for her then?
If I had enough money I would pay off my mortgage but then, I don’t have that much money and my income could stop at any time so the mortgage seems like a big deal.
If was certain that I had a $400k income for life, paying off the mortage would not necessarily be a wise thing to do. I’m not a CPA but it could go either way.
First you complained that she didn’t give her money away and now you complain that she didn’t spend her money paying down her mortgage. Would you actually feel sorry for her if she had a big house paid off, I think not.
She didn’t blow her fortune on bourbon and lottery tickets, it was stolen from her.
Now I’m repeating myself. I’m moving on.
I added a little part. I think a lot of people that are posting, including me, are ridiculing the person for putting all of the eggs in one basket. I don't really pity this persons dilemma, if she was a little smarter, less ambivalent and/or lazy she would have diversified and she wouldn't be in this situation.
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.