Post: #1

Quote:Imagine having Sting as your dad. You never have to suffer the ordinary teenager's angst over attaining that ultimate accolade of being "cool". He is 62 but looks as good - better - in his clothes than a man half his age. You live a life of luxury in multiple homes with walk-in wardrobes and staff to do all the boring stuff, such as cleaning. And in time and with no effort required on your part it will all belong to you.

Except Sting has other ideas. He has no intention of leaving the immense (£180million) wealth he has acquired to his six children. One reason is that with more than 100 people on their payroll, he and his actress and producer wife Trudie Styler are big spenders. "We have a lot of commitments," he says. "What comes in we spend and there isn't much left."

Remember, this is the man who didn't notice that his accountant had fleeced him of £6million in 1995. But his main reason for not leaving everything to Joseph, Kate, Mickey, Jake, Coco and Giacomo, who are aged from 37 to 18, is that he does not want to saddle them with the burden of unearned riches.

"I certainly don't want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks," he said this weekend. "They have to work."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/48...s-Children

I can respect his approach, maybe leave the 1 Million pounds per kid and some financial education. That would give them peace of mind to some degree (like food and shelter) but if you want luxuries you have to work for it.

Here is a Buffet quote I agree with, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

Post: #2

Sounds like every self absorbed boomer ever. Doesn't he understand that he isn't just himself but future generations as well.

Post: #3

^^ I don't have a problem with his approach.

Future generations usually piss it away, why not try to find a worthy cause that may live longer than spoiled grand children.

When you earn it there is a deeper sense of appreciation and care for what you have created. Or that has been my experience, than taking from someone else.

My nephew always says, "our house." I always correct him and say it is the house his parents let him live in.

Post: #4

(06-24-2014 02:36 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  My nephew always says, "our house." I always correct him and say it is the house his parents let him live in.

You sound like the fun uncle.

Post: #5

Self fathers/mothers kill their families in the long run.

Most successful families are the ones that give to their children freely.

It's bad to spoil your children, but not to leave them anything is worse.

Post: #6

I actually went to nyu with one of his sons, jake. we hung out a bit in freshman and sophmore year but have since lost touch. i can tell you he had a very nice place of his own in manhattan, and traveled frequently. and he sure as hell didn't have to hold down a job while going to school.

of course, he was a full time student, and it may be the case that he was just getting a free ride until he earned his degree. though i highly doubt his dad will leave him with literally nothing. sting is the kind whose wealth is in stark contrast to his personal brand -- he probably feels immense liberal guilt over it, or at the very least feels as though he has to express immense guilt over it publicly.

Post: #7

Problem is they that everyone will still expect them to be rich.

Imagine not being rich, but everyone expecting you to be.

Post: #8

Bad move...lazy parenting. He's absolving himself of his parental responsibility to teach his children to use that money in a way that respects his legacy and is competent. Its equally bad parenting to give your children no responsibility and unlimited resources (trust fund baby) as it is to give them individual responsibility (care for yourself after being brought up in a multi million dollar household) and no resources....especially if he does something like donate the estate to save the rainforest.

Post: #9

(06-24-2014 04:18 PM)soup Wrote:  Problem is they that everyone will still expect them to be rich.

Imagine not being rich, but everyone expecting you to be.

I was thinking that too. He doesn't want to burden them with the money, which I can understand, but it's not like he's an anonymous successful businessmen.

Can you imagine applying for a job when your dad is Sting? People wouldn't take you seriously.

Post: #10

I get snd kinda respect not turning your kids into rich trust fund kids but would keep a family trust for future generations college and medical expenses

Post: #11

i see how the majority of people adopt this point of view, that by limiting the amount of resources and guidance of their children this will in turn make them better people, more prepared to deal with the world, less spoiled

don't know much about sting (beside he was the awesome Feyd Rautha in Dune and made a bunch of cool songs in the 80 that help me score some girls that dig romantic songs) or his family, maybe they won't be able to make any good use of his money anyways, but it sounds like liberal guilt

i've overhead a conversation of the father of one ex gf of mine, guy was a declared socialist and very miserable, he was talking to some of his commies friends in a trip we made,he said that he lets his kids fuck their own lives for them to learn,never correcting the mistakes or offering guidance
it was a very disfunctional family guided by a bitter man who hated the very concept of family


on the other hand the world elites (the rothschild,rockefeller) follow a written in stone approach to family and loyalty, almost coming to occultism in how they believe in the sacrality of bloodlines, guaranteeing the best outcome for them sons and daughters, funny how is the same elite that spread anti-family propaganda, they know that the only chance we humans have in our limited lives of changing history is through family, the basic unit of society

the spoiling of children only happens in weak families without strong father figures.
With a patriarch present the story if very different, this is where the term dynasty comes from, heavy investing on offspring that will continue the family objectives and multiply its resources pool

this is related to the R/K selection theory

Quote:Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the ”everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring’s success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one’s resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blo...on-theory/

Post: #12

What would Tywin Lannister do ?

Post: #13

Please, they are going to be left with homes around the globe.

Don't lose sleep over these kids.

What about publishing rights from his music?

Post: #14

I agree with the others who have said that he is absolving himself of his own responsibility. Build a legacy, build a dynasty. Rather than being so self-obsessed or caring about stupid liberal causes, maybe he should have spent some time teaching his kids some stuff. Of course, plenty of monarchies had bad apples in their lines, but plenty didn't. Kids knew from a young age, and were groomed also, that they would one day have great power, though also great responsibility. They also knew that one day, part of that responsibility would be to pass everything (including the mindset) onto their own children. This modern schtick of not leaving anything to one's kids is people running away from their responsibility. It's all the nihilism of the modern age writ large.

The other point is that all these cretins -- be they Bill Gates and his crew of merry fuckwits or Sting -- actually really believe that charities make a difference. Some do, in some ways, but a lot of charities are top heavy with executives pissing away the money on junkets. So even if your kid does become a spoilt brat, how is that different from some NGO CEO doing the cocktail/skiing/yachting circuit? I'll tell you what the difference is: the kid is your kid, your bloodline; the NGO CEO is some random dude saying, "Thanks sucker!" and perhaps building his own dynasty.

As the saying goes though, a fool and his money are soon parted.

I intend to leave as much money to my kids as possible, but also to teach them how to manage it so that they don't piss it away within one or two generations.

Post: #15

When Buffet came out some years ago announcing he would only leave a relatively small ammount of money to his kids (couple million) and give the rest to charity it made sense from a PR standpoint since he was either number 1 or number 2 top net worth in the world and given his age people where curious about what would happen to his wealth.

But Sting who probably is low 9 figures USD is not even on most peoples radar for his wealth and he is not even that old. So I dont get why he would go public with this news if not to just impress on people his politics of socialism.

Post: #16

Of course, his estate will hand over piles of money to the Government, saddling it with the task of spending money on Presidential Toilet Seat covers, underfunded welfare programs and corporate bailouts.

Post: #17

(06-24-2014 07:29 PM)bacon Wrote:  When Buffet came out some years ago announcing he would only leave a relatively small ammount of money to his kids (couple million) and give the rest to charity it made sense from a PR standpoint since he was either number 1 or number 2 top net worth in the world and given his age people where curious about what would happen to his wealth.

But Sting who probably is low 9 figures USD is not even on most peoples radar for his wealth and he is not even that old. So I dont get why he would go public with this news if not to just impress on people his politics of socialism.

That is exactly why he did it. Liberal status signalling. A lot of liberalism in that social class is resolving the contradiction between being rich (which often has a stigma attached to it within liberalism) and liberal. Part of it's for themselves, and part of it's for their social circle.

Let's be real about this. If many of these liberals really cared about these issues, they'd donate all of their money now and live very simple lives. Buffett is a different case because he can turn that money into more money, so it perhaps makes sense for him to hang on to it for now (and he also does live a fairly modest lifestyle anyway). For the others though, that would directly impact them though, so instead they'll make "hard decisions" about what to do with their wealth when it won't affect them anyway. What, no servants? Perish the thought that Sting should have to rough it such!

Post: #18

Be careful telling someone what to do with the money that they've earned. I would reserve judgement until you've seen firsthand what unearned money does to someone, especially a young person. It has a way of lowering their self esteem. This forum is about self-improvement. What would happen if you are given enough money so that you'll never have to work, improve yourself, accomplish something on your own? If there was always an easy way out of any problem when things got tough. The temptation would always be there. Why learn game if you could throw $50k at a model for the night. Why work out or learn a new language?

I don't think Warren Buffet was thinking about PR or taxes. He was making a sound decision about what values he wants to give his adult children. Perhaps he doesn't want to deprive them of the experiences/accomplishments they are now required to make. I believe he said: Give them enough so they can do anything, never so much so they can do nothing.

Post: #19

(06-24-2014 07:29 PM)bacon Wrote:  When Buffet came out some years ago announcing he would only leave a relatively small ammount of money to his kids (couple million) and give the rest to charity it made sense from a PR standpoint since he was either number 1 or number 2 top net worth in the world and given his age people where curious about what would happen to his wealth.

But Sting who probably is low 9 figures USD is not even on most peoples radar for his wealth and he is not even that old. So I dont get why he would go public with this news if not to just impress on people his politics of socialism.

Buffett's philosophy is to give your kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. I think that's pretty sound reasoning and he's still leaving them more money than most people will see in their lifetimes. His children are philanthropists and either run or sit on the boards of various charities that he's involved in so he's contributing heavily to their lifestyle even if it's not through direct gifts.

Post: #20

^ Tough job... giving away someone else's money.

FYI:

Vast majority of the great ancient philosophers came from money. There would not be any intellectual achievements in western civilization without rich families allowing their intelligent sons to pursue academics.

While certainly many rich families allow their children to fall into sloth, that doesn't mean money should not be given to their children. If I had that kind of money I would make sure to give a very special upbringing to my children (avoid school, so they aren't corrupted, and have them hang out with poor children, don't raise them in luxury) so they would be in a position to use their money wisely.

Post: #21

Its pretty easy to leave behind some money to help your kids without burdening them with too much money.

I had a distant relative that left a few million for family members in a trust fund that can only be used for medical and educational expenses (only for a single degree per individual). Im one of the 200 or so beneficiaries and got maybe $10k from it for a variety of things. I think in 10 years it has disbursed like $1 million. But no one is sucking on that teat to just live the good life.

Post: #22

(06-24-2014 09:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Tough job... giving away someone else's money.

A cynic might say that he's just doing it to avoid paying an estate tax by giving all his wealth away to charities that his children control...

Post: #23

(06-24-2014 05:32 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Please, they are going to be left with homes around the globe.

Don't lose sleep over these kids.

What about publishing rights from his music?

Bingo, his music rakes a shit ton since he has writing credits. Every breath you take alone gets him 2,000$ a day. His kids will inherit his copywrites/writing credit no matter what, since royalties can't be sold. Unless he does the Peter Pan route and donates his royalties to some trust.

(06-24-2014 07:10 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  I agree with the others who have said that he is absolving himself of his own responsibility. Build a legacy, build a dynasty. Rather than being so self-obsessed or caring about stupid liberal causes, maybe he should have spent some time teaching his kids some stuff. Of course, plenty of monarchies had bad apples in their lines, but plenty didn't. Kids knew from a young age, and were groomed also, that they would one day have great power, though also great responsibility. They also knew that one day, part of that responsibility would be to pass everything (including the mindset) onto their own children. This modern schtick of not leaving anything to one's kids is people running away from their responsibility. It's all the nihilism of the modern age writ large.

The other point is that all these cretins -- be they Bill Gates and his crew of merry fuckwits or Sting -- actually really believe that charities make a difference. Some do, in some ways, but a lot of charities are top heavy with executives pissing away the money on junkets. So even if your kid does become a spoilt brat, how is that different from some NGO CEO doing the cocktail/skiing/yachting circuit? I'll tell you what the difference is: the kid is your kid, your bloodline; the NGO CEO is some random dude saying, "Thanks sucker!" and perhaps building his own dynasty.

As the saying goes though, a fool and his money are soon parted.

I intend to leave as much money to my kids as possible, but also to teach them how to manage it so that they don't piss it away within one or two generations.

I don't think its fair to single out the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. If anything they are one of the few legit charities that is making a difference (fighting malaria and nearly eradicating polio). It helps that its run by a highly competitive analytical man (Gates) and thus approached problems in a smart efficient matter without pissing away a shit ton.

Unlike other charities that are run by arts educated people who use it as primary source of income, the B&MG foundation is run by someone who does not have a profit motive since he's already fucking rich.


I don't think Sting is taking a very smart approach to it, all he's doing is spending wealth as noted with his statement. At least if it went into a trust it could be used in more productive matters which allow it to grow (and payments to children would still result in high spending)

Post: #24

The key to this is to set up irrevocable trusts for each kid. To be fair you could have a clause stating that once "X" is accomplished in the child's life, then "Y" will release in semi-yearly payments of "Z." And have a tiered release of the funds based on them actually doing something with their lives.

The problem with irrevocable trusts are the likelihood the trustee will puppeteer his children's (or other beneficiaries) lives. When you have over 30-40m in the bank, the $$ doesn't mean shit anymore, it's all about how you handle the power associated with it. And this power is commonly abused. Do what they say, or else type shit.

I have watched $$$ destroy a family first hand worth more that Sting. The way it has been handled has been sketchy based on the character of the beneficiaries. It has created separation among brothers and sisters. Kids with almost perfect ACT scores and scholarships blowing off college with no plans for the future.

Another kid not even graduating from H.S., criminal records for 2 of 4 kids.. etc. All because they know they've got it coming. If the choice is give them all or give them none, I would veer towards none after what I've personally witnessed closely with one family, and more distantly with another, both worth more than Sting... and yes, both the riches of baby boomers.

Post: #25

(06-24-2014 08:25 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  Be careful telling someone what to do with the money that they've earned. I would reserve judgement until you've seen firsthand what unearned money does to someone, especially a young person. It has a way of lowering their self esteem. This forum is about self-improvement. What would happen if you are given enough money so that you'll never have to work, improve yourself, accomplish something on your own? If there was always an easy way out of any problem when things got tough. The temptation would always be there. Why learn game if you could throw $50k at a model for the night. Why work out or learn a new language?

Why not do such a thing? Two points.

Firstly, for hundreds and thousands of years, across several cultures, rich people have been patrons of the arts, and even artists themselves. Frederick the Great was a statesman, a general, a philosopher, a composer and spoke multiple languages. His greatest failing was that he did not have children.

Anyway, it is only in our modern, self-indulgent, nihilistic, anti-humanist age where we cannot conceive of anyone being liberated from material necessity using that freedom to pursue higher ends. Because we are surrounded by Paris Hiltons we assume it has ever been thus. The great irony of our age is that we simultaneously think that we have arrived at the end point in history, and yet also think that everyone else in history has also been as depraved as we regard ourselves. We are simultaneously incredibly arrogant in all the wrong ways and full of self-doubt in all the wrong ways.

Secondly, to continue on the theme of liberation, I have resolved never to let my children work a typical part-time job that teenagers have traditionally done (not that such jobs are being taken by teenagers anymore as others have taken them out of necessity). All this baloney of instilling a work ethic is just about instilling what Nietzsche calls slave morality. I want my children to aspire to be entrepreneurs, nobility, artists, not "productive members of society". In the modern West, we lionise the "everyman" as somehow more spiritually pure than the noble, the rich, etc. There are plenty of depraved trust fund children, but the upper class most definitely do not have a monopoly on depravity.

The point, however, is that whilst Chartres Cathedral or the Sistine Chapel may have been made by the hands of ordinary men in a sense, they were not conceived of by them in the main, and they certainly could never have been created without the financial support of the upper class. The modern, democratic state is a poor substitute because although we so often build much bigger things than before, we so rarely build grander things than before.