Jump to content

Off Topic: Heiress to the Johnson & Johnson Fortune Arrested


KFRCanuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kinda off topic

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/heiress_in_theft_scandal_wpIr6Dz4lDG2USQpMGqz0K

The 30-year-old socialite has been linked to several high-profile girlfriends, including Semel, the daughter of Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel.

 

Semel allegedly beat Johnson up and lit her hair on fire during a catfight at Semel's home. But they apparently reconciled and were seen together earlier this year.

 

So if I buy JNJ for my 1 year old son's RESP, I guess I'm supporting her lifestyle in some small respect?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherited wealth is one of the great sins of capitalism.  I think people should be incentivized to do all they can for themselves, but passing capital from one generation to the next is the antithesis of capitalism.  Capital should move freely to where it is most efficiently utilized...inherited wealth does the complete opposite.  I'm all for egregious estate taxes for estates over $1B that are passed onto the third generation.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherited wealth is one of the great sins of capitalism.  I think people should be incentivized to do all they can for themselves, but passing capital from one generation to the next is the antithesis of capitalism.  Capital should move freely to where it is most efficiently utilized...inherited wealth does the complete opposite.  I'm all for egregious estate taxes for estates over $1B that are passed onto the third generation.  Cheers!

 

 

The good news is that it seems that inherited wealth tends to get frittered away before it gets passed on for too many generations.  There are probably some Bronfmans rolling in their graves when they look down (or up!) at what their heirs have done!

 

SJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kawikaho

Inherited wealth is one of the great sins of capitalism.  I think people should be incentivized to do all they can for themselves, but passing capital from one generation to the next is the antithesis of capitalism.  Capital should move freely to where it is most efficiently utilized...inherited wealth does the complete opposite.  I'm all for egregious estate taxes for estates over $1B that are passed onto the third generation.  Cheers!

 

I very much agree with this sentiment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a brother-in-law that sits on his ass and does nothing.  Oh wait, no that's not entirely fair.  He works as a bartender in Big Sky during ski season -- his shift is only 3 nights a week.  Then he skis the rest of the time.  He lives on an income from a trust but it's only a couple of million.  He is 40 yr old and I think the money will run out but I think he's too stoned to do anything about it.  The trust is invested in mutual funds that charge more than 1% in fees, and on top of that there's a 0.5% trust management fee.  So let's say the fund is invested in 3% dividend payers... right there fully 1/2 of his dividend income go to the fund managers for doing pretty much nothing (it's basically no different from an index fund).  He didn't finish high school -- forget about college.  Just party party party.  The money is 3rd generation, so he is blowing it right on cue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanjeev, Its ok to give them $999,999,999.99 but a billion is too much I agree

 

I would have put a significantly lower amount...about $50M...but I wouldn't want half the board calling me a socialist!  ;D  This way I alienated only about 3-4 people on this board!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kawikaho

I have a brother-in-law that sits on his ass and does nothing.  Oh wait, no that's not entirely fair.  He works as a bartender in Big Sky during ski season -- his shift is only 3 nights a week.  Then he skis the rest of the time.  He lives on an income from a trust but it's only a couple of million.  He is 40 yr old and I think the money will run out but I think he's too stoned to do anything about it.  The trust is invested in mutual funds that charge more than 1% in fees, and on top of that there's a 0.5% trust management fee.  So let's say the fund is invested in 3% dividend payers... right there fully 1/2 of his dividend income go to the fund managers for doing pretty much nothing (it's basically no different from an index fund).  He didn't finish high school -- forget about college.  Just party party party.  The money is 3rd generation, so he is blowing it right on cue.

 

 

Only 2 million?  That's a butt load of money to most people.  I would retire on that amount if I had it right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a brother-in-law that sits on his ass and does nothing.  Oh wait, no that's not entirely fair.  He works as a bartender in Big Sky during ski season -- his shift is only 3 nights a week.  Then he skis the rest of the time.  He lives on an income from a trust but it's only a couple of million.  He is 40 yr old and I think the money will run out but I think he's too stoned to do anything about it.  The trust is invested in mutual funds that charge more than 1% in fees, and on top of that there's a 0.5% trust management fee.  So let's say the fund is invested in 3% dividend payers... right there fully 1/2 of his dividend income go to the fund managers for doing pretty much nothing (it's basically no different from an index fund).  He didn't finish high school -- forget about college.  Just party party party.  The money is 3rd generation, so he is blowing it right on cue.

 

 

Only 2 million?  That's a butt load of money to most people.  I would retire on that amount if I had it right now.

 

I think it boils out to 60K/year for 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it boils out to 60K/year for 25 years.

Should be more than that, probably 60K/year for 40 years

 

Anyone know where to find how much JNJ's fortune or stock is controlled by Johnson family and their heiress? I hope they don't have any say about running the company.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kawikaho

Yeah, definitely more than that, but less than 40.  It's about 33 years.  You will need to match inflation with that money and draw down the account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a brother-in-law that sits on his ass and does nothing.  Oh wait, no that's not entirely fair.  He works as a bartender in Big Sky during ski season -- his shift is only 3 nights a week.  Then he skis the rest of the time.  He lives on an income from a trust but it's only a couple of million.  He is 40 yr old and I think the money will run out but I think he's too stoned to do anything about it.  The trust is invested in mutual funds that charge more than 1% in fees, and on top of that there's a 0.5% trust management fee.  So let's say the fund is invested in 3% dividend payers... right there fully 1/2 of his dividend income go to the fund managers for doing pretty much nothing (it's basically no different from an index fund).  He didn't finish high school -- forget about college.  Just party party party.  The money is 3rd generation, so he is blowing it right on cue.

 

 

Only 2 million?  That's a butt load of money to most people.  I would retire on that amount if I had it right now.

 

I think it boils out to 60K/year for 25 years.

 

Well, yes, I suppose it is however a point was made about $50m or $1b inheritances making it easy for people to do nothing.

 

It only takes $2m to ruin a young person's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Buffett/Gates idea of giving your kids "enough money that they can do whatever they want but not so much that they can do nothing" probably means an amount less than $2MM, I'm not sure that means that no one should give their children more than that. Any standard of this sort also complicates matters because you could pay less to the government by having more kids (if the tax code specifies an amount per child that is tax free).

 

I agree with Ben Franklin (couldn't find a quote in a brief search) that inheritence stratifies a society and ruins a true republic after only a few generations. Dynastic wealth usually ends in a manner that would be an embarassment to the creater of such wealth - usually much more quickly than they would imagine - however there have been a number of heirs that have done great things with their large inheritences . . . much better things than could be done by the government.

 

I agree with Sanjeev's original thought that there should be a punative tax on inheritence above a certain level - provided the proceeds of such would lower current income taxes. I don't trust the government to spend $1 Billion dollars any more than I trust some drunken heir or heiress to do so, so I don't think this should be a net gain to the government. However I would much rather the government take 75% when I'm dead and only 30% while I'm alive. There should be some threshold before the 75% kicks in, and maybe $50 Million is as good of a number as any.

 

Of course people will try to avoid the 75% tax rate by giving their money to charity. A lot more Gates' foundations is better than a lot more government in my opinion, but do-nothing foundations aren't of much social good. In short, it is a tough problem, but I would rather be taxed less while I'm alive and more when I'm dead.

 

/end of rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement about the dangers of passing over too much money to children.

 

Yet, there are also examples where the children have done good in spite of having wealth handed over to them. (Buffett friend Katharine Graham, for one.) So, I wonder whether there is any real correlation between inherited wealth and bums or that the proportion of bums in rich families are the same as in the general population but it's just that if the rich bums get more press. Would be interesting to know if anyone has seen any studies done on this.

 

Rather than criticising others, I thought it would be more interesting to take a more practical approach and ask what we, the intelligent and thoughtful members of this board :), would do if we had more than our "drop dead" money? For argument's sake, say you had $10m (I'm much less ambitious than Sanjeev!) and two kids. (Given the investing talents of our board members, it is very likely that quite a few of us may have to deal such a question in the future.) How would you deal with your estate? Would you leave them nothing on the grounds that they would become bums? If you would leave them something, how much?

 

One possible solution:

 

Set up a trust fund to provide a $1 for $1 matching income, subject to an inflation indexed minimum per child of $50K p.a. and a maximum of $250K. Rationale is to provide a safety net for the child who might, for whatever reason, be unable to earn an income, and also provide an incentive for them to earn more (to get a higher matching income). If the kid is capable of earning more than $250K, he really doesn't need much more help. Residual goes to charity.

 

The problem with this income approach is that it does not allow for a smart and enterprising child to get a lump sum to snowball into billions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kawikaho

I have a brother-in-law that sits on his ass and does nothing.  Oh wait, no that's not entirely fair.  He works as a bartender in Big Sky during ski season -- his shift is only 3 nights a week.  Then he skis the rest of the time.  He lives on an income from a trust but it's only a couple of million.  He is 40 yr old and I think the money will run out but I think he's too stoned to do anything about it.  The trust is invested in mutual funds that charge more than 1% in fees, and on top of that there's a 0.5% trust management fee.  So let's say the fund is invested in 3% dividend payers... right there fully 1/2 of his dividend income go to the fund managers for doing pretty much nothing (it's basically no different from an index fund).  He didn't finish high school -- forget about college.  Just party party party.  The money is 3rd generation, so he is blowing it right on cue.

 

 

 

 

Only 2 million?  That's a butt load of money to most people.  I would retire on that amount if I had it right now.

 

I think it boils out to 60K/year for 25 years.

 

Well, yes, I suppose it is however a point was made about $50m or $1b inheritances making it easy for people to do nothing.

 

It only takes $2m to ruin a young person's life.

.

 

Right.  Well, I know lots of lazy asses and they have no money or inheritance, so I don't see your point.  Perhaps your brother in law would have been lazy regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.  Well, I know lots of lazy asses and they have no money or inheritance, so I don't see your point.  Perhaps your brother in law would have been lazy regardless.

 

"What would you do if you had a million dollars?"

"I would relax... I would sit on my ass all day... I would do nothing."

"Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.  Well, I know lots of lazy asses and they have no money or inheritance, so I don't see your point.  Perhaps your brother in law would have been lazy regardless.

 

"What would you do if you had a million dollars?"

"I would relax... I would sit on my ass all day... I would do nothing."

"Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."

 

 

That movie was terrific by the way... especially for a tech worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished a short historical study of King Richard III.

Objectively, everyone on this board is almost certainly

much better off by any criterion -- "richer" -- than

the king or his peers, even if your net worth is no better than

middle class.  Likewise, a middle class person

in a developed country is wealthy, compared to 99% of the people

in some of the poorer countries of the world. 

 

Would you then be doing your children a favor if you clothed,

fed, educated and gave them resources equivalent to

upper middle class in medieval times?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.  Well, I know lots of lazy asses and they have no money or inheritance, so I don't see your point.  Perhaps your brother in law would have been lazy regardless.

 

Kawikaho, absolutely.  My wife has a brother-in-law who has never worked.  I mean never.  When he was a teenager and just married he got a job as a metal worker which lasted about 2 months.  He didn't like it so he quit and has been sitting home ever since. He lives rent free in a building his parents own, but other than that his family (him, his wife, and their 2 children)  live on his wife's Walmart income.  He won't see anywhere near a million dollars in his entire life, yet has managed to do nothing all of his adult life (he's in his mid-30's now), with no signs that the situation will ever change. Some people are lazy.  An inheritance makes being lazy a bit more comfortable, but it certainly isn't a requirement.  There are many people who inherit money and live productive lives and there are many who don't inherit money and still manage to do nothing.  The real question is who should determine what happens to the wealth you've created when you pass on? You or a government?    Would the world be a better place if the government took WEB's money after he died? Or should he decided what is to be done with it?  I'd much rather it go to charity and his children then to the IRS.  People are painting with a pretty wide brush here.  Yes, some who inherit money are irresponsible and stupid, but many people are that way even when they have next to nothing.  I find it hard to beleive that inheritance ruins people's lives, it is more likely they would have been just as lazy and stupid regardless.

 

--Eric

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I find it hard to beleive that inheritance ruins people's lives, it is more likely they would have been just as lazy and stupid regardless.

 

--Eric

 

 

Exactly Eric. 

 

I've heard it well described as "money doesn't make you better or worse, it just makes you "more so""

 

Money just amplifies one's existing disposition which is shaped by other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...