When is richness indecent? (or our new neighbours)

[Nin]

As you know, I live in Switzerland, close to the Lake of Geneva.

In the last days, the news has been spread over local news-papers that in the village where I live, the hugest and most expensive private real estate sale of Swiss history has taken place: the daughter of the president of Kasakhstan has bought a property in "my" village for the humble price of 74.7 millions of Swiss Francs. (approximatively the same amount in $, around 50 millions of €). Today, I found out, that not only it is in our village, but that actually the property in question is around five minutes of walking distance from our house. We have seen the building of the house between 2005 and 2008 and always called it "the Kreml". It belonged to a Russian businessman before and had costed 19 millions Swiss Francs.

This is the house:

The article is unfortunately in French.

My mind was really blown away by those numbers... Kasakhstan is not a rich country and this woman is apparently a billionaire appearing only for her foundation for education - but how much could be done for education with so much money? I would have understood if Bill Gates bought a property for a sum like this - the USA is a rich country and he made his money - but this richness just revolts me. Where does it come from and who is suffering for it? And how cn someone spend so much money on a house which is of course huge with all comfort, but not so special after all and then yet claim to work for education? What is going wrong there - is it me or is it the world?

Hot that I would not be curious to meet my new neighbours one day...

[Ellienor]

It's gross. The ultrawealthy in the U.S. have kind of a tradition of philanthropy once they are filthy rich, which helps to not be too annoyed by gross excess, but I'm not sure that third world or second world oligarchs do. And plus, I don't think that people like the daughter of the president of Kazakstan earn their money by inventing Microsoft, rather, they abuse their family's position in the government.

Or maybe she did become a billionaire by honest means. In that case, good for her.

[Túrin Turambar]

The article is unfortunately in French.

Not unfortunate at all; I need the practice .

I found an article at the Geneva Tribune that includes a picture. I’ll come back with a more substantitive opinion later (after I’ve read the article), but for now I’ll just observe that it’s a very nice-looking house. Most of these hugely expensive mansions are vulgar.

[Cerin]

I was thinking thoughts about richness the other night while watching my tape of the Golden Globes. I wondered how many of the actors urging viewers to donate to Haiti relief were donating in proportion to the people watching. How much would someone worth hundreds of millions have to donate to match the $20 donation of someone who is juggling money weekly just to meet expenses? And were their pleas to the viewers, or their decision to participate in George Clooney's telethon prompted by guilt?

I remember reading about Noam Chomsky's daughter choosing, to his dismay, to live in grinding poverty in South America because she thought it the only ethical way to live.

I think from my non-rich standpoint that being very wealthy would be ethically burdensome. But then I suspect that I would get used to it pretty easily.

[Inanna]

I would love to get used to being very wealthy.

Jus' saying.

[Nin]

For me, this revolts on several levels: I don't know where her money is coming from, but it not a world-wide known firm or a movie-star... and Kasakhstan is not rich developped country...

The man from whom the house was bought is a Russian business man whose father was a minister under Eltsine - and the family fortune dates from this time.

We have several of those ultra-rich living in the immediate neighbourhood. (this a very requested part of the world, the view is stunning, the safety unmatchable and people leave you in peace, education is excellent, you have everything you want). I have several times heard about houses around 20 million of $ or Swiss Francs in our region, but never a sum like this.

LM, obviously I know the house from the outside (I doubt I will ever see it from within, although my curiosity is unlimited). I pass in the bus and see it every day like on the photo and then of course from the lake, when swimming in the summer.

I don't like it a lot. It's really very, very huge. Lately another property, being almost this huge has been built close by too and it is entirely made of wood and visibly built with ecological consideration (solar cells on the roof etc..). The "Kreml" does not have any of it. It may not be entirely ugly, but it is in Italian style (the cypresses around the house were imported, the trucks blocked the road an entire day) which does not very well fit with the architecture around here. And it is quite show-off, still. Gateway in marble and stuff like that. Not my cup of tea. But then, I am maybe biased because the construction of this thing was every ennoying for us (blocked road so many times and it is so huuuuuuuuuuge).

Another difficult consequence is for the city of Geneva: you find social appartments (HLM in French) which are subventionned. They are excellent quality, but you can only have them with limited income. The, you have high luxury. Mansions for the super-rich are easy to find. Rental or to buy with rents that defy imagination (the house next to ours is rented by Procter & Gamble for 10.000 Swiss Francs per month - it is beautiful hosue with a nice pool, very modern. A rent like this is my whole income!) So, for the upper-middle class, there are no appartments. It's a real problem for the city.

I am somewhat revolted, still, by so much money coming from poor countries.

On the other hand, I know that by this, my village gets loads of taxes, so all community services in the village are excellent. My boy's school is getting renovated and they just installed an ice-skating field. They'll have a ski camp because the village owns a chalet in the mountains which inhabitants can rent for nothing or very low charges. Even we can ask for it for the holidays. There is a children's home in the village, for children who for one reason or another (incarceration of their parents or educational problems) can't stay with their parents. There is a refugee home. The school gets an extra-paid teacher for French lessons for the refugee kids. We pay less taxes than in other parts of Geneva, because community taxes are low (can you imagine the amount of real estate taxes they get only for this sale?). But it does not seem fair to me.

[MithLuin]

No, huge amounts of wealth are not fair.

Ill-gotten wealth is, of course, even less fair than earned wealth, but on some level, so what? Why does Bill Gates get to have billions while most of the rest of the world has practically nothing? That's not fair by a long shot (though it is legal, of course).

Exploiting people to obtain your wealth is a clear cut instance of immoral behavior. It might be white collar crime, but it's still stealing.

But even if you earn your wealth by honest means (or inherit it from someone who did), that still doesn't justify opulence. You still have a responsibility to your fellow human beings...even if they didn't do anything for you.

I know this woman does some sort of philanthropy - as you pointed out, she is involved in some sort of education work. But at the end of the day, she was the one who decided to spend the money on this property and not on something else. That is on her.

I am not in any position to tell her what she should have spent it on, but I will say that wealth is something people are...stewards of. You can decide what to do with it, but if you think it is yours, you're probably mistaken. Very few things in this world are for our own sole benefit.

All that being said, before I point fingers at someone for buying a mansion, I can look at all of my own purchases. Sure, a lot of stuff I need to buy - food, gas, rent etc. But I do spend money on ME, and it's not always on something that is good (for me or others or whatever). I'm just as guilty of ignoring my responsibility with managing my 'wealth', even if we're talking about purchases that are under $100 (104 Swiss francs).

So, at the end of the day, yes, she's irresponsible, but no more so than many other people. Her situation is just more flagrant because it's a larger sum than most people will ever be responsible for, and we are more keenly aware of the needs close to home that 'her people' are facing.

But if you want to know where Kazakhstan's money comes from...oil. They opened up a pipeline to the Black Sea in 2001 and have been doing very well for themselves with international exports. They also are the world's leading exporter of uranium. It's the original home of apples, apparently, which I find cool. I don't know who owns what in the country, of course, but if her family has some connection to the pipeline...I can see why they would have a lot of cash available. This need not be crooked gov't, though that would also explain it.

[vison]

No, huge amounts of wealth are not fair.

Americans are always using that word "fair". Why are huge amounts of wealth "not fair"?

Bill Gates is a good example. Any money Bill Gates has ever made is his money. He should be able to do whatever the hell he wants with it. Any money he ever got from me was voluntarily paid by me for a product or service he provides.

Why does he owe anything to me or anyone else? Why is it wrong for him to "be opulent"?

Twisty unknowns from "the Stans" are another matter.

[Inanna]

I agree with vison. Bill Gates earned the money - he was the one who took the risks to open a fledgling company, the one who worked hard. Why should he not get the returns of his labour?

And if it's his money, he can spend it as he wishes. If he wants a private island, and can afford it, why shouldn't he buy one?

[MithLuin]

I did try to differentiate between dishonest gain and honest gain.

Certainly, Gates earned his money properly. It is his, by any legal way you look at it. And he may therefore do whatever he likes with it. This thread is certainly not the place to launch into a criticism of his business model.

But, are there ways one should or shouldn't spend money, especially surplus money? I think that just because you earn your own money doesn't mean you can do "whatever you like" with it...and still call yourself a decent person. Nin's word choice of indecent was likely much better than mine of unfair, but I was getting at the same concept. At what point are the resources under your right and lawful control to be distributed to others for their benefit? I think the way to answer that question is to not view your wealth as your own, but rather as resources that you are responsible for. You can still choose to be a miser, but that's a bad thing.

I mean, *I* don't get to tell other people what to do with their money (though I can always suggest it!) So this isn't a nosy busybody thing of peering over people's shoulders and critiquing their choices. But it is fair (there's that word again...) to ask what one ought to do, if one finds oneself in possession of a fortune.

Gates doesn't spend his money only on Gates; he set up a very well endowed foundation for philanthropy, so he is working quite diligently to give some of his fortune away, funding various and sundry worthy causes. I do not know what his lifestyle is like, nor do I really care.

But throughout history, people who lived opulently while their neighbors starved have tended to be looked down upon. And while surely plenty of that is just simple envy (which of us wouldn't like to be in the position of deciding what to do with our millions?), some of that is also legitimate. If I were a rich man vs Let them eat cake

Just because it's your money doesn't mean you somehow don't have responsibilities. Which is not the same thing as saying that every wealthy person out there ought to have given generously to the Haiti relief effort. I mean, sure, if you can/do, that's a great thing. It's your call, though. What I'm saying is that there is an underlying principle of 'help other people' that none of us can ignore, and that when wealthy people ignore it...it's more obvious.

[Túrin Turambar]

At what point are the resources under your right and lawful control to be distributed to others for their benefit?

Virtually any spending brings some sort of benefit to others, though. Buying a yacht keeps yacht manufacturers in business and their workers in employment (as Maine discovered when luxury boat taxes were introduced). In some ways, spending is even more effective at enriching others than philanthropy in this regard. Plus it sees an increase in public revenue through sales taxes.

[MithLuin]

Of course, a miser neither spends the money nor uses it for philanthropy.

I didn't say spending was bad. I was saying that wealth should be considered something you have stewardship over, and thus your decision about what the best use of the money should be takes on a broader picture than just "what do I want to do with this money of mine?"

Investments can be a good thing, and thus you'd be considered a good steward for making such good use of the money entrusted to you. I'm not saying that all your money has to be given away to charity. That's...a bit extreme, and really just passing the buck on responsibility. Whatever we choose to do with our money has an impact that we should be aware of. In this case, the community in the Lake Geneva area benefits (at least in some ways).

You can buy a mansion and a yacht if you want to, but just because it was your money doesn't mean that was the decent thing to do.

I realize Nin is uneasy about her new neighbors not just because they bought a fancy house, but also because it's not entirely clear to her where that money came from and what it should have been used for. There is a much more immediate feeling of people being oppressed and what is rightfully theirs being stolen from them so that a few people can live lives of luxury. I was just pointing out that wealth itself (whether obtained honorably or not) has certain responsibilities along with it that shouldn't be ignored. So, even if the individual from Kazakhstan who purchased the house came by the funds in an honest way, one could still consider the purchase indecent, and not just in a sour grapes way.

[vison]

Marie Antoinette, whether she mentioned cake or not (and she didn't) did not "earn" the money she spent. She spent money taken in taxes from the people of France.

Unless a person is using his wealth to buy child prostitutes, it's hard for me to see why he ought not spend it any way he likes and any honest, non-lawbreaking way is "decent".

Why is wealth something you have "stewardship" over? I can understand the concept when it is land you are talking about - such as the great landed estates of England, but that was part of the culture and was not done to be "decent" but to keep the land in the family forever.

Mr. Gates is free to spend or save or give it away and he seems to be doing all three. It's his money.

It's hard to imagine any rich man who earned his money honestly standing by while people around him starved, but if he did, it's still up to him. He might not be very "nice" but that's neither here nor there.

Now, if you are talking about tyrants, despots, thieves, emperors, and the friends they make wealthy? That is an entirely different matter.

[River]

Now, if you are talking about tyrants, despots, thieves, emperors, and the friends they make wealthy? That is an entirely different matter.

And I think that's what has made Nin nervous in this particular case. I'd be hitting the corruption buzzer too.

Is there resentment directed at rich people? Yes. Of course. It is natural to resent and grumble when someone has something you don't. S gets piles of crap from certain quarters of his family when he goes home (not his immediate family thank goodness) because, though he's middle class by US standards, by Serbian standards he's rolling in cash. Never mind he went to school for a long time and worked hard. They still grumble and mumble about how he should "share", or how the rest of his immediate family should "share" or give up part of their inheritance and what not (for the record, S gave up his share in the proceeds of a land sale so his sister could have more...to the chagrin of a scheming aunt :hep:). S also gets teased by some of his friends back in Serbia over the money he obviously spent on his jacket or his shoes or his iPod or his <fill in the blank>. And it's not like he's some sort of party-boy big-spender. He just likes his gizmos and he likes quality stuff and he can pay for it so he does...but a lot of it is out of reach for Serbs still in Serbia. So they grumble and mumble and resent and tease.

It is also natural, when you strongly adhere to a certain moral or religious code, to stand aghast at those who don't. Mithluin clearly believes that dumping wealth into charity is the right thing to do. I've similar feelings, though I also recognize what vison is saying: your money is your money. And even though Gates built himself a technopalace, the Gates Foundation has been doing spectacular work. He's rich enough to have it both ways.

There is one thing I've noticed though. The resentment towards the rich tend to be directed mostly at a certain kind of rich. No one's grumbling and glowering at the millionaires in places like Silicon Valley and Seattle who worked hard and won the start-up gamble. They made something in exchange for that money. They produced things that we have on our computers or in our homes or got shot into our veins at a doctor's office. But then there are the rich people who either didn't do anything other than wait for a family member to lie down and die. Or the bankers who wrapped up vapor and sold it back and forth and back and forth until the system broke, who seemed to acquire their money out of the air and not the work of their hands. Whether it's right or wrong to resent these people, resented they are.

[nerdanel]

Honestly, I think the world would be a far better place if everyone gave their free time and excess money freely for tikkun olam, repairing the world. Most of us do not. Unless we ourselves are giving all that we can, why spend our time grousing at the wealthy for their displays of lavishness? To be sure, it seems as though it should be so easy for them to accomplish so much by using their money for altruistic purposes. Then again, it is far easier for us to self-righteously criticize them than to diligently use our excess time and money for altruistic purposes.

I don't know. To be honest, the tone of this thread bothers me simply because it is easy to sit in judgment of people richer than oneself -- specifically, what they should be doing to help people poorer than oneself. I don't see what purpose the inquiry serves.

For a lot of poor people out there (take Haitians for instance, this past week), I'm sure that we - virtually all of us on this messageboard - seem to be the ones living lavishly, in great comfort, thinking too little of what we can do to help the less fortunate. I'm more interested in that conversation, because it is less comfortable for us to have, allows us less basis for righteousness - and also is something over which we have control (cf. the choices of the very rich).

[Túrin Turambar]

For a lot of poor people out there (take Haitians for instance, this past week), I'm sure that we - virtually all of us on this messageboard - seem to be the ones living lavishly, in great comfort, thinking too little of what we can do to help the less fortunate. I'm more interested in that conversation, because it is less comfortable for us to have, allows us less basis for righteousness - and also is something over which we have control (cf. the choices of the very rich).

Bingo. I find that, no matter how wealthy or poor they are, they seem to draw the ‘indecently rich’ line a little above themselves. They could never be so well-off as to be under an obligation to use their money to help others, but someone who makes a bit more is. I was actually thinking about how decadent the meal I enjoyed tonight would seem to people living in third-world poverty, and all the recent talk of Haiti even made me feel almost guilty about it at one point. After all, I did nothing to deserve to be born in a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world. But it’s unlikely that giving everything up beyond a level of comfortable subsistence would help others to anywhere near the degree that would deprive me.

[Teremia]

Wow, Lord M -- I just clicked on this thread to write the very post you just wrote (except my last sentence would have been different).



So, visitors to this thread, please read Lord M's last post twice, the second time without the last sentence. The second time is signed "Teremia, Plagiarist and Echo."

[MithLuin]

I'm with Lord M and nel - if we're here having this conversation, we're probably considered wealthy by good chunks of the world. And, whether or not we are, we still have responsibilities to our fellow human beings.

I'm the one who raised the question of whether or not honestly obtained wealth carried responsibilities (ill-gotten gains obviously have their own issues), and I also brought up in that post that such standards don't just apply to 'people who are wealthier than me.' The whole point is that if other people are responsible for what they own, then so are we.

It's really not a 'donate to charity' thing, though. It's more just a 'be responsible' thing. Sometimes, that means giving charitably. But it's also not the case that you can earmark some money for charity and then do 'whatever you want' with the rest. You should be responsible with all of it. If you are going to buy your own island...you are then responsible for that island.

The mindset of the people River brought up is not uncommon, but it is part of a class divide. If you're middle class, the money you earn is your money, and you can do what you want with it. While you can talk about it a little, it's not considered polite to talk about it too much. If you're poor, money you come by (whether by winning the lottery or working hard) is meant for the needs of the community. Discussion of money matters is much more open. So, if you have money and someone else needs money, it's assumed you'll give it to them...and that when you need money, someone will similarly come through for you. Very different mindsets.

When you jump classes, it can create plenty of tension. S doesn't have to apologize for who he is, but people will resent success...and cry foul that he's not playing by their rules any more.

[Aravar]

If you go to GlobalRichList.com you can find out exactly where you are in the global pecking order, based on income.

Just as an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than his doctor, so a rich person is always someone with somewhat more than oneself.

[yovargas]

I am amongst the top 4.33% richest people in the world.