Who here can afford to tear down a $12 million dollar mansion?

[ZazaCast]

The voice of reason.

Old houses suck. Heh heh.

Especially when trees fall on them! :shocked:

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

Nobody here is telling people what they must do with their money. People have the right to spend their money however they want. But, just as they have the right to their choices, we all have the right to question those choices. Free will goes both ways.

But who is there to question your moments of binge or excess?

Celebrities are under a constant eye of scrutiny. I've never even heard of this woman - and don't particularly care - but she did earn her money, just maybe not as nobly as someone who invested and saved wisely over a course of a 50-year career.

Why do you feel sad for people who own expensive watches or cars? Unless you know their life story, who are you to judge them? If you know the person - and they straight up are terribly insecure, which belies their need to show off their spending - then, of course, feel sorry for them. But what of the people who own $300,000 cars because they have earned their money and the power that comes with it? Should you feel sorry for them because they're enjoying the fruits of their labor? Of course not.

I just think there is a bit of a double standard here - that someone's purse be greater than yours is a sin if they don't do for charity what you can't. This woman did not steal the money she has; she earned it through legal means. She decides to rebuild her house. A lot of people build or rebuild their own houses. But hers is only ludicrous and selfish because it's more expensive than our houses? Because she could/should donate that money to charity?

Just because she has more money than you or I does not mean she is selfish for spending it. Where is this "line" crossed in her pursuit of happiness? And why do you get to draw it? And why do we have to impress you?

She is doing nothing illegal, and the money spent directly benefits the country, the land, and its people - that's millions going into circulation, which increases GDP and the value of the dollar, benefits the families of many plumbers, carpenters, craftsmen, electricians, designers, and technicians building the house, and raises the property value for resale. To that, why should we not worry about the families struggling in the US, too? This money may benefit them in some way.

Instead of thinking of all the things she is doing wrong, why not consider what she is doing right? Instead of listing how much good she could be doing in your eyes, why not think about the good she is doing in general?

---

I am playing the devil's advocate here. I cannot fathom owning a house that big, nor having the means to tear it down. One day, maybe...

But I present the argument here because it seems so easy to throw darts at celebrities for the size of their pocketbooks, when they earned their money no different from the rest of us, but they are in the wrong for spending it in a way that is sound and legal - yet unethical to someone with less.

 

[Terry_Lasater]

Is Elin crazy? I mean, what is it with celebrities or ex-wives of celebrities. Just buy a house you that suits you like us normal people.

http://zaffit.com/2012/01/06/tiger-...d-swede-demolished-12-million-dollar-mansion/

Yeah, but I think celebrities are one screw loose of common sense.

Chuck,

Just a few observations:

You might want to put a pic or image on your articles instead of the standard "silhouette/I-have-no-pic" image.

Your Twitter contact link at the end of your article is bad.

Here is how a Yahoo writer treated the same story.

Love ya!
T

 

[Jester2138]

Nobody here is telling people what they must do with their money. People have the right to spend their money however they want. But, just as they have the right to their choices, we all have the right to question those choices...

You can question whatever you want but that doesn't make you right.

There's nothing wrong with being comfortable. Having a nice home and a nice car. Treating yourself to something for a job well done. But, somewhere along the way to happiness, a line is crossed. A line between being comfortable and being excessive. Moderate and binge. Responsible and irresponsible.

A peasant from 1428 (heck, even 1928) would look at your life, Kirk Gillock, and marvel at the incredible waste and excessiveness you require to consider yourself "comfortable." He didn't need all that, so why should you?

What people consider "just enough" to be "comfortable" is constantly changing. Living standards have been going up for millennia. You have no more right to criticize a rich persons living style than that peasant has to criticize yours. I guess I've been beating around the bush here, so I'll just say it: I think critics of this person are being hypocritical.

Also, she demolished it because she had to. There were termites.

Also, I think this thread is becoming too political and will be closed shortly.

 

[Barry_Green]

A peasant from 1428 (heck, even 1928) would look at your life, Kirk Gillock, and marvel at the incredible waste and excessiveness you require to consider yourself "comfortable." He didn't need all that, so why should you?

Er, might want to consider who you're talking to before speaking. Kirk Gillock abandoned incredible waste and excessiveness, renounced consumer waste, moved to Thailand and established a charity. His idea of "comfortable" is spending $50/month for his apartment.

Now, in general, you do have a point -- those who decry the "1%" might be shocked to find that they are, themselves, in the 1% - when viewed in terms of the 1% worldwide. But in this specific case, a guy like Kirk who has devoted his entire life to doing good for the truly impoverished in Thailand, well, let's put it this way - Kirk Gillock is living his words.

And yes, you're right -- this thread has become too political, and besides that it's been nicely wrapped up by pointing out that the place didn't meet hurricane codes and was infested with termites so it needed to be demolished anyway.