The $38,000 hand bag: if you had more money, how would your lifestyle change?

[hedgehog]

How much money is enough?

[Marrah_G]

1. I could never spend that much on a pocketbook

With so many people in need, I don't understand how people can do that without feeling incredibly greedy and guilty.

[Bunnahabhain]

5. Where do you draw the line?

I personally do not ever foresee me spending 38k on something like this. I mean, do I have 38k I could spend on this? Yeah, sure, but 38k means something to me relative to my income. To Oprah 38k is like losing a $5 bill. So where do we draw the line? Do you feel incredibly greedy and guilty if you go out for a nice dinner? I mean, a nice dinner with drinks and bottle of wine? Know how many people in need that could feed?

We all probably do things that someone else could deem outrageous given the needs of others but I think the dollar amounts are relative based on income and/or net worth.

[Marrah_G]

10. An expensive dinner out to me would be 100 bucks

I understand where you are going with the questions and it's not a game I intend to play.

38,000 for a hand bag is excessive and disgusting. Period. It just is.

[Bunnahabhain]

12. 100 bucks could feed a lot of mouths

You might consider this "a game" but it's not. We all tend to judge things by our own yardsticks, and IMO, that's an important thing to keep in mind to remain humble morally speaking. When I was growing up I can remember my mother telling me how it cost .45 cents for my little sister and I to ride the rides at a harvest fair. That has stayed with me for 30 years as I was in shock she would spend so much on the temporary happiness of my little sister and I. I now pay over $2 for a Starbux every morning. Something I like to keep in mind when counting my blessings and determining what my charity budget will be for the year.

[Marrah_G]

15. Not playing your game.

If you cannot understand the difference between 100 dollars and 38000, I just don't know what to tell you. But I think you do know the difference.

[Bunnahabhain]

19. Of course there is an absolute difference

but I'm pointing out our personal yardsticks. It's an exercise of self reflection so it makes many uncomfortable.

[Orrex]

31. It's an exercise in distraction that attempts to hide the real issue

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

According to the rules of your game, we need only find the most indigent, the most disadvantaged person in the world, and the rest of us can go screw ourselves.

The real issue is the hyper-concentration of vast wealth and the society-wide strangling effect that such concentration has upon the economy. The proposed $100 would not make a significant, longterm impact to any family in the US. The actual $38,000 could fundamentally transform the lives of a family of four.


Any call for "self reflection" in this context is patronizing and an insult.

[Bunnahabhain]

57. That's your opinion

Mine is different. This is nothing more than the nosy old neighbor lady "tch, tch'ing" at people. Oprah, by all accounts, has been very philanthropic.

[Orrex]

59. No, it's simple math

You're trying to make someone feel guilty about spending $100, so in that sense I agree that you're acting like "the nosy old neighbor lady." But you gloss over a dubious $38K purchase because Oprah gives to charity.

Well no shit. She could give 99.99% of her wealth to charity and still be richer than the vast majority of people in the US. If she weren't "very philanthropic," then she'd be an astonishingly greedy asshole.


It's incredible to me that your answer to an observation of wasteful and rampantly frivolous spending is to scold someone else for spending a tiny fraction of that amount.


Tch, tch indeed.

[Bunnahabhain]

64. The point? You missed it.

But that's fine.

[Orrex]

65. No, I got it, such as it is.

Don't blame me if you your point was more pointless than you hoped.

[KittyWampus]

76. Actually, what this amounts to is YOU determining how much is appropriate for others.

It's one thing to advocate and work towards a fair tax structure. It's another when some few people decide to dictate how much anyone can spend on X or Y.

[Bunnahabhain]

90. Bingo!

As I said we tend to use our personal yardsticks to measure these things. There's no question 38k for a purse is pretty damn extravagant. I'm an atheist but sometimes a quote from the bible has a certain amount of truth. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Orrex]

95. Yeah, but you use your yardstick to beat up the less wealthy person

Rather than agreeing in your first post that the $38K could have been spent much better than on a purse, you went out of your way to criticize a person of much lesser means. Then, while faulting this person, you criticize others who take issue with Oprah's ridiculous expenditure.


You can decorate your smugness with whatever righteousness you see fit to dredge up, but in the end you're still advocating for the super-wealthy to the detriment of the much less financially secure.

[Orrex]

91. Uh, nope.

If the poster sees fit to criticize the expenditure of $100 (i.e., "to determine how much is appropriate for others" to spend), then it is reasonable to ask why that poster doesn't equally criticize the expenditure of $38,000.

This is especially true because the scolding point was made that $100 would feed a lot of mouths. No doubt it would, but $38,000 would feed at least 380X as many mouths.

I am calling for consistency of criticism. You are serving as apologist for the wild expenditures of the super-weathy.


In the end, we all choose who we defend and for our own reasons.

[Bunnahabhain]

94. Yup, now I'm sure you missed the point.

My comments on spending $100 for dinner was not serious. It was designed to point out the impact of personal yardsticks when measuring discretionary spending. It is laughable you are "calling for consistency of criticism" when you are missing my point.

[Orrex]

97. Your point isn't what you think it is

You might now claim that it was "not serious," but your post was clearly framed as an insult and a calling-out of the poster to whom you replied, even if that wasn't your "point." Don't blame me for your clumsy execution of your erstwhile witticism.

That kind of post hoc retconning is of no interest to me.

[Bunnahabhain]

99. Contradiction is not an argument either

but you seem to think it is. And if what I have to say is of no interest to you why do you keep replying?

[Orrex]

101. I agree that your posts become less and less worthy of reply

Initially, it seemed that you were actually engaging the subject, but when you played the tired old "I was just joking" card in your last post, you revealed that you were just trolling all along.

Fair enough.

[Bunnahabhain]

103. I did not say I was "just joking."

That is mischaracterizing what I said. I said I was not serious in my criticism. I merely mimicked the original criticism to demonstrate my initial concept of "personal yardsticks." I was not trolling (what a common and lame attempt to dismiss a poster you fail to understand or simply disagree with) but pointing out the nature of personal yardsticks for making moral or ethical judgments.

Carry on!

[Orrex]

106. So you weren't serious in your criticism, but you weren't joking, either

And of course that sort of after-the-fact rug-pulling should never be construed as trolling. Got it.

For the record, I'm not accusing you of trolling because I disagree with you (which I do) or because I fail to understand you (which I don't); rather, I identify your stir-the-pot smugness as emblematic of classic troll behavior, and so I identify it as such.

[Bunnahabhain]

110. Yawn

Really, why do you keep replying to me if this is how you feel? I said from my first post this was about personal yardsticks. I keep trying to redirect it back to this but you want to play games...and then accuse me of trolling! That's rather ingenuous of you.

Edit: Upon reflection I understand your charge of "stir the pot." By not emphatically agreeing I am stirring the pot, right? Nothing but instant and animated high fiving each other in our ethical certitude is acceptable, right?

[Orrex]

114. I reply because you haven't understood my replies

Also, you mischaracterize my statements and then wonder why I reply to correct you.

"Stir-the-pot" does not mean "disagree with someone." In this case, it means that you ignored the actual issue of exorbitant spending by the super-wealthy (and the curious sycophancy of the non-super-wealthy who defend such excesses) and you decided to call out a poster for spending a fraction of that amount. That's stirring the pot.

When your game was identified as such, you then postured yourself as some sort of enlightened moralist presuming to teach us the value of self-reflection. That is also stirring the pot.
You will likely call this a mischaracterization of your intent, but your intent is subordinate to its effect.

You then tried to deploy some "nominal vs. real" doublespeak as if the other poster didn't understand what you were saying. Your smug and patronizing tone is also pot-stirring.


In deference to your super-busy 60-hour work week spent here at DU, I will end this here. You are free to reply, but I am done feeding the troll, so help yourself to the last word.

[Bunnahabhain]

117. I think these are you problems, not me problems.

And I think we can see who the troll is.

[HangOnKids]

77. Yes!

The pointless point!

[avaistheone1]

150. Most of the robber barons were also very philanthropic.

I think the lesson here is that if you are ready to drop $35,000 on a purse, you are being foolish, terribly selfish and it's a sign it's time to step up your philanthropic giving. No purse is worth $35,000, and no one needs a $35,000 purse. Yet there are millions of hungry people in this country without a roof over their head that $35,000 would do a world of good for.

[hedgehog]

115. I'd like to expand on your comment by pointing out that

all too often someone makes the argument that if we divided so-and-so's wealth amongst uswe'd all only get 38 cents each, so what's the point? It's not that any given family would get the $38,000, but that if that $38,000 was in the hands of the lower 99%, it would circulate among them as they exchange goods and services - it would be putting people to work. In the case under discussion, the $100 would go to the cook and wait staff, who would go out and spend it themselves for what they want, and those people would then spend it, etc. We've seen the reverse on the local news many, many times when a local plant shuts down - the cliche accompanying story is to interview local sandwich shops to hear how the owners will have problems now that they've lost so many customers!

In other words, the more families that can go out and spend $100 on a meal, the better off we all are. It makes a significant long term impact on many, many families!

[Orrex]

119. No, you've got it all wrong

Money spent by the wealthy is a Pure Good.

Money spent by the non-wealthy is wasteful and should have been spent on something more worthy, and who the hell are you to tell anyone how to spend money anyway?



See how it works?

[DonCoquixote]

128. The sad fact is

Wealth has gotten go badly distributed that the top one percent blow 100 dollars like it was nothing. One of the great mistakes is that the Upper Middle class thinks they are withing reach of the wealthy. Nowadays, Millionaires are CHUMP CHANGE, and they cannot even afford the better neighborhoods in NYC!

To paraphrase Chris Rock There is a difference between rich and wealth. Rich is an ahtlete, Wealth is the guy who owns the team.

[GalaxyHunter]

42. wow.. $100 could go a long way for someone, and you would waste it on 1 dinner? wow..

[Marr]

67. $38k to Oprah is like $38k.

Money isn't relative. I'm sure she's aware that it's a year's salary for most people.

She can spend her money any way she likes. But she really should realize how obscene that kind of spending will seem to most people.

[Bunnahabhain]

92. I hate having to explain things

Anyone that thinks Oprah spending 38k has the same impact on her personal finances vs. the impact it would have on anyone posting in this thread is not thinking properly. 38k on a purse for Oprah is less of a blip on her personal finances than buying lunch at Taco Bell would be for most of us here.

[Marr]

96. Yes, I learned about fractions and ratios in the fourth grade-- thanks.

Obviously $38k represents less of Oprah Winfrey's overall wealth than it does for the average person. But $38k is $38k dollars, whether you're a hobo or Daddy Warbucks. And Oprah Winfrey surely realizes that, as I said, the cost of that purse is more than most people make in year.

Once again, she's free to spend her money any way she likes. But she should not be surprised that such conspicuous consumption inspires revulsion in the average person.

[Bunnahabhain]

100. Are you sure?

I have yet to conflate nominal vs. real here but that's all you're doing...while denying you're do it. It's kind of an interesting thing to watch.

[Marr]

107. What's got you so upset?

It seems like you're trying to pick a fight, but you aren't making much sense.

[Bunnahabhain]

112. Yes, I am the one not making any sense.

You conflate real with nominal, and while I continually am disambiguating them, I am "upset" and not "making much sense." I would believe the one trying to pick a fight is probably the poster attempting to conflate two distinct and not overly complex terms because the poster disagrees with the point being made.

Just a hunch though.

[Marr]

123. Do you even know what a nominal number is?

You keep using that term, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Bunnahabhain]

127. Yes, I do know what a nominal number is and we are not talking about those.

There is a difference between a "nominal number" and "nominal value vs. real value." You do understand there is a difference and we are speaking of the different concept of values vs. numbers used for labeling or identification purposes, right? I will admit I am using the value terms a bit loose, as nominal value usually is comparing year vs. year in absolute dollars and real values adjust over time for a baseline comparison, but the use is fitting in the concept I'm trying to convey in that 38k for Oprah does not hold the same real value for her as it does for us common mortals.

Just checking here. Let me know if I can help clear things up for you.

[Marr]

129. "A bit loosely"? lol, if that pads your ego, ok.

You're saying that $38k is chump change to Oprah Winfrey. I'm sure it is. But it is also $38k, and I have no doubt that she knows very well that most people don't make that much money in a year. Oprah Winfrey does not live in a different year from you or I. She does not inhabit a different world. She exists in the same world we are in, and $38k here is worth precisely $38k.

[Bunnahabhain]

130. Now you are admiting we're not talking "nominal numbers?"

And head right back to acknowledging the relative value while soap boxing on the nominal value of 38k. Nice work.

We are probably done here.

Oh, and as the median income in the US is over 38k, you're incorrect is saying "most people" don't make that much.

[Marr]

131. Most people don't live in the United States. /nt

[Bunnahabhain]

132. This is getting really silly

Yes, of course, we we talking about the entire world. Now, that REALLY makes a $100 dollar meal in the US mean something in terms of world wide purchasing power to change lives, doing what? Oh yeah, proving my point yet again.

And thus endeth the lesson.

[Marr]

133. I don't use language, um... "loosely".

If I'd meant to say most Americans, I would've said most Americans. You may not have been aware of this, but "people" and "American" are not quite synonyms.

If you have any other vocabulary questions, I'd be happy to address them in this space.

[Bunnahabhain]

134. You win

I'm not good at stupid games. At least I have you sorted out on nominal numbers vs. nominal values. Glad I could straighten you out on that.

Bye.

[gollygee]

66. Would you take a vacation?

I've spent $38k on a car. Is it OK to spend that much on a car? And I've spent money on vacations I didn't really need to take.

I'd rather the super rich piss their money away on stuff like this than hoard it. And she does give a lot of money to charity.

[vankuria]

135. I'd hire someone to carry my stuff around

for $38,000 you'd be giving someone a great job! Seriously, I just bought a purse at K-Mart for $13.99 and I felt a little guilty cause I really didn't need another purse but happened to liked it a lot.

[Whisp]

155. I might start a business with a known designer and

give the proceeds of those ridiculous prices to do some good work with drinking water and health care and tons of other things that can be done.

[midnight]

179. If I had that money I would use it to hire unemployed union people to fix homes for the homeless....

[quinnox]

2. It wouldn't be spending 40 grand on a purse

that is for sure. These top 1% ers don't understand how this looks to "the little people“, they are clueless.

[Eleanors38]

56. Re-plumb, wire, roof, level the house, CACH, left-over toward a new car.

[hedgehog]

3. I'LL kick it off -

I'd love to add an addition to the house, re-do my 40 year old kitchen, put a new roof on the barn and house, maybe fence in the garden with deer proof netting, maybe figure out how to fence the areas my chicken roam, buy a dependable used car.

I have no real idea what all that would cost.

More expensive clothes? Where would I wear them? Ditto, jewelry. I've never been into cars, just transportation.

I'd retire now instead of in a couple years.

The rest would go to other people; my kids, then kids from my town.

[pipi_k]

17. The dream that

will never come true, but it's fun to think of anyway...

I would buy a home closer to the city and keep this one for vacations in the summer. It actually started life some 50 years ago as a small hunting cabin which has been added to over the years.

Give some to the kids. My daughter and her husband are in dire straits right now. He is facing serious surgery next Monday which could potentially kill him. Hasn't been able to work since June. My daughter got fired from her job two weeks ago because she had to take so much time off on account of caring for him plus her son, who is frequently ill.

They were facing a shut off of their electricity because of a $1200 bill. She managed to keep it turned on because her hubby's medication needs to be refrigerated, and then got notified by a local agency that they will pay $900 of the back due bill.

I spoke with her last night, and she was in lots of distress because she has no money for school clothes. Her son is 9 and growing like a weed. I wrote her out a check this morning to help pay for some.

I have what I need...have more than I ever had before in my life.

I would also donate more to various animal sanctuaries, like Wolf Hollow out by the Cape.

I have panic disorder and agoraphobia, so that means no exotic vacations...

Oh well

[ConcernedCanuk]

47. Dreams CAN come true, mine did.

.
.
.

Lived in poverty for almost 2 decades -

Little bursts of income, but short lived.

A recent totally unexpected inheritance allowed me to buy my first home outright,

as well as put money in trust for the future.

Never give up.

CC

[Sotf]

62. Just remember...

There are some who think that you shouldn't be allowed to have received that inheritance.

Saw a post that said property should revert to the state upon death...

[Marr]

68. Got a link to back that up?

I'm not aware of any prevailing opinion here that inheritance should be banned, or even taxed before a certain point. No one begrudges your grandpa leaving you his house. What we don't like, what is in fact unhealthy for the economy and society at large, are the massive piles of wealth that are kept aside for the investor class.

[KittyWampus]

80. Oh, this has been brought up plenty of times. And there are DU'ers who DO begrudge someone

getting grandpa's house at all.

[HangOnKids]

83. Really? Grandpa's house?

You have a link?

[Marr]

88. I'd really need to see some proof of that.

I've never seen such a thing expressed here.

[Sotf]

136. Took my pick...

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3356897

Since a dead person is dead they can not be taxed. They also can not own anything. Everything that was theirs in life should revert to the commons.

[Marr]

138. Huh. Well, one is enough. I don't agree with that individual, and I would

note that the comment was made in a thread that was about 'getting rid of the estate tax' altogether. Still, I asked for one, and you posted it so, thank you.

[Sotf]

139. Cheers...

[LordGlenconner]

160. These are probably the same folks

Who call those who dare to save for retirement greedy capitalists.

[HangOnKids]

82. The old some who think meme

Good fucking grief.

[ConcernedCanuk]

104. My father earned that money

.
.
.

He decided to leave some to me.

Don't worry - the government took a chunk out of it.

Taxed him while he was making it, taxed him on savings interest, and taxed him on capital gains from investments.

Then taxed his assets again after he was dead.

"Saw a post that said property should revert to the state upon death..."

"saw a post" - well - there are lots of posts that are plain doo-doo.

I'm 62, know a whole lot of people - haven't met one yet in person, or on-line that said I shouldn't have been allowed to receive that inheritance.

But I DO know my old landlady that put me through misery for 6 years would agree with you . .

CC

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. My dreams don't involve anyone's death. n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

105. I dreamed of a good life

.
.
.

NOT my parent's deaths.

I never even knew they had that kind of money.

Where did you come up with such a comment?

That's insulting, and you know it.

CC

[LordGlenconner]

161. Most who aren't trying to be overtly difficult knew this

[shenmue]

4. I don't know how much is 'enough'

Though I always thought $30,000 a year would be nice. I've spent all my life earning under that.

I could sure be happy after I paid off my debts, which are considerably less expensive than the handbag in question.

[hedgehog]

6. If you had no debts, health care wasn't an issue, if you had lottery level money

dropped into your lap, what would change?

[NuclearDem]

7. If I had $38k?

Pay off my student loans.

I don't need shiny, expensive things to show off to my friends or family. Anyone who is truly impressed by just that is empty on the inside.

[darkangel218]

151. +1000

Sadly, that's how many live their lifes, through the eyes of the others. Always chasing aproval, and fake, glittery perfections.

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. It probably wouldn't.

I've been in extreme poverty and elevated myself to fairly decent income. My spending habits haven't changed, nor have my social goings-on. I'm more liable to donate money to various causes (game servers, friends), but that's simply because I have the money, not because I'm attempting to flaunt it or anything. What I have now (About 24K/yr) is more than enough, and more than I know what to do with. I (think) I have seven uncashed paychecks that I have yet to cash because I neither need nor want for more.

On the flip side, I've seen money elevate people and then let them slam into the dirt, too. So...

[reformist2]

9. It's stupid - it's just rich people giving other rich people money.

Not that I have a high opinion of Oprah anyway, but this little pr stunt makes me think even less of her.

[dbackjon]

111. PR Stunt?

She asked to look at a bag. Saleswoman looked at her, said "You can't afford that" Racial Profiling that should get people upset, rich or not.

[reformist2]

113. She is a celeb with a movie coming out. Anything that gets her name in the papers.

They all do it.

[CakeGrrl]

165. But the larger point is, it happens to even high-profile minorities

I could be a non-famous but wealthy black consumer, and the point is that they wouldn't get past the color of my skin to decide that a purse is out of my price range.

On what basis do they decide that without knowing what's in my wallet?

I strongly believe that that was less likely, if not UN-likely, to happen to a white patron.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. I certainly wouldn't spend that kind of money on a handbag

I wouldn't mind being the recipient of the sale proceeds, though

If I had a million dollars, I might consider going into semi-retirement now, since, given my current lifestyle, I could live for 30 years on that even without earning any interest.

[abelenkpe]

13. If I had more money

I'd buy a house in a nice neighborhood, spend more time with my kids, put aside enough to send my kids to college and to retire. O what a relief to live in a world where that could happen. Maybe spend a little on a vacation once a year. Haven't had a vacation since 2006. If there was money left over I'd use it to give myself time. Time to get more involved with the community, my kids school, volunteer to help those in need and to help the environment, support the arts, pursue my own art. But that's just me.

Several years ago I interviewed over a hundred people asking a similar question:
"What would you do if you woke up tomorrow and were suddenly two million dollars richer."
(It was for a show that was going to be about lottery winners and how it changes their lives)
The overwhelming majority of responses were similar: A modest improvement in lifestyle for themselves and saving or providing for family.

Clearly I did not interview any millionaires or one percenters....

[hedgehog]

14. Any idea what real lottery winners end up doing with their money?

I have to be honest and say that while I'd like to think I'd do what I said above, but I don't know for certain.

[abelenkpe]

21. The whole show (which did not get greenlit)

was based around the premise that many lottery winners end up blowing, losing or being cheated out of all their winnings in a short amount of time and find themselves in the same economic situation they were before winning the lottery.
The discussions that went on while in development were so interesting!

[Marr]

89. Odd-- I saw a series on... Discovery, I believe... that covered exactly that topic.

I don't know if they were cherrypicking the most ridiculous cases or what, but a common arc had someone winning a nice amount, perhaps $5 million or so, and immediately switching into this cartoonish, Richy Rich lifestyle and blowing it all in a year or two. It was like they had no concept of just how much wealth they actually had, and assumed it was just going to be caviar and yachts for the rest of their life.

[Bay Boy]

93. The Lottery Changed My Life

A guy I know... his good luck wasn't so lucky for him. Leroy and his son are both in jail now.

[Fla_Democrat]

175. Wow, that was a slow motion train wreck.

"I'm disgusted, and repulsed, and...I can't look away."

[abelenkpe]

149. The stories can vary a lot

But I can see marketing pressuring production for more dramatic and outrageous stories

[demwing]

16. "How much money is enough?" - That completely depends on what your goal is.

if the only goal is to accumulate wealth, then no amount of money is ever enough.

[NoOneMan]

18. I wouldn't change my lifestyle

I like the way I roll. If I had enough to pay down a rancher, I think I might fish more. Thats it. No fancy cars. No fancy handbags. Screw thats stuff. Everything is perfect now besides working more than playing (though, not much more)

I think that if people would make significant changes, it is a sign they are not content with their current lifestyle, job and hobbies. I understand when people must work to live. Its a sad state to be forced in. But if you can skim by, you can find a lot of fulfilment all around you. I've specialized in skimming by these last few years, and the fun has really begun

[sakabatou]

20. I'd be able to see my girlfriend an marry her for a start

[opiate69]

22. There's a nice 30+ acre plot of land I have my eye on..

I would have my "dream house" put on it, and my wife would have the alpaca farm she's been wanting. I could make a windfall of about $150-200k work for us.

[MrScorpio]

23. Is Oprah is entitled to spend that kind of money as she pleases?

Well, there's no question that she's earned her personal fortune, which really isn't the same for people who haven't.

As long as we have this economic system which encourages this sort of wealth inequality, it isn't fair to make a judgement like that against people who have legally and morally used the system to obtain wealth. That's especially true for people who do no harm against others in making personal purchases.

Remember, we are talking about someone who has used that wealth to give away expensive items like cars to everyone in her studio audience, she's also a philanthropist and most certainly earned her money through entrepreneurship alone.

Yes, for the rest of us, a $38,000 handbag sounds like an extravagant purchase, because for us, it most certainly is. But for someone who isn't creating more suffering and wealth inequality for the rest of us by that purchase, it's not like there's anything wrong from her doing it.

If as a society, we seek to change the priorities of wealth inequality then, yes, we can validly ask "how much is enough?" But in our current system of societal values, there really is no answer to that question.

[hedgehog]

27. I agree that Oprah has done a lot of good - not only with her money but in how she earned it -

she has helped more people than she knows. She has my respect.

The question of societal values comes back to individual values, I think. As long as in our heart of hearts, we secretly hope to be one of the 1%, we will never get around to redistributing the wealth this economy produces. Even as I type this, I hesitate because wealth redistribution is such a bad phrase to so many people. It's a matter of recognizing that the cleaner who mops the floor in a surgical suite is as important as the heart surgeon who works there. Maybe it's OK for the heart surgeon to earn more, but the person with the mop deserves to at least make a decent living! Toss in that their roles may be reversed if they'd had each other's parents, and the entire attitude of "I worked hard so I deserve this" becomes questionable.

I just re-read your OP and realized that you asked the most succinct question: "Is Oprah entitled to spend her money as she pleases? "

I think my answer is "yes, but"

Yes, but within limits. Even if very wealthy people give to charity, it is important for us to realize that that also is an expression of power. Bill Gates is to be applauded for the money he gives to improve life in the third world. But is anyone comfortable knowing he is also spending money to impose his vision of primary education on the rest of us? At a certain point, and I don't know what that point would be, the money has to be seen as a result less of individual effort and more of a glitch in our economic system. I don't want millionaires donating money to their projects; I think it should be taxed so all of us can decide what direction we want society to take.

[markpkessinger]

61. One thing that has always bothered me about some of the "good" things Oprah does is . . .

. . . the fact that she herself always makes sure the world knows about it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think there is great wisdom in the old ethic of not letting "the right hand know what the left hand is doing."

[gollygee]

70. I don't know

I mean, people would be responding even worse if she hadn't given a lot of money to charity, and she knows that. The super rich should give a lot of money to charity and by her giving a lot, hopefully it encourages others to as well. If we know how much they're giving, then it's incentive for them to give more. I like knowing better than keeping everything under wraps.

[duffyduff]

37. She didn't "earn" it all by herself. That's the problem. NOBODY does.

There is NO such thing as a "self-made" person.

She simply has enough money to hire a slew of lawyers and accountants to help her game the system, just like the Kochs and all of the rest of the filthy rich.

I have yet to see where she has done a "lot of good." Her attempt at creating schools has been a failure and a scandal, her creation of a magazine that glorifies her wonderful self in every issue and is named after her, not to mention her very "own" (no pun intended) television network, attests to her monstrous ego.

There is not a whole lot there to admire.

[MrScorpio]

52. So are you saying that she's not entitled to her personal wealth?

That she's the same as people who have done nothing more than inherit their money? You are aware that she built her own media empire from scratch, right? Whether or not she's had systematic help or assistance from people whom she's hired is a moot point.

Sure, she has tried and failed at certain endeavors, but who on this planet is %100 successful at everything that they've done?
But most certainly, she's entitled to self promotion with her own money, but who else isn't?

America was built on ego, my friend. Anyone who doesn't wish to add to her coffers can most certainly choose not to, which is your choice of course.

[gollygee]

69. This isn't a fair assessment

The school scandals were not caused by her. There were employees who were abusive, and she didn't know about it. Her biggest mistake there was giving so much money to create this wonderful school and then not making sure there was oversight to make sure it was run well. But she wasn't personally behind the abuse.

And she names stuff after herself because her name is also now a brand and people buy stuff if it's associated with her. That's called marketing. Put her name on a book associating it with her book club, and it'll be on the best seller list. She is good at marketing.

[Neoma]

24. Pay off debt and put the rest in savings.

I couldn't ask for more than that.

[Bunnahabhain]

25. My lifestyle would completely change

I would go from working 50-60 hours a week, because that's what my job requires, to not working. I would spend my time exercising and pursuing my hobbies as well as spend every minute that I can with my family.

[Safetykitten]

26. Well, my posts here would change dramatically...

I would:

Love the way the people at retail joints and big boxes have jobs and have not a care in the world on how I got my "stuff".

Would post endlessly about how there are places for people like you, you being the no NC, no financial resources, beaten into the ground from the recession person you are, and you probably deserve all the problems you have anyway.

And on the recession, what recession? Did we have a recession?

I would become a clip-hoarding fiend that would constantly post clips en masse to prove a point that has already been shown as a farce, but hopefully try to convince people otherwise.

My Prius would be a major topic.

Freely give HC/Obamacare advice even though I myself have insurance, and belittle all others who question the best HC plan EVER!

Not understand posts about money and who does not have it.

Not get the "can't get a checking account" gig.

Muse about why people who are poor, well why they ARE poor.

Encourage homeless people to move to other places sans palm trees.

Post about Hillary being President.

[knitter4democracy]

28. Enough to get out of debt.

I'd pay the divorce/custody lawyers off, pay off the cards I have needed when things got really tight money-wise, pay off the kids' colleges ahead of time, and pay for all of my master's degree.

That would be awesome.

[hollysmom]

29. if it were for sale for charity, and I had money

I would consider it.
I would like to not feel guilty spending 50 for a blouse like I did when I had a job (retired) I just rarely buy anything besides jeans and t-shirts and socks and underwear now. Coats and jackets are very old, but still serve the purpose. Ditto purses.

But if I had money, I would spend more time travelling and stay at better motels. And would pay for my niece and nephews college bills.

[MrSlayer]

30. I don't know that there's ever enough.

But if I had serious money I'd have a major league recording studio, finance my own tours with major artists and spend my downtime at Disney World and traveling.

Wealth is freedom.

[LWolf]

32. I would have:

1. A roof that didn't leak

2. Plumbing that worked

3. Electrical lines that worked

4. Phone lines that worked

5. Light fixtures that worked

6. A bathtub that worked

7. Subfloors that weren't rotten

8. Adequate flooring

That would be a good start.

[hedgehog]

34. So you would be happy with this:

and not be lusting for this:

[GalaxyHunter]

43. I would love the second picture!

[hedgehog]

118. Not me! All I can think of is how much time it would take to clean the

"luxurious" bathroom! As long as I'm on two feet, I can't see anyone else cleaning my house!

[GalaxyHunter]

120. Well if I had the money I would just hire someone to clean my house!

[Tree-Hugger]

49. I prefer the first one

I would just add a shower curtain and some color.

The second one is totally fugly, in my opinion. I hate marble. And why the need for all that space in your bathroom? Line dancing?

[LWolf]

53. Of course.

That top picture is decadent luxury compared to what I deal with now.

The bottom? That could have been a whole apartment, at least space-wise, back when I was a single mom raising 2 kids.

[grilled onions]

84. I Would Love A Handicapped Bathroom...

complete with a shower that would allow a shower seat to be wheeled in. We tend to think of needs but not anything showy. A second toilet would be a luxury as would new bathroom fixtures. Most have very "dull" wish lists which is the point. They want things they can truly use and not just build to have their bathroom on the front page of "Remodeling Upscale".

[JI7]

142. prefer the one with the toilet

[taught_me_patience]

33. I'll be honest and say I'd buy a lot more and nicer stuff

A nice home on the beach, Mercedes E550, nice clothes, and lots of vacations for the family (those really get expensive). I'd guess that an income of $2,000,000/yr would be the really high end of "enough".

[Phillyindy]

35. I fantasize about...

...having enough money to have a voice. Enough money that I could go after the oligarchy publicaly and furiously. Oh I sit and dream about it...

[1-Old-Man]

36. I'd build a more efficient house, not bigger, just better. Bigger tractor and welder maybe.

Oh, and I'd build a bigger equipment building and maybe a place to cure firewood under shelter. I'd make a big donation to our local Cancer Center too. Other than that I'd give it to some friends who could use some help and my children and grandchildren. If I had a whole bunch of money I'd start a scholarship fund to help young people out with college. Anything that was left after that I'd use to support progressive candidates for office - who knows, some of them might even turn out to be Democrats.

[hunter]

38. Wouldn't make a dent in our medical debt and student loan debt...

Fewer collection calls, maybe?

I think the U.S. economy is as screwed up as, say Greece. Wealthy people here do not pay enough taxes to keep the economy stable.

There are a few differences between the U.S. economy and Greece: the U.S. controls it's own currency, oil is traded in U.S. dollars, our people are easily mollified, and our massive military machine makes other nation's reluctant to exploit weaknesses in our financial empire.

Obama's most delicate job is keeping this house of cards standing.

[GalaxyHunter]

39. I would take cruises all over the world! Probably buy my own island.

Build a nice house on that island for my family and I.

[noamnety]

40. I wouldn't blow that kind of money on a purse.

I have two purses. One I got on clearance from kmart for $5. It's super small, convenient sometimes, but awkward if I don't have pockets because it's too small to hold both my wallet and keys.

My other purse is a bit larger, it was a christmas gift and the person who have it to me got it at a thrift shop. That one's big enough to hold a few extra items so I've been using it more often.

I had some others I got as gifts, nothing fancy, but I donated them to a resale fundraiser at school.

But one thing I know - even if my goal was to highlight racism, I would be embarrassed to raise the issue by talking about how I was discriminated against while shopping for $38,000 purses.

I wouldn't even know how to approach that conversation: "I feel discriminated against when people look at me and assume I don't have $38k to fritter away on a purse." Even with the racism, which is a real thing, at some point the first world problemx1000 aspect eclipses the racist aspect.

[laundry_queen]

41. I would buy nicer stuff

but that stuff would be handmade and purchased mostly directly from people around the world (thank you etsy!) trying to make a living. If it was unable to be handmade, I would research and purchase from the most ethically sound company. I would probably buy organic foods (I try to now, but organic is more than double the price where I live). I would probably purchase land so I could grow my own food. I would donate excess to the food bank. I'd buy an electric vehicle.

What I wouldn't do: I wouldn't buy expensive useless crap from super rich companies. If your handbag costs more than the average yearly salary of teachers, you are being unethical, IMO. A nice $200 purse sewn by a work-at-home artist is every bit as beautiful, IMO, and far more ethical. My lifestyle would become more centered around making other people's lives better.

[Tree-Hugger]

45. Well....

$38,000 a year is downright wealthy to my family. We're currently hovering under $20,000 for a family of four.

If we suddenly came into a ton of money, we would get off food stamps. I would pay off my student loans and my car. I would pay off our medical bills. I would get my brakes fixed on my car so it can pass it's very long overdue inspection.

We would get our first home. I don't want anything huge and I prefer a ranch-style house. I want my kids to be able to have their own rooms, plus a nice yard for play. I would like a decent sized kitchen with good counter space. I would splurge on a Kitchen Aid mixer. I would also splurge on making the home energy efficient and putting in gardens. I would love to grow my own food and have a buttload of flowers.

Big splurges would be a vacation to Massachusetts. It used to be our yearly tradition until we were financially shit on. I would also get a YMCA membership and memberships to local museums and such.

We would definitely put a lot into savings. We would also give to charity. That has always been a big value of ours and it's very important to our family. More money would mean we would be able to give more.

I'd also help my parents out and take a vacation to see my brother.

I would also probably get a decent night's sleep because I would not be up worrying about whether we would make this months rent, car, and utility payments and how we're going to survive, etc. That would probably be the greatest lifestyle change.

[hlthe2b]

46. Not like that... I would never want to live like the top 1%, but I'd surely like to have the money

to be fully comfortable --along with friends/family and to establish a foundation to do some good for the rest of my life.

I'd not stop working, either, though I might modify what I'm doing.

[ohheckyeah]

48. I certainly wouldn't live the lifestyle of the rich and famous...

gheesh, dressing up has never been something I wanted to do. Jeans and boots are my favorite attire. If I suddenly had a lot of money I might splurge on a couple of pairs of Dan Post boots but mainly I would want to fix up my house. I don't need or want a bigger house but I would like solar panels. I'd probably put hardwood in the bedrooms to match the rest of the house.

The only big splurge would be a Corvette for my husband. He's always wanted one.

If I had lots of money, I would hire lobbyists for a number of issues.

[Ian David]

50. I'd be happy with a modest home that was fun and comfortable.

Some luxuries like a master bathroom with a hot tub. A game/rec room. A dedicated dining room. A Hot Chicks Room. Four bedrooms, an office, a solarium, enclosed patio, a castle tower, and a wrap-around porch on the second floor.

I'd also install geothermal heating and cooling, solar panels, and maybe a wind turbine. I'd also have a gray water recycling system. And charging stations for my electric and hybrid-electric cars.

If I was obscenely wealthy, I'd commission the Tesla company to design me an all-electric stretch limo with solar panels on the roof.

And I'd have a comfortable house on my property for my staff, all of whom would be unionized and paid a living wage with benefits under the household's corporation. There would be a chef, a housekeeper, a groundskeeper/gardener, a driver/personal shopper, and an aquaculturist to tend to the koi and tilapia ponds.


http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/apcd4d/upright-citizens-brigade-hot-chicks-room

[valerief]

51. Enough for what? nt

[Zorra]

54. I have a great life, and have more than I need, which is relatively little.

I have seen first hand, close up and personal, all too often, what having too much money does to some people.

When Power Goes To Your Head, It May Shut Out Your Heart
by Chris Benderev
August 10, 2013 7:41 AM

"What we're finding is power diminishes all varieties of empathy," says Dacher Keltner, a social psychologist at University of California, Berkeley, not involved in the new study. He says these results fit a trend within psychological research.

"Whether you're with a team at work [or] your family dinner, all of that hinges on how we adapt our behaviors to the behaviors of other people," he says. "And power takes a bite out of that ability, which is too bad."

The good news, Keltner says, is an emerging field of research that suggests powerful people who begin to forget their subordinates can be coached back to their compassionate selves.

That said, I am quite sure that I would travel more if I had more money. One thing that is really a lot of fun to do when traveling in Third World countries is to walk the streets of cities and towns and give money to the folks who are sitting on the sidewalks begging. Especially the single moms, blind folks, and folks with no legs, etc. Seriously, it is a major hoot, I highly recommend it. It's actually kind of selfish, in a way, because the relief, disbelief, and joy you see when a desperate person gets a 200 peso note in their cup is a total endorphin rush.

But, well, ya know, if someone desperately feels that they need to own a $30,000 pair of shoes, or eat a $10,000 dish of caviar extracted from fish that are going extinct, who am I to criticize?

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. I've lived on that bag for the last three years

but I'm not the bag lady

[BainsBane]

58. I'd travel a lot

So that would mean a significant change in my lifestyle.

[Mnemosyne]

60. I am basically a hermit, not much change except I wouldn't worry about being able to pay bills,

or worry anymore about helping people in need enough.

My life is simple and would not give it up for anything.

[Puzzledtraveller]

63. 38k is 10k more than what I make in a year as a case worker.

[darkangel218]

72. I would like to have a few mil. I would open up non kill shelters for stray dogs and cats

And I would also open a METAL club

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. For some people, no amount is ever adequate.

For many people with good mental and physical health and good life skills, an income of 150% of FPL can be more than adequate.

I have enough net worth for a nicer car and a more expensive house, but my 250k mile subaru is perfectly adequate.

If I had more money, my charitable giving would become biased toward giving money rather than time.

I would not trade more of my life hours simply for more immediate income.

[gollygee]

74. Do we even know she knew how much this bag cost?

We're outraged she would even ask to look at a bag, but I've been at high end shops, and things don't have price tags prominently displayed. She might have liked the look of it and asked to look at it but not even have known how much it cost. She knows walking into any store that she can afford anything in that store, so there's no reason she wouldn't ask to look at anything she liked the looks of.

Also, I'd rather see rich people pissing away money than sitting on it. Get it back into circulation, even if you're buying something stupid.

She does give a lot of money to charity. It isn't like she keeps all her money, doesn't pay her employees well, is a miser, and doesn't care that people suffer.

The bag is named after Jennifer Aniston, who has one, and I haven't seen a thread complaining about HOW DARE Jennifer Aniston have a $38,000 bag, and she actually has bought one. Oprah never bought this purse and might very well have not known how much it cost when she asked to buy it. It could be that she'd see the price and say, "No purse is worth $38k" and might have moved on to look at something else.

This whole outrage over Oprah daring to look at an expensive purse pisses me off. She can look at whatever the hell she wants.

[Phentex]

143. She tweeted this...

Turns out that store clerk did me a favor. Just found out that bag was $38K!!! She was right I was NOT going to buy it.


======

Sounds to me like she did not know the price. I'm with you . Many places don't even have tags and the feeling is if you have to ask, you can't afford it, lol.

In other news, Oprah constantly ranks as one of the highest contributors to charity and a ton of her money is used to make more money for charity. Still, some people here won't be satisfied until they know she is eating beans and rice every night.

[gollygee]

144. Thank you for the tweet

In other news, I'm still reading on DU about the $38k purse Oprah bought. It's like people are looking for excuses to trash her. She asked to look at it so she must have bought it? She wasn't even allowed to look at it so she wouldn't have been able to buy it. Logic isn't even being used here.

[Orrex]

145. I'm sure that she thought it cost $200 like all the other bags in that store

What a comic misunderstanding, that she should select the one bag out of dozens that would cause an international scandal!

[gollygee]

146. They probably have some that cost up to a few thousand even

But they only make a few really high end bags like that thinking it'll be newsworthy. Most would be a few hundred, a few would be over a thousand, maybe up to a few thousand. They certainly aren't all $38k.

[Orrex]

148. Again, though, it's amazing that she managed to hit the bullseye

What are the odds of picking the preposterously overpriced sack out of a pile of bargains?

[darkangel218]

156. I dont buy it. I think her tweet is damage control.

Probably she saw a lot of people being outraged by her attempt to buy such an expensive purse, and now she's saying she didn't really mean to buy it.

[Phentex]

164. the time line does not work...

and she did NOT attempt to buy it because SHE WASN'T ALLOWED TO LOOK AT IT.

Oprah does not need damage control. She's not Paula Deen.

[darkangel218]

166. Every business/public person will resort to damage control if needed. nt

[Burma Jones]

75. I'd quit my job and volunteer my work hours to make things better.....

Talk to folks at Hospices that may be there alone.
Clean Toilets at places that deserve to have that sort of thing done for free.
Teach/Tutor
Work for those that can't any more, like yard work for elders and the injured.

That would replace the 9-5 stuff I do now.

Well, I'd also do the books for my Wife's Yoga Studio

I'd still spend those hours when the kids aren't in school with my family.

[elleng]

78. a cottage by the river

http://smd.craigslist.org/apa/3907272842.html

[tabbycat31]

79. I would replace my car

Go from driving a 14 year old car with 225K to a new one.

Bank the rest for my next car. That's about all that would change.

I have absolutely no desire to own a home. I don't want the work that goes with it.

[gollygee]

81. I'd surprise all my employees with a new iPad and $10k each

That would be a nice thing to do if I were rich, wouldn't it be?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/16/us-wealth-oprah-idUSTRE65F6X020100616

[MotherPetrie]

85. Not much, probably. Just would have more peace of mind about ability to pay for long-term health

care if necessary for me or my loved ones, as well as being able to keep my house in good repair. Status symbols don't mean a fucking thing to me. I would love to be able to spend lots of money on supporting animal welfare groups.

[Cleita]

86. I could do with more income. I find when you have to often

finish your month expenses on a credit card, you don't have adequate income to live on even with a frugal budget. That's why a $38,000 clothing accessory seems obscene to many of us. Since I live on social security, each rise in gas and food prices, each rise in health care costs are not adequately covered by COLAs and now that chained CPI on the table, it makes things even bleaker. I'm sure whichever woman can afford to throw away money because she's too rich to pay more than 15% of her income in taxes on expensive items to decorate herself with doesn't think of those things at all.

One thing for sure though is that I will never be fat because I don't have enough money to overindulge in overeating.

[Vashta Nerada]

87. I like how people say they will never change.

Everyone changes when they get extra money.

How much is enough? Well, the basic answer is it's enough when you can feed yourself and your family, as well as to be able to provide for them and to pay your bills and to put some into savings/retirement. That number varies among families.

[Warpy]

98. I have enough

If somebody dumped a hundred million on my back, I'd be looking for ways to give the overage away. I really don't want that kind of burden.

Unfortunately the dollar amount is different for everybody. The usual figure given for "enough" among bottom tier workers is $50,000/year.

When the brunt of the collapse hit in 2009, I started to see things like designer handbags at yard sales. The owners thought they'd still get designer prices for them and be able to meet the mortgage payment that month. They were wrong, the things sold for what a decent used bag from JC Penney would have sold for, and they were also shocked.

The difference between this and the absolute upper wealth holders is that everything the top buys is art, mostly one of a kind objects and specially made for them. That extends to their ball point pens and toilet paper holders. There is no difference in function between those and Bic pens and paper holders from Wally's. Or handbags from JC Penney or Etsy. The only difference in the items is in name and price, chosen arbitrarily by the rest of the 1%.

If Oprah shopped at Penney's, the rest of her crowd would make fun of her just like a clique of mean kids in high school. So she pays $38,000 for a stupid handbag when it would be cheaper to hire somebody to follow her and carry all her junk so she is unburdened.

Now that would be real conspicuous consumption.

[Drale]

102. I don't think it was change my lifestyle that much

except that I would have more awesome useless nerdy stuff laying around my house that I love but don't really need. lol

[DinahMoeHum]

108. That $38K handbag would probably fetch only 50 bucks. . .

. . .in a pawnshop. . .

[B2G]

109. My god. She didn't even buy the purse.

Are you offended that the purse even exists?

[hedgehog]

121. Yes - I am offended that such a purse exists! It's a prime example of conspicuous consumption!

[jmowreader]

116. If I suddenly fell into huge money (9 figures) I would do this...

I would start another one of these threads. Then pick the three most absolutist "my lifestyle would never change, my life is perfect as it is" respondents, hire a detective to find out where they bank, and drop an unexplainable $10 million in their checking accounts...just to see how fast they call the realtor, the Apple Store, the best clothier in town and the Lamborghini dealer.

Large money would change anyone. I am sure everyone here would set up annuities, give some away etc., but you'd also get a house with a working roof, cars that were made during the Obama administration and shirts with all the buttons still on them.

[arely staircase]

122. If I were a multi-millionaire I still would never buy clothing or accessories that cost 38 grand

I would certainly have a bigger house, but not a giant mansion. A large piece of land for privacy would be more important. I would probably drop 100 grand on some kind of BMW or Mercedes. Mostly I would travel. I like going places and seeing and experiencing things more than owning stuff. I might drop a couple of grand on a watch. I have never owned a really nice watch.

As far as charities, I would mainly donate to shelters for battered women and programs to ease poverty both here and abroad.

[Douglas Carpenter]

124. unless the hand bag contains a genie that would grant me three wishes - I cannot see ever spending

that amount on such an accessory no matter how much money I had

[Egalitarian Thug]

126. My cars would be restored much more quickly and my passport would

be more worn.

I'd have more animals, too.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

137. I would buy an electric car, have solar panels installed and maybe a windmill

I can't afford those items now.

[Luminous Animal]

140. I'm not a "thing" person or a status person, over the years when my income has increased

what has changed in my life is that: I donate more to political orgs, I give more to my neighbors who live on the street, I buy more drinks for my friends, and I BBQ or cook dinner more extravagantly for my friends.

I really think that the only thing that would change is that I would send my clothes out to be repaired rather than doing in myself. I enjoy sewing new things but I find repairing lining, sewing on buttons, re-hemming and replacing zippers very dull.

[Major Nikon]

141. Ball washer

[Katashi_itto]

147. Besides the money, I just need a Volcanic Island, an underground lair, a bevy of

beautiful, but deadly female assasins and a plan for world domination.

A plan likely involving John Ford purses with seceret mind-controling hypnochips built into them so I can control the 1%.

[LittleBlue]

152. $38k for a leather bag while people struggle to get by

A f***ing disgrace.

The million dollar bag can't be far off.

[darkangel218]

153. A few days ago i heard on the radio that Kim Kardashian and her hubby

spent $800K on gold toilets in their new mansion.

There is no end in how far some go in wasting money.

[Whisp]

154. I hope I would never be dumb enough to buy something at that price

even is I won a trillion.

so much better things to spend on like beer and every rpg game in the universe.

[darkangel218]

157. Right on!!

[Spirochete]

158. I'd start out more simple

Like, perhaps a $6500 keychain, $1200 hat, stuff like that. Then maybe a little conspicuous consumption - within reason...

[Taitertots]

159. What is the difference between a $38,000 purse and a $500 purse?

Does it come with a $37,500 block of gold with it?

The only difference for me would be more vacations and a couple exceptional cars. Veyron Grand sport Vitesse, Zonda Revolucion, Fiesta GRC spec, Bowler Range Rover, and a highly modified 1968 Chevy Truck. Anything beyond that would just go to philanthropy.

At least with hypercars, you know the cost reflects the cost of production and it will hold it's value.

[RB TexLa]

162. It wouldn't except I would earn more interest and dividends each month.

[NoPasaran]

163. If I was rich

I would never wear the same socks twice.

[darkangel218]

167. lmao!!!

[kiawah]

168. I'd get that fur lined sink that I've been eying up.... n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

174. lol

[Bettie]

169. Better vacations!

More money means a nicer house (we've moved up over the years), but nothing terribly lavish.

A new car every so often.

College for the kids without bankrupting ourselves.

We laugh when we see CEO's getting paid millions because if we had enough to live on for the rest of our lives, we'd not be working. I don't see why people need so very much.

But, we live comfortably, now that DH is making a bit more than he ever has before, we go to the movies more often and are able to give a little more to others.

[burnodo]

170. I'd give more money to charity

and give my family money...maybe some friends

[Th1onein]

171. If I had more, I'd give most of it away.

I already give away a lot. If I had more, I'd give more.

[darkangel218]

172. + 1000

...

[phylny]

173. We are so fortunate in that we're financially stable.

If I had a ton more money, say like a lottery windfall, I'd still stay in the same house, but pay someone to sow clover near the lake instead of the dirt and sticks that are there now, I'd fence in the yard for the dogs so they could run and have more fun, and I'd have less worry, I'd pay off our mortgage and our daughter's grad school debt and son-in-law's undergrad college debt, put our youngest through grad school, and buy all three of our daughters a house when they wanted. I'd help my brother and my sister-in-law who are both really struggling financially, and put all the nieces and nephews through college as well. I probably would keep working, but reduce my hours, which I'm planning to do in 1.5 years anyway.

I'd eventually replace my 2005 Honda CR-V which has 212,000 miles on it, but not yet - it's still running

[glinda]

176. That would buy my surgery. That would be enough.

[Just Saying]

177. As very wealthy acquaintances of mine once said "It's never enough."

Personally I agree with Forrest Gump's mom, "There's only so much fortune a man really needs and the rest is just for showing off."

[otohara]

178. I'd Generously Pay Someone to Cook

dinner.

I'm so tired of cooking - it never ends.
shop, prepare, cook, serve, enjoy, cleanup... repeat.

[Vinnie From Indy]

180. Oprah's makes 38k before she finishes her frosted flakes or whatever

she has for breakfast. The right wing media hate merchants have already started the "OMG! Oprah is extremely wealthy! A 38 THOUSAND dollar handbag!!!" meme as a way to diminish her experience in the handbag boutique.

[Generic Brad]

181. Skip the handbag and help my community

If I had that much money to burn I would rather see it spent on anonymous acts of charity. That is the kind of money that can help put someone through college, pay medical expenses, ensure multiple families have enough to eat.

I don't mind people being rich, but I do get annoyed when they piss away their money on fleeting personal enjoyment.