most expensive Christmas

luckyoldme

luckyoldme

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 October 2010
Messages
7,534
Visit site
I watched this programme last night...the figures were astounding.
I'm normally realistic but there was a tree topper priced at £650,000. For once I had a little idealistic thought, imagine if the person paying that for a tree topper changed their mind and decided to do some good with that amount of money. It could solve a lot of problems for a lot of people!
 
I watched a bit and saw the part where they were decorating a house for people, who were going to spend about 36 hours in, and the budget was half a million :eek::eek::eek:, and then they said sometimes they change their minds and don't even see the decorations! Madness! Also I really did not like those custom made baubles, maybe I just have 'poor' taste :D.

x x
 
Well I suppose they are spreading their money and lots of it through the retail world which ultimately benefits people lower down in the food chain via jobs. If they just sat on it...
 
I absoloutely hate and detest these type of programmes. I think they just end up ridiculing the stupidly rich and end up making them look stupid. It really annoys me that people can waste so much money when there are people living on the streets in this very country and will be shivering tonight when sleeping rough under a sheet of cardboard. That's not to mention all the other countries in the world where babies are born into such humble and penniless situations, where they die of starvation or insanitary conditions, and suffer unmentionable suffering as they slowly die with their parents unable to do anything. I'd love to shove these stupid billionairres into this situation.
How I wish these type of people would realise that there are others in more desperate need then themselves and to share their stupidly outlandish and nonsensical wealth and help others instead of being insanely selfish and ignorant. £650,000 for a tree topper. How many newborn babies in third world countries would that save I wonder?

And on the other side of the coin, Mark Zuckerburg. What an amazing bloke, giving away 99% of his wealth. What a total unselfish and generous act, I totally applaud him. And Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who have also given huge amounts to charity.


RANT OVER AND BREATHE....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Applecart ... I appreciate what you are getting at but feel your 'rant' is a bit harsh... how do you know that these 'stupid billionaires' do not already give plenty to charities ??? ... just because they spend a fortune on Christmas ... ? As for Zuckerburg.. he has not exactly given away all his wealth ... he is giving away so much over the next so many years ... he is still, and will remain worth plenty !
 
Did anyone see the programmes Anne Robinson did about money a few months back? For once I thought they were really well done for this sort of programme. Thy didn't ridicule anyone whether really rich or really poor. I don't normally like her, but she came across really well in it.

The Phones 4 U guy who sold his business for hundreds of millions and lived in a house worth £60m but was still desperately lonely and unhappy broke my heart just as much as the young mum who wanted a snazzy fridge and got herself into real financial trouble for it. She treated them both exactly the same.
 
Jojoeena said:
Applecart ... I appreciate what you are getting at but feel your 'rant' is a bit harsh... how do you know that these 'stupid billionaires' do not already give plenty to charities ??? ... just because they spend a fortune on Christmas ... ? As for Zuckerburg.. he has not exactly given away all his wealth ... he is giving away so much over the next so many years ... he is still, and will remain worth plenty !
Click to expand...

Yes you may be right, maybe they do give a lot away to charities. But it also makes me sad that there are people who are desperate for children and can't afford IVF, people who need cancer treatment but are part of the 'postcode lottery', and people who can't even afford to support their families because the company they work for have gone bust, just to give three examples.

I think by showing this type of stuff on TV all they are doing is making the 'working class' (and I hate that expression) feel resentful of those with more wealth. I think I heard Good Morning Britain say that Mark Zuckerburg would still have 55 million in the bank after giving away his 99%.

When I have money and I am approached by a charity I will give. When I have very little I will turn and walk away.
Most people have the common sense to know the 'value of money'. If I won a million pounds I would still shop in Aldi, and Poundland. Look after the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves.
 
However to some of the poor you are wealthy and choose to waste it on horses!
Perhaps some of the poor and destitute in this world need to start taking responsibility for their own situation! I do have sympathy for those forced into it by no fault of their own however I draw the line when they still bring babies into the situation. I am afraid in my mind and others will disagree the only thing in some countries that keeps a lid on population explosion is poverty.
 
He is. Nor is it a charity but a limited liability corporation. It has more flexibility than a charity in that they can invest money as well as give it away. It has tax benefits for the Zukerberg family and means he is effectively putting his wealth in trust, while retaining control over it. He's not giving it away! It all sounds wonderful but I would rather Zukerberg and wealthy people and companies paid their fair share in taxes. Then they can spend their money, earned or otherwise, on whatever they want.
 
popsdosh said:
However to some of the poor you are wealthy and choose to waste it on horses!
Perhaps some of the poor and destitute in this world need to start taking responsibility for their own situation! I do have sympathy for those forced into it by no fault of their own however I draw the line when they still bring babies into the situation. I am afraid in my mind and others will disagree the only thing in some countries that keeps a lid on population explosion is poverty.
Click to expand...

I (tentatively) agree with this point of view. Some people cannot help their circumstances, others could but chose to do nothing about it, or make choices that don't seem the right thing to do.
 
I understand why programmes like this cause such a strong reaction (that's exactly what they're designed to do!)

Rather than bashing "the rich", though, I wish more people would take an honest look at the world. If we truly care about sharing wealth, most of us would do better to look below us than above. I would venture that most people posting on this board are among the wealthiest on the planet. The billionaires are few, but the rest of us in this country are still unimaginably wealthy to a large proportion of the population.
 
RaposadeGengibre said:
Isnt he founder of the charity he is giving to?
Click to expand...

I have no idea!

hen I watched Britain on Benefits the other day and found it incredible that a person claiming JSA could get through 6-8 cans on Monster cans of drink in one day and someone else could spend £1200 on a dress for a beauty pageant. When I had to claim (in between temping jobs) every spare penny went on the horse!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
popsdosh said:
However to some of the poor you are wealthy and choose to waste it on horses!
Perhaps some of the poor and destitute in this world need to start taking responsibility for their own situation! I do have sympathy for those forced into it by no fault of their own however I draw the line when they still bring babies into the situation. I am afraid in my mind and others will disagree the only thing in some countries that keeps a lid on population explosion is poverty.
Click to expand...

I assume by your refence to the 'world' that you are referring to un-developed countries here? Do you honestly think that the majority of women in these countries have access to adequate birth control or in many cases any choice as to whether or not they have children? Less than a 100 years ago women in the UK had no reliable way to control the number of children they had. How can you say such people are not forced into poverty? Who would choose to live in poverty - especially food poverty. People in under developed countries are not equipped to get thmselves out of poverty alone. The last line of your post reads to me as though you advocate poverty as a form of controlling the population - so you are inferring that starving to death controls the population? Lovely. And we can all sit behind our keyboards smug while we feed our horses more and in sometimes better qualtiy food than 80+% of the global population have to live on. Sometimes I despise mankind.
 
Zuckerberg also is keeping $475 million just to tide him over, so he's not exactly doing without!

I don't have issues with people spending this money, there wouldn't be the supply if there wasn't the demand after all. I did get annoyed when a friend on facebook was slagging off the use of taxpayers money into funding an astronaut, when we have homeless and the refugee crisis. Which is all very well and good, but I'm not sure how many refugees you would fit on the international space station ;) :D

The thing with population, baby making and poverty, is that people need to get out of poverty, before the birth rate falls. AS they get out of poverty, education and aspiration increases which leads to a fall in the birth rate. You cannot simply make poor people stop having children, in developing countries or otherwise. The poor in our country comes down to poor management by public bodies, there is no reason for extreme child poverty in this country, everyone should be fed and clothed, no question - we have the money and facilities fgs. But of course some people are richer than others, just as I think people shouldn't live in squalor, doesn't mean I disagree with rich people spending ridiculous amounts on designer tinsel.
 
popsdosh said:
However to some of the poor you are wealthy and choose to waste it on horses!
Perhaps some of the poor and destitute in this world need to start taking responsibility for their own situation! I do have sympathy for those forced into it by no fault of their own however I draw the line when they still bring babies into the situation. I am afraid in my mind and others will disagree the only thing in some countries that keeps a lid on population explosion is poverty.
Click to expand...

There are approximately 3 million children living in poverty in the UK alone. I'm glad you have sympathy for ' those forced into it through no fault of their own' but 'drawing the line when they still bring babies into the situation' might indicate that you aren't aware of the complex socioeconomic factors which result in people sometimes having more children than they can probably really afford.

It is poverty which has led to todays child poverty - a lack of income, of education, of support, of empowerment, of good mental and emotional health services and accessibility, even. All things which might support people to make better decisions and all things which money and funding can affect the outcome of.

By financially supporting this generation (even or particularly those who appear to have simply made bad or maybe irresponsible choices, in your eyes) in any country, including here, we have the best chance of reducing child poverty in the future.


On people spending 650,000 on a tree topper? On the one hand, I wouldn't dream of telling someone else what to do with their money, no matter what their wealth or income but personally, I find it mind boggling. I also find the value and price of top notch horses mind boggling. I feel the same about top notch footballers. I do think there's something wrong with our (general) values.
 
stencilface said:
Zuckerberg also is keeping $475 million just to tide him over, so he's not exactly doing without!

I don't have issues with people spending this money, there wouldn't be the supply if there wasn't the demand after all. I did get annoyed when a friend on facebook was slagging off the use of taxpayers money into funding an astronaut, when we have homeless and the refugee crisis. Which is all very well and good, but I'm not sure how many refugees you would fit on the international space station ;) :D

The thing with population, baby making and poverty, is that people need to get out of poverty, before the birth rate falls. AS they get out of poverty, education and aspiration increases which leads to a fall in the birth rate. You cannot simply make poor people stop having children, in developing countries or otherwise. The poor in our country comes down to poor management by public bodies, there is no reason for extreme child poverty in this country, everyone should be fed and clothed, no question - we have the money and facilities fgs. But of course some people are richer than others, just as I think people shouldn't live in squalor, doesn't mean I disagree with rich people spending ridiculous amounts on designer tinsel.
Click to expand...

Cross posted ��
 
stencilface said:
Zuckerberg also is keeping $475 million just to tide him over, so he's not exactly doing without!

I don't have issues with people spending this money, there wouldn't be the supply if there wasn't the demand after all. I did get annoyed when a friend on facebook was slagging off the use of taxpayers money into funding an astronaut, when we have homeless and the refugee crisis. Which is all very well and good, but I'm not sure how many refugees you would fit on the international space station ;) :D

The thing with population, baby making and poverty, is that people need to get out of poverty, before the birth rate falls. AS they get out of poverty, education and aspiration increases which leads to a fall in the birth rate. You cannot simply make poor people stop having children, in developing countries or otherwise. The poor in our country comes down to poor management by public bodies, there is no reason for extreme child poverty in this country, everyone should be fed and clothed, no question - we have the money and facilities fgs. But of course some people are richer than others, just as I think people shouldn't live in squalor, doesn't mean I disagree with rich people spending ridiculous amounts on designer tinsel.
Click to expand...

How do you suggest they get out of poverty? To a certain degree I agree about birth rate dropping ,however China was a case in point where draconian limits on child numbers has brought about a more rapid growth in citizens well being, as they knew they could not keep filling up their country with children.Now they created that growth they are allowing for more population growth. I am afraid in most poor countries the natural immediate response to money coming in to support children is a rise in birth rate that just makes the situation worse.
The poor and child poverty in this country is nothing compared to that in underdeveloped countries , Those that have children that fall on hard times I have no issue with supporting. However I still say why should everybody else help out those that choose to have more even though they cant afford them even though in this country they have access to the means not too! If you cant afford to keep them dont have them its quite a simple rule to go by. I shall get into even more hot water if I question within which groups the highest levels of child poverty lies within the uk. I suppose the most telling statistic would be the average family size of those in poverty!
It is not the government who has to support these families ultimately its you and me! Believe it or not after I have made my views known I do quite a bit helping people having a bad break in their lives,I actually think it is hideous what some people will waste but ultimately its their choice surely there are more interesting things to make programs about.
 
applecart14 said:
I think by showing this type of stuff on TV all they are doing is making the 'working class' (and I hate that expression) feel resentful of those with more wealth
Click to expand...

For me personally I actually felt sorry for these people with extremes amount of money. To spend thousands on a Christmas decoration is just ludicrous and I can't comprehend how they justify it!? Surely they must be slightly mad!? Christmas should mean more than how much ££ you spend, it's a special time to cherish with friends and family and money in general should be valued and appreciated!
 
Last edited:
MS123 said:
For me personally I actually felt sorry for these people with extremes amount of money. To spend thousands on a Christmas decoration is just ludicrous and I can't comprehend how they justify it!? Surely they must be slightly mad!? Christmas should mean more than how much ££ you spend, it's a special time to cherish with friends and family and money in general should be valued and appreciated!
Click to expand...

They have so much that they dont need to justify it! I personally think slightly mad! is generous to them!

However if they have it they can do what they like with it to them in their shallow world going one better than the next person is all that matters!
 
popsdosh said:
How do you suggest they get out of poverty?
Click to expand...

I don't know, ask me when I work for the UN!

There's more polictic involved that I know about, but I do know that its bound imho down to food security and education, the two things that are crucial I think to rising out of poverty. Food security is more about conflict these days than anything else, and I've no idea how you stop that!
 
It's all relative. I expect there will be plenty of people who think technical horse rugs and matchy saddle cloths are an extravagance, you know, the ones who can't afford to eat. Yet do we think twice about buying stuff for our horses, if we have the money?
 
stencilface said:
I don't know, ask me when I work for the UN!

There's more polictic involved that I know about, but I do know that its bound imho down to food security and education, the two things that are crucial I think to rising out of poverty. Food security is more about conflict these days than anything else, and I've no idea how you stop that!
Click to expand...

The next large global conflict will be over access to water the most influential commodity for life !
 
FfionWinnie said:
It's all relative. I expect there will be plenty of people who think technical horse rugs and matchy saddle cloths are an extravagance, you know, the ones who can't afford to eat. Yet do we think twice about buying stuff for our horses, if we have the money?
Click to expand...

:-) so very true
 
But it could be said you don't *need* a horse and all the money you spend on your horse and all the expenses that go with having one could be better spent given to charity etc.
 
Tbh if I was mega rich like those people I would be buying expensive horses supporting riders doing all that sort of things of a equine type .
And Merlod is quite correct we could give all the money we spend on horses to charity .
I am more interested in why the anyone let alone the very very rich would allow such a programme to be made .
 
If I was mega I would be mega poor very quickly. I would be in a tiny house surrounded by masses of horses and masses of fields and skint within a couple of years.
To that end I suppose I'm just as crazy as someone spending £650,000 on a tree topper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top