Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: dm1333 on September 03, 2012, 06:14:18 PM
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/drink-less-more-billionaire-tells-152654355.html
"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."
Whaattttt? =D
-
What a racist!
-
Hard work to become a millionaire, possible.
Hard work to become a billionaire, in your dreams, unless you plan owning a few government officials to bend the rules your way and dealing through some very shady means.... and bailouts, you gotta have 'em bailouts and subsidies handy.
BTW, how much of her wealth did she inherit?
-
Those who really suffer from anti-business and anti-investor policies are regular workers who "usually vote for the anti-business socialist parties," she writes. "If you want to help the poor and our next generation, make investment, reinvenstment and businesses welcome."
She also tells the stories of her two grandfathers and three of her wealthy friends, who all started at the bottom and worked their way to the top. One grandfather, James Nicholas, started cleaning stables and launched a transportation company. Another granddad built a sheep station with 25,000 sheep.
Her pal Michael Kailis came from a poor Greek immigrant family and became Australia's crawfish king. Friend Jack Cowin borrowed from friends to found the Hungry Jack burger chain, and is now the country's "king of fries." (Read more: The Lack of Women Billionaires)
"The lessons are the same," she writes. "You can't get rich without working hard, taking risks, investing and reinvesting your profits."
Of course, as Rinehart knows, you can also become very rich from inheriting and expanding your father's company.
-
Truth is ugly.
-
I don't care if she inherited a boatload of money and then made more of it, or if she started from scratch, she still makes sense.
-
Hard work to become a millionaire, possible.
Hard work to become a billionaire, in your dreams, unless you plan owning a few government officials to bend the rules your way and dealing through some very shady means.... and bailouts, you gotta have 'em bailouts and subsidies handy.
BTW, how much of her wealth did she inherit?
I plan on being a billionaire within 5 years. Without owning government officials or doing anything shady.
I've inherited nothing, and currently have a net worth of basically zero.
What makes America great is with a good idea, and hard work, the above is possible.
-
I plan on being a billionaire within 5 years. Without owning government officials or doing anything shady.
I've inherited nothing, and currently have a net worth of basically zero.
What makes America great is with a good idea, and hard work, the above is possible.
Well if you do, remember that you didn't do it by yourself. :angel:
-
Truth is ugly.
Sure is - she inherited everything from Daddy. Forget her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
-
shes world richest woman and gonna eclipse bill gates?
-
There's solid historical precedent for what she said. Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas.
Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.
-
Sure is - she inherited everything from Daddy. *expletive deleted* her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
The funniest part is that her dad made all his money from mining without moving a single shovel-full of dirt. He bought cheap land leases and took a cut when the actual mining companies built mines.
How exactly does taking a cut of the product add value?
-
Truth is ugly.
. . . says the kept man. =D
-
There's solid historical precedent for what she said. Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas.
Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.
Sourpuss, aren't you? Or just jealous? :-*
Truth is ugly.
The "ugly" green monster shows up .... it makes a lot of people not look so good.
-
How exactly does taking a cut of the product add value?
How is adding value relevant?
-
The funniest part is that her dad made all his money from mining without moving a single shovel-full of dirt. He bought cheap land leases and took a cut when the actual mining companies built mines.
How exactly does taking a cut of the product add value?
Return on invested capital is a value add. Without invested capital, the actual production can not occur, something labor-focused economics seems to forget.
-
Sure is - she inherited everything from Daddy. *e.xpletive deleted* her
Well, she inherited 75 million from Daddy. Evidently back in 1992. So how does that explain her becoming a billionaire in 2006?
Rinehart did inherit a truckload of money ($75 million to be exact) from her father, Lang Hancock. But she's pushed the turbo boost on Australia's two-speed economy beyond any of his imaginings. His "baby elephant" stuck her trunk in the air and did good. You don't build a $30 billion fortune if you don't know a thing or two about how to run a business.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rinehart-needs-a-chat-with-buffett-20120903-25agk.html#ixzz25VSP3Apf
I typed and deleted a bunch of responses to this. One ass in the thread is enough! ;)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rinehart-needs-a-chat-with-buffett-20120903-25agk.html
-
Sure is - she inherited everything from Daddy. *expletive deleted* her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
Classy.
And your first statement is a lie, too. Classier.
Here's a thought for you, if I give you $70 and you turn it into $30,000, am I responsible for your success?
-
There's solid historical precedent for what she said. Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas.
Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.
Please elaborate for me.
How do you imagine a poor man can honestly become a millionaire without either hard work or taking risks with his money?
In fact, the above is why I am not really interested in becoming a millionaire - I am not interested in working 14-hour workdays to make my own business, nor am I interested in taking huge risks that might make me destitute if it all goes wrong. As a matter of fact, my interest is to work as little as humanly possible in the long run. I would gladly take a minimum-wage job if it involved a six-hour work-week and if such a job existed.
-
One doesn't have to work 14 hour days and take huge financial risks to become a millionaire. Living below one's means and making common place investments will suffice. It may take 30 years, but it is possible.
-
One doesn't have to work 14 hour days and take huge financial risks to become a millionaire. Living below one's means and making common place investments will suffice. It may take 30 years, but it is possible.
But in 30 years, will a million mean anything?
-
But in 30 years, will a million mean anything?
It won't be worth anything if the have-nots get their way politically and have the dollar hyperinflated to oblivion in order to pay for al of the free stuff they are unwilling to work for.
-
Sure is - she inherited everything from Daddy. Forget her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
Wow. What? She's speaking the truth, and truth is ugly. I didn't call her ugly or insult her inheritance.....which she GREW after receiving, rather than squander like so many trust fund babies do.
(I see your post has been edited in the interim. YOU know what I'm responding to, and it was uncalled for and un APS like)
-
"Drink less, work more"
Ah. No. Not in the least. Work smarter. Know plenty of people that bust their hump in insanely stupid ways. I'm one of them, and it's common in IT. IT death marches are unfortunately common, and usually will not get you an additional dime. In fact, it usually costs you more to work more.
-
There's solid historical precedent for what she said. Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas.
Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.
How to make friends and influence people.
Well, at least she's got the second part down... :P
And yeah, despite the undeniable truth in a lot of what she said (that effort is usually required, that risk is often required to become rich), it does kind of smack of "Let them eat cake!"
-
I apologize for my oversight.
From scanning the article at a ridiculously late time, I believed that she had inherited most of her money from her father.
After being lambasted, and re-reading in a more awake mental state, coupled with some Googling, I see that I was grossly mistaken.
I apologize again for jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Fifty lashes with a wet noodle for me.
-
There's solid historical precedent for what she said. Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas.
Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.
Except she never said "stop being lazy and do something". And there were no angry mobs. And she isn't a billionaire heiress. She took 75 million and turned it into 1000 million dollars all on her own. Now I understand why there used to be all those RIF commercials on tv! :facepalm:
-
Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."
Ms Rinehart inherited those same deals - she didn't get a lump of cash, she got mining leases that kept paying. The money her dad got without lifting a shovel kept paying and is still paying.
Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).
Yah folks, female John Galt she is not.
-
Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).
I'm impressed with your skill at clicking on highlighted names in Wikipedia but do you have any actual proof other than the allegations listed in Wiki? [popcorn]
-
I'm impressed with your skill at clicking on highlighted names in Wikipedia but do you have any actual proof other than the allegations listed in Wiki? [popcorn]
Seriously!? The Politiciians who received money intervened to open an inquest, and have spoken openly about the witness payments on television in the past month here in Oz.
-
Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."
Ms Rinehart inherited those same deals - she didn't get a lump of cash, she got mining leases that kept paying. The money her dad got without lifting a shovel kept paying and is still paying.
Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).
Yah folks, female John Galt she is not.
And how many mining leases DON'T pay off?
-
Seriously!? The Politiciians who received money intervened to open an inquest, and have spoken openly about the witness payments on television in the past month here in Oz.
So the answer is "no"?
-
You can always spot those who truly hate the poor. They're the ones telling them that hard work won't really help them. Or that they have no chance of changing their fortunes by exercising some self-control. This keeps the poor down where the haters want them to be; where they can admire their resistance to the elitist, bourgeois social values that might actually help them.
Or if they do admit that the gospel of Not Screwing Around and Drinking, and Getting a Job has some validity, they'll twist things around and claim that the evangelists of said gospel are not really helping, just trying to assign blame.
Some say that such poor-haters are just confused. Since their own socioeconomic status helps them dodge the consequences of poor decisions, they really don't understand how devastating it all is for those with less margin for error. Maybe they're on to something.
-
So the answer is "no"?
I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.
-
And how many mining leases DON'T pay off?
Probably about as many as rolls of the dice that don't pay off. That doesn't make roulette a "capital contribution" to a valuable business enterprise.
-
Probably about as many as rolls of the dice that don't pay off. That doesn't make roulette a "capital contribution" to a valuable business enterprise.
You sir, must be inconceivably dense to both make that analogy. Mining leases are a capital investment to secure rights to both resource exploration and extraction. In order to make any money off them, choice of lease to purchase requires substantial forethought (otherwise,it is a roll of the dice) and the lease price (since they are resold on a secondary market) is a way to market price the risk and potential value of the resource rights, to allow property owners who don't have e capital to explore or extrat resources to benefit from leasing the land to those that do. Due to a relatively efficient market in resoure lease pricing, ultra-high payoff leases are exceedingly rare, as high probability one's are priced higher accordingly. Additionally, leases in government owned land provide a tax revenue stream that is not only valuable, but well indexed to root economic growth---success in mineral recovery translates to a greater economic benefit for both the private and public sector, while allowing government held land to be utilized efficiently, without the government itself having to be in the exploration and extraction business, and allow efficient selection of the most cost effective private firm (comparable to spectrum auctions, where the company that sees the most potential profit in a segment will also likely be able to bid the most, allowing market maximization of a societally shared resource).
Normally I don't demean myself, or waste my time, responding factually to your typical poorly researched, talking point based, quasi-Marxist drivel, but this was the last straw. Either post information of value, or don't post at all.
-
I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.
So when the attorney general says something is highly suspicious that constitutes proof? Thank god I live in the USA with that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"! I tried googling several different combinations to see what comes up about her allegedly paying people off and really didn't come up with much. In the interest of being fair and educating me maybe you can provide a few links to something concrete? I don't have much of an impression, one way or another, of this woman other than what she said makes a hell of a lot of sense.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-iron-ore-lady-why-the-worlds-richest-woman-is-mired-in-controversy-7848535.html
The soap opera of Hancock's inquest revealed allegations his widow – now Rose Porteous – had hired her former husband to kill Hancock. But it emerged the supposed hit-man had been paid AUD$250,000 by Rinehart, "for his own protection", to take the stand. The inquest found no evidence Porteous was involved in Hancock's death, but the attorney-general declared Rinehart's payment "highly suspicious".
Lawyer Nicholas Styant-Browne, who acted for Porteous, describes the inquest as a "disaster" for Rinehart, saying she used her wealth to pursue a vendetta to her detriment. "Gina is an extremely litigious individual, and utterly indefatigable."
-
Birdman, all those things are true - but not applicable to how Rinehart's dad acquired his land. That's part of the reason Australians have such reactions to statements about his and his daughter's work ethic.
I can see that you disagree with my politics. Review my post history and you'll see that none of my disagreements with yours or anyone else's here come with personal insults or hair pulling frustration. For my part, I don't like spending time in ideological echo chambers.
-
So when the attorney general says something is highly suspicious that constitutes proof? Thank god I live in the USA with that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"! I tried googling several different combinations to see what comes up about her allegedly paying people off and really didn't come up with much. In the interest of being fair and educating me maybe you can provide a few links to something concrete? I don't have much of an impression, one way or another, of this woman other than what she said makes a hell of a lot of sense.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-iron-ore-lady-why-the-worlds-richest-woman-is-mired-in-controversy-7848535.html
http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=123790 (http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=123790)
The payments to witnesses and potential witnesses included:
in excess of $200,000 paid to a key witness, Louise Black, who was a former employee of Mrs Porteous;
$50,000 paid to Nina Paderna, a friend of Ms Black;
$250,000 to Julian Teodoro, a former husband of Mrs Porteous; and
amounts ranging in size from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars to various other witnesses or potential witnesses, including staff at Prix D’Amour, the former home of Lang Hancock.
Mr McGinty said an exhaustive examination by Solicitor General Rob Meadows QC of the individual payments concluded that many were highly suspicious and raised real concerns about their potential impact on testimony.
-
Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."
See if you get that:
You own the actual land to be mined. If it weren't valuable people wouldn't be mining it.
-
You did read the whole article that you linked to, right? Because it shoots down some of the assertions you have made here.
In his report, Mr Meadows said some of the payments immediately aroused suspicions that they were made to induce the witnesses in question to give evidence favourable to Mrs Rinehart’s cause.
The Solicitor General agreed that it could easily be surmised that the payments were made to induce false testimony or at the very least, to colour testimony so as to cast Mrs Porteous in an unfavourable light. The sheer size of some of the payments tended to reinforce those suspicions.
However, he advised that suspicion was not enough and there were a number of major difficulties standing in the path of a successful prosecution. This included:
that most of the payments were made long before the inquest was called, which would make it extremely difficult to maintain they were made with the intention of perverting the course of justice or in circumstances where they could have a tendency to have that effect;
a paucity of evidence to show that the payments - even though extremely large in some cases - were intended to induce potential witnesses to tell other than the truth;
the difficulty of establishing who was ultimately responsible for the offending payments. While Mrs Rinehart had given authority for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be drawn from HPPL accounts for what was termed ‘long-term support and protection of witnesses’, none of the individual payments were made directly by her, and a chain of people was involved in disbursement and negotiating the amounts to be paid; and
significant concerns about the cogency and reliability of evidence able to be called in support of a prosecution, as the credibility of those who would be witnesses was highly suspect at the very least and in some cases included people who had already been exposed for providing unreliable and inconsistent testimony at the Inquest.
Mr McGinty said he shared the very real concern he believed the community would feel that people involved in the witness payments would not be held to further account.
“What occurred remains highly suspect and will reflect for a long time on the reputations of all those involved,” he said.
“While prosecution has not been recommended, I have provided a copy of the Solicitor General’s report to Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock QC for his information.”
I'm a little confused. You did say this, right?
I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.
The article quoted the Solicitor General and I'm assuming that is who you meant when you referred to the Attorney General. What is confusing me is that the Solicitor General is saying there isn't enough evidence and that suspicion alone is not enough.
-
Dm1333, that's the Attorney concurring with the report of his Solicitor General.
They correctly pointed out that technicalities would make a prosecution difficult. It's not hard for someone using common sense to figure out why all that money was paid, though, which is why they rightly called it improper.
What possible innocent explanation do you think there would be for this, considering that her personal appeal to the Governor General (ruling over a politician she contributes to) is the only reason that inquest was reopened in the first place???
-
So you are saying a lack of evidence is a technicality? Again, thank god I'm living in the US where we have to depend on evidence to convict somebody. I don't need an innocent explanation for what she did, what you need is proof that she actually did something and your attorney and solicitor general both agree that there wasn't any, or at least not enough to even try prosecuting.
Correct me if I am wrong but this thing never even went anywhere near a court room, she is just being convicted in the court of your own personal opinion?
-
So you are saying a lack of evidence is a technicality? Again, thank god I'm living in the US where we have to depend on evidence to convict somebody. I don't need an innocent explanation for what she did, what you need is proof that she actually did something and your attorney and solicitor general both agree that there wasn't any, or at least not enough to even try prosecuting.
Correct me if I am wrong but this thing never even went anywhere near a court room, she is just being convicted in the court of your own personal opinion?
Ok, you're confusing something here - not all wrongful conduct, even conduct that is almost certainly illegal, can be proven to be so in court.
The report said essentially "to prove the crime, Id need a tape of her saying 'if I pay you you'll lie right?'". We don't need a tape to see how suspicious the conduct was, so we said so.
Thats why I'm happy saying "she paid witnesses to say her step mom killed her father."
-
what you said was
I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.
I'm not confused about anything, I know that you can't always prove wrong doing. I just have a problem with your idea of proof.
-
what you said was
I'm not confused about anything, I know that you can't always prove wrong doing. I just have a problem with your idea of proof.
I see the disagreement - I was taking that as proof that she paid witnesses and then asked the .gov to reopen an investigation into her step mom. That much is certainly without doubt.
-
And the lawyer comes along and changes the topic.
-
And the lawyer comes along and changes the topic.
I actually think the witness payments are on topic - I mean, you have to see the irony in the person who says "quit being lazy" paying a random collection of folks up to $200,000 just to testify against her step mom.
May be she should have said "get a job, drink less....or drink on me if you testify in my favor!"
-
The witness payments may be fair game but even the sources you provided say that it isn't clear what those payments were for and that there isn't enough evidence to even take this to court. So you are just speculating, even though you don't even have any proof other than somebody saying "Well it sure looks fishy!" But I'm sure you'll just try to redirect the argument and bring up more nonsensical statements about Marie Antoinette and angry mobs.
Here is what Ms. Rinehart said.
"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."
Sounds like a good remedy to a lot of peoples "problems". Take charge of your own life.
-
I actually think the witness payments are on topic - I mean, you have to see the irony in the person who says "quit being lazy" paying a random collection of folks up to $200,000 just to testify against her step mom.
May be she should have said "get a job, drink less....or drink on me if you testify in my favor!"
;/
No, its just standard fare for your postings to take the topic and divert it so the argument goes your way.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/05/160614909/asias-richest-woman-slammed-after-musing-about-workers-paid-2-a-day?ft=1&f=1001
And the hits keep on coming. Foot, meet mouth.
-
At the risk of violating the protocols of the conservative echo chamber (hey, it wasn't me that called APS that) she should have kept her mouth shut on this one! :facepalm: And pay the damn mineworkers a decent wage. :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
I've seen both sides of the coin. I've seen folks working 80+ hours a week and just not catching a break. I've seen folks that basically worked odd jobs and smoked weed for a decade. In general, I believe that hard work does pay off. But I don't think it is enough. You need to actually THINK in addition to working hard and honestly, being lucky. Or at least, not unlucky.
Lot of folks say "So and So is only rich because they inherent X dollars and turned it into (40X)". Yes, they were lucky. But they could have turned it easily into 1/X by picking up a coke habit, blowing money on bad investments or not keeping tabs on things. I've seen those happen as well.
Intelligence, hard work and good or neutral luck.
To make a lot of money, you need a combination of all three.
To make decent money, you only need two out of three.
To enough to survive, you need at least one.
If you have none... Well. Sucks to be you.
As for the lady and the whole "miners cost too much". While I agree that plenty of countries have very high tax rates, insane bureaucracies, et al... I also think some business folks should realize its in their own long term interests to pay their people well. If you pay market wages, you will get market talent. Overwork your best talent by trying to replace two or more folks with one, and it will also bite you in the long run. I do not think that Ms Rinehart would prefer to live in a country with Africa's level of prosperity. I'm not saying business owners "owe" society jobs. I'm saying enlightened self-interest is a good thing. Treating your employees well (does not have to be spectacular) is good business for many reasons.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-iron-ore-lady-why-the-worlds-richest-woman-is-mired-in-controversy-7848535.html
When I read that, the comments by the Australian officials sounded like quotes from Atlas Shrugged. And I didn't think the book was spectacular. Because the characters were friggin hokey and one dimensional.
"When I see people like Ms Rinehart deploying her huge wealth – gained by selling the non-renewable resources which belong to the entire Australian community – in an attempt to try to stop us spreading the benefits of that natural wealth more fairly across the community, of course I'm going to stand up."
I mean... REALLY? It's friggin iron. And no, it does not, let alone should not, belong to the entire Australian community. And no, those benefits should not be "fairly" (ie not remotely fairly) distributed at gunpoint. Taxes to pay for courts, police, etc are necessary. Aside from flat out anarchists, that's fairly understood. Beyond that, it becomes less and less "fair" and more "I have a claim on other folks' lives".
-
Who cares? I have family who love me, money in the bank, and chow on the table. Pretty damned good, home-made chow too, btw.
Billionaire buys you...what, exactly?
When the first shovel of dirt hits your coffin...what are you going to be remembered for?
-
So she started with 75 million. Am I correct there? Re-invest at 10% (which is not outrageous for someone with that kind of capital) and see where she is in 15 years.
What did she do to qualify her comments?
Strip her of everything, give her 10K to invest, and the same 15-20 year period to generate 2 billion.
Think she'll pull it off then?
;/
-
So she started with 75 million. Am I correct there? Re-invest at 10% (which is not outrageous for someone with that kind of capital) and see where she is in 15 years.
What did she do to qualify her comments?
Strip her of everything, give her 10K to invest, and the same 15-20 year period to generate 2 billion.
Think she'll pull it off then?
;/
Are her comments wrong?
Also, I checked. At 10%, it would take you 35 years to get to 2 billion, assuming your investments never fail, somehow.
-
Oops, you're right. I didn't scale correctly.
-
Wait, was yours a compound interest scale?
-
So she started with 75 million. Am I correct there? Re-invest at 10% (which is not outrageous for someone with that kind of capital) and see where she is in 15 years.
What did she do to qualify her comments?
Strip her of everything, give her 10K to invest, and the same 15-20 year period to generate 2 billion.
Think she'll pull it off then?
;/
The rise in price of ore and other goodies from her mining interests more than explains the cash.
Like I said, ironic comment given that she pays people hundreds of thousands of dollars to do nothing more than bear witness against people she hates.
She acquired at least some of her money further by bankrupting the trust her father set up for his grandchildren. More "hard earned" cash no doubt....battling your own children is no lazy enterprise.
-
Wait, was yours a compound interest scale?
Ayup.