It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaving money to Animals

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I had the misfortune of being directed to this: Apparently, there is a German Shepherd looking Canine worth an astounding 373 Million dollars.

No, you didn't misread that. A #ing lunatic left 373 million dollars to an animal.

Now, here's an obvious question that mental case owner obviously didn't consider: When Gunther IV dies, who gets the 373 million???

Is our society so bat # crazy that we can honestly leave people starving, for the sake of this insane libertarian extremism that allows people to allocate their life's fortune to their pets? Even though when their pets - who only have a few short years anyhow - die, that money will be divided up by the courts...Or possibly swallowed up by the government?? Is this why the government allows such numbmindingly stupid behavior?


www.dbtechno.com... er-iv-is-one-filthy-stinking-rich-dog-photo/




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I never understood how this could happen in the first place. How do you leave a fortune to a being that technically has not legal standing?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Would you rather he left it to the church or the government or some other evil organisation? I say let the dog live in luxury, it was the owner's money and wishes after all. To us it sounds silly but if you have no family left to give it to, why not?


Example, The Salvation Army is a Rothschilds organisation. I'd never give them a penny, despite their good public image.

edit on 19/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Example



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 





Would you rather he left it to the church or the government or some other evil organisation?


A Church is an evil organization!? And you think the dog is going to do anything with the money - not being able to speak, to think, etc? You might as well give the money to the government anyhow, cause that's where the money is going to go after pooch lives his remaining 4 or 5 years out and dies.




To us it sounds silly but if you have no family left to give it to, why not?


I think it's evil in its senselessness. While people suffer on the streets, in homelessness, and depression, we allow people to allocate their fortune to animals. Creatures who don't even know what the concept of money is to begin with; creatures who cant delegate, beyond what was stated in the will by the owner, where the money should go.

Again. Animals dont live long. He has at most, a decade more. And that 373 is going to enter the coffers of the government.

I agree with certain libertarian ideals, but here, we have to draw the line. This is insanity.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Give the money to the gov? Don't they have enough already to conduct illegal wars? No, I'd much rather see the animal benefit.


Yes, the church is evil, google child abuse and murder of the victims by the church, that would be a good start.
Sure, many people could be helped by that money but the sad fact is a lot of charities are self-feeding entities with a low dollar donated to dollar spent ratio. There is a site for that but you will have to google for yourself. It lists the percentage of money donated compared to money deposited at the place of need and some charities score 10% or less. So, you donate a dollar, 10 cents (or less) reaches the intended recipients.

ETA Insanity, not to mention illegality, is to interfere with the last will and testament of a person of sound mind and body. Would you steal that money away?
edit on 19/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 





ETA Insanity, not to mention illegality, is to interfere with the last will and testament of a person of sound mind and body


That is such a perversion of logic. Any sane person understands money goes to a complete waste by giving it to your animal.

Your avoiding the point. The dog will live a few more years, and the money will go nowhere during his tenure as inheritor of its former owners money. When the dog dies, the "evil government" gets the money. You don't have a problem with this?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I seen the article lately on the cat left millions. And thought; It's really up to the owner of the animal and millions, but yes the reasons is a bit...let's say, much Sure, leave a good amount for the pet to be taken care of for the rest of their time being. Seems that the people are confused to even have no relatives, friends to leave it to, so they decide on their pet vs charity(for example) or letting it go to the government. I'd personally leave it to charity, of whom I trust. In their case it'd probably be animal shelters.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


What strikes me as amazing, is that the owner doesn't realize that leaving your fortune to a pet - who cannot do anything with it - is as good as leaving your money to the government.

To avoid the exaggeration made by the other poster, not all charities are corrupt. Find a good and dependable charity, even a small one, or a person you can trust to appropriate funds to worthy causes, and do something good with your money.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Pets are more deserving of that money ANY day of the week.

That said...wtf? How you gonna spend all that cash dog?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

No, your perversion of logic is thinking that you can interfere with the dying wishes of someone who possesses something you don't, large sums of cash. The lifespan of the dog has nothing to do with the argument, thus, fallacy. What is mine I am free to do with as I wish, period. I never avoid a point, at least, not a valid one. Maybe the dog has children....


I have a problem with government automatically inheriting everything just because they think they should. Inheritance tax is such a con I could almost laugh.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 




I never avoid a point, at least, not a valid one


It's not valid to point out that the government will get the vast majority of that 373 million after the dog dies?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

It is a valid point but possibly other provisions are in the will too. That much is not known. What I object to is people who think they can take another's money and redirect it just because they think it is better. If my last will legally says I want to give it all away, burn it in a large pile, or buy my pet a diamond tiara, that really is my own business. Capiche?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


If you reread your old post, you put the proviso:

is to interfere with the last will and testament of a person of sound mind and body


Meaning, if the person isn't of sound mind, than he shouldn't be allowed to dictate where his money goes.

Let me give you an example. Does someone have the right to give their remaining fortune to a terrorist organization? I'm pretty sure the government would interfere here, and they have every right to - it is counter productive to national interests.

But the above example really only deals with national law - national self interest. In the case of giving money to a dog, money which could do so much for many of suffering people, to look at that reality, ignore that reality, and decide that it's worth giving your money to an animal who cant do a single thing with that money, and if you follow the natural result of this intention, money that will end up in the hands of the government, it really IS completely irrational, and therefore insane, to give your remaining fortune to a pet.

Now, to give your money to someone you trust, and to stipulate that your pet should be taken care of, that makes sense. But to be give your money straight to a pet is frankly insane.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


The German Shepard was left with $106M but the trustees of the fund has since tripled the trust fund due to wise investments. I'd say the trustees will be left with the trust fund upon the death of the dog with it's own staff receiving a portion.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Hey, if you want to burn your money - that is fair. That's completely fine.

But giving it to an animal is as senseless as giving it to a scarecrow. Neither can do a thing with it. Would you object to giving money to a scarecrow? What if the person felt an emotional attachment to it?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Oh please, thats a whole different discussion and one rife with political leanings. Todays terrorist was yesterday's freedom fighter. Do not try to confuse the discussion at hand. We were talking about pets and now you hyperspace to terrorists? We are all entitled to our opinion but like I tried to point out, yours was a little full of holes.

LightSpeedDriver hits warp factor 10.

Goodnight.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 





The German Shepard was left with $106M


I can't read that without laughing.




I'd say the trustees will be left with the trust fund upon the death of the dog with it's own staff receiving a portion.


It's a ridiculous game, leaving it to a dog. Ultimately, the money is controlled by people who don't give a rats ass what the dog has to bark about it.
edit on 19-12-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


OK, forget the terrorist analogy and reread the post.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Is our society so bat # crazy that we can honestly leave people starving, for the sake of this insane libertarian extremism that allows people to allocate their life's fortune to their pets?

I think its selfishness. Their final insult to the world. Greed got them all that money in the first place. And now greed won't allow them to give it away like you said to some group who really needs it. So they give it to their dog as a final gesture of selfishness. Like flipping the world the bird from the grave. It's mine and you can't have it. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah . How do you like me now? (shudder)

After the dog dies they should bury it and all the money left over in her grave with her. This is not new.

Remember this guy?


They buried something like 7 tons of gold in his tomb along with mummies of fetuses, and animals. Burying treasure in graves is an old selfish trick.

Then there is the Dalai Lama who won the Nobel Peace Prize and donated the money to needy kids. There's an example. Help the poor and deny the government. Rich people are turning in their graves....

Dalai Lama donates Nobel Peace Prize

edit on 20-12-2011 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamingawake
I seen the article lately on the cat left millions. And thought; It's really up to the owner of the animal and millions, but yes the reasons is a bit...let's say, much Sure, leave a good amount for the pet to be taken care of for the rest of their time being. Seems that the people are confused to even have no relatives, friends to leave it to, so they decide on their pet vs charity(for example) or letting it go to the government. I'd personally leave it to charity, of whom I trust. In their case it'd probably be animal shelters.


well that "cat" has background.

see this analogy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the post continues down also.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join