Wealthy are turning pets into hairy heirs - Forbes.com - MSNBC.com
I love my pets and pamper them plenty, but this makes me sick! That money could go to such better use, like as a donation to a charity!!! Dogs are happy with a little attention and a stick to carry around, they don't care about all that extra stuff! In fact, that's what's so great about them! I mean, really.
There are so many things that are just wrong in that article, but this struck me:
"For some wealthy people, the only true love they get is from their pets," Prince says. "They're estranged from their children, they are at war with their business partners, but their pets are always there for them."
Ok, I get that, but spending $25K on a WARDROBE?!?! That's how much I make in a YEAR. There are so many people and animals they could help with that money!
I'm sure their grandchildren are just thrilled that the dog got $12 Million. That's just...wow. Excessive much?
Well it is a good way to make sure a pet is taken care after an owner dies and I believe someone on a dog forum said the leftover money would be donated somewhere after the dog died. She did also leave nearly the same amount to her brother and $100,000 to her chauffeur. However then again she set aside 3mil just to take care of where she is buried. Definitely plenty of money wasted. And I spent half the afternoon trying to track down $80 that fell out of my pocket somewhere in the hayfield. That takes me from having a little extra money this month to not being able to go anywhere because I'm out of money to fill the gas tank and the needle is touching the side of the E.
Yeah, but a $12 million trust fund for a dog?! Why can't she just donate the money in the first place instead of pampering some stupid little dog with stuff it doesn't need, while snubbing her own family at the same time? Sorry, I have no sympathy in this case. I think it's disgusting.Originally Posted by aqh88
My gosh, thats crazy, if I had that much money for a dog I would buy like 50 acres and put a giant fence around it and it'd have a lake and creek and woods and fields for the dogs to run on. And with the left over money would partially go away for vet care and food and the rest would go the the aspca and hsus and other animal rescues.
Wow...that's...umm... a lot a lot a lot of money. I mean yes you need to make sure your dog is set but...I don't know like said it could be used for so much more as well. Make sure your dog is set and confortable but...just seems like so much money.
I think it is sickening to leave 12 mil to a dog when there are children living on a single bowl of rice each day all over the world.
I'm sure the dog will make better use of the money than many human heirs who are left similar amounts. And if the money left over is going to be donated when the dog passes away... well it sounds pretty good to me - when you compare to many people who inherit such money.
At least she is making sure her pet is take care of. Since we don't really know her family life, maybe her family wasn't going to be willing to care for her dog after she dies. So many pets whose owners have died end up in shelters.
My daughter knows of a lady who is planning to "get rid" of her mom's cats when her mom dies (mom is in her 90's). If she can't "get rid" of them, she will have them put to sleep. For the cats' sake, I hope the mom has a will and is going to provide for her cats.
I do think it is way overboard to spend 25,000 on clothes for a dog. Quite ridiculous.
I absolutely agree that the notion of preparing a will for a dog is valid, but this is to the EXTREME!!! Even if the excess money is donated, I again contend why not donate it in the first place rather than setting it aside for a dog that doesn't need it? It sends a very bad message to society, even if the money ends up in the charity either way. As for her relatives, I agree that I can't comment too much, considering I do not know her personally. It seems to me, though, that if I had so much money left over and there were family members that could utilize a REASONABLE amount of it WISELY, then I would rather leave SOME of it for them rather than an EXCESSIVE amount for a dog that does not NEED it in any way, shape, or form. The cost of high quality dog care including food, exercise, attention, toys, health care, etc, would probably never even exceed 10% of the money that was left behind. No dog needs, or cares about, clothes, jewelry, strollers, silk sheets, or anything else that the OWNER deems valuable for herself, and then inappropriately deems valuable for the dog as well. There are a few cases in which a dog needs clothes to keep warm, but far more often clothes and accessories are unnecessary, and probably uncomfortable for the dogs involved.
If I were faced with the idea of my dog living longer than I do, I would ask trusted, responsible friends and relatives whether they would take over her care after my demise. I would have a REASONABLE amount of money set aside, and specific care instructions written in a contract. No way would I let a dear pet of mine face mistreatment or death when I am gone. I care about my pets far too much for that. I also care about them enough to know that they have their own needs that are different and distinct from human needs, and I provide for them based on that awareness.
I am honestly offended by those of you who are defending this woman because she is "making sure her pet is taken care of," or those who assume that I don't agree with the notion of making a will for a pet. We are talking about a very extreme situation here, so just because I oppose it does not mean I oppose the principle involved as if there is no middle ground. Let me make that very clear.
I agree completely with evisionary.
I did want to make my post clear. I totally agree with evsionary. I believe you should make sure the dog is ok but the amount of money there talking is just...and unbelieveable amount to where it could go to...so...so much more as in charity for kids that need food, water, clothes, and shelter and such.
But given that what is left over is going to be donated, why does it matter so much that it is delayed for the remainder of the dogs life? It really is no different than the person passing away several years later after the dog had gone.
I think unless you know what is happening to the money after the dog dies no one is really in a position to judge. It was that persons money and therefore that persons decision what to do with it after their death. Much more money is blown, drunk or snorted every day by many human heirs yet no one is getting up in arms about rich people leaving their money to misguided young people (I'm sure you can think of many from their frequent press appearances!).
According to someone further she left the same amount to her brother who for all we know will donate none of it, but no one seems to have jumped on her decision to leave him this sum of money.
Personally, I feel that creating a will like that when you are in such a public position sends a message to society that the frivolous, completely unnecessary needs of a dog are being put above a million other pressing social issues that could have been addressed. I am very unhappy to see this trend of treating dogs like human babies in a manner that actually disregards their true needs as a dog. The woman is not just throwing an excessive amount of money towards caring for a dog, but she is putting it towards caring for a dog IMPROPERLY, and displaying the act for all of the world to see. And if that dog was cared for properly, without the frills, there would be a lot more money to be "left over" for charity in the first place. Leaving that amount of money is like saying, "Sure, I'll support some starving children or research for breast cancer. But not until after my doggy gets her pearl necklaces, spa dates, manicures, and tiaras. If there happens to be anything left, I guess they could have it."
Mentioning how much money is blown every day by young, misguided people is completely irrelevant. I made it very clear that a reasonable amount of money, donated to responsible individuals, is the only wise decision. It is not a matter of $12 million to the dog or $12 to a single person. It could be $100,000 to one person to help them make a down payment on a house, it could be $2 million to a charity- perhaps one that helps support shelters who can care for THOUSANDS of dogs for a fraction of the money that is being left behind for ONE dog's will, which will in turn go towards buying completely unnecessary and potentially harmful products.
Do you really, on principle, agree with that? Honestly?
Jenni_Feathers (09-03-07), PiggieMamaKelly (09-02-07), rxqueen (09-27-07)
I agree with a persons freedom to do what they wish with their own money yes.
The article also does not specify anything about what products Trouble is used to or will continue to get. Only what other people have got or done for their pets.
So we don't know how much money will be left over anyway.
Trouble was a family member, doesn't really seem to matter to her that he was a dog. I'm sure the money will be more wisely spent than it would be by many humans, which yes I do see as relevant. It might be nice to think that everyone would donate all they could to charity but we don't know that this woman didn't.
It seems that many are reading into this article more than is there and there seems a great deal of hate towards someone that isn't even known by the commentators, simply because she chose to leave money to a dog. Nothing more is known than that, and yet still - all this vitriol.
I consider all of my pets to be family members as well. But although Trouble is a family member, she cannot consciously decide what she wants to spend that money on. If it was up to her personally, do you think she would opt to wear clothes and pearl necklaces? While no specific details were made, I think the article photo and the details of the woman's personal life clearly allude to the fact that she pampers her dog far beyond what is necessary to keep the dog healthy, not to mention the sheer excess of the monetary figures involved. Many humans would spend the money making rash decisions, yes, but many of them could make great use of the money through their conscious decisions on how to use it. And there is no doubt in my mind that many charities would make great use of the money regardless.
"The biggest spending area is in "life enrichment" services.
This includes everything from deep-muscle massage (pet masseuses can make up to $2,000 an hour, Prince says) and psychic readings to life coaching and "cosmic sensitivity."
One-third of pet-focused owners paid for special diets for their pets, not for medical purposes, mind you, but because it was seen as being good for the animals. This includes meals prepared by famous chefs.
More than a fourth of pet-focused owners surveyed said they spend $25,000 or more on wardrobes for their pets. Yes, 25 thousand.
Even better, 16% of pet-focused owners recently surveyed by Prince & Associates spend $25,000 or more on a birthday party for a pet.
Several pets regularly fly around on private aircraft, alone (except for flight crew)."
While we could give the woman the benefit of the doubt and guess that she deems $12 million dollars as an absolutely necessary amount for appropriate and critical care for her dog after her demise, I feel the article makes it's message very clear: more and more often, wealthy individuals are choosing to lavish their dogs with gifts that go far beyond proper dog care and into a realm of luxury that most humans could never themselves imagine. This woman is only one example.
Does the dog know that it's her birthday? Or that a famous chef is preparing her food? Does she care? Or is she just happy to receive so much attention and love, which could be provided free of cost? What I oppose is the use of anthropomorphic reasoning to justify excessive use of money to care for a dog that does not need it or even understand it, when there are so many others that do need it. You may choose to interpret the decision of this one woman differently, and that is your choice, but please understand that the frustration is not directly towards her personally. It is directed towards this larger trend that I see as wasteful and inappropriate.
Still, her money and her choice to do with it as she pleases. If she had left it all to relatives, it wouldn't have made news. Nobody would have cared, and it probably wouldn't ever see a charity. At least this way, the bulk of it will eventually go to charity.
Yes, I agree it is her money and her choice, of course. I am just making commentary on the general misuse of money for the dogs on unnecessary frills by the wealthy. It really upsets me to see dogs treated as if they are miniature humans of some form that actually need or benefit from physic readings, birthday parties, private plane trips, etc. Money is wasted on a million different things a day by the rich and the not-so-rich, and I know that if the money wasn't spent on the dog, it would probably be spent on something else wasteful. But I think that the skewed perspective of this larger trend is the heart of the issue and why I've responded with such frustration. Dogs are NOT humans, and they don't need human luxuries that they cannot possibly comprehend or benefit from. I don't think dogs should wear clothes or be carried around all the time, they are dogs! They should be able to move freely and enjoy themselves in ways that dogs do, they take joys in the simple pleasures in life.
Being a pet enthusiast myself, I completely understand the idea of pampering my pets and spending lots of my earnings on them. My guinea pigs have two bedrooms, a permanent outdoor pen, and another cage in the making! I know they do not consciously realize all the work I'm doing for them, but they do benefit from the constant stimulation and change, exercise, exploration, and proper care. I would never do something like paint their nails or force them to wear clothes, which would be for my amusement rather than theirs, and does not benefit them in any practical way.
I'm sorry if my irritation on the topic came across as a mere attack on this one woman, because that was not the intent. I hope I've made myself a little more clear on the issue. Obviously she can do with her money what she pleases- and should, so hopefully some of it will go to charity in the end. I am not contesting that, I am just stating my opinion on the topic of frivolous and inappropriate spending for dogs.
Also, just wanted to say that that photo is of a different dog. The article really has very little to do with this particular dog and his owner.
Really, I think many are of the opinion that often rich people can be terribly wasteful of their money, just as many "normal" people are too. I mean, I'm sure I could give much more to charity than I do but instead I buy new clothes more than once a year, or make up, or items my guinea pigs don't actually need. Whether such money is spent on clothes for a dog, or clothes for yourself.... it's all quite arbitrary really as there are very few of us who could really claim to be completely non-wasteful with our money given how many humans and animals live in utter poverty. The scale of how much money we waste is quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Does it make us feel better to think how much more money other people don't donate?
That's why I got a little disappointed with the overall negative tone of this thread, which at times felt like I could feel the actual hatred of people towards a woman and dog the article barely covers. It's not animal abuse, and there are so little details in the article that the assumptions people made are terribly prejudiced.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Well, she obviously doesn't think her dog is some stupid little dog and wants to make sure it is well cared for. After all, it is her money and she can do what she pleases with it.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks