PDA

View Full Version : Who says money can't buy you happiness?


419
17th Aug 2011, 23:14
From this:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/07/article-1249209-009EA44A1000044C-551_468x305.jpg
To this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/16/article-2026516-0D726E8D00000578-22_468x551.jpg

In only nine years.
Not to mention the 9.7 Million gone, attempted suicide, and now surviving on benefits:mad:

ShyTorque
17th Aug 2011, 23:21
That's a lot of money for a fat neck.

Tankertrashnav
17th Aug 2011, 23:28
Hmm - I seem to have managed a similar transformation without the 9 million quid :(

Haven't tried to top myself yet though!

lomapaseo
18th Aug 2011, 03:44
surviving on benefits:confused:

I'm not sure I would classify him as a drain on the economy though.

I bet a lot of people in the sevrice sector made a lot of money off him

Slasher
18th Aug 2011, 04:09
That's the problem with large lottery payouts - it usually
goes to total d!ckheads who haven't got a bloody clue.

Smart money and a fool will always seek ways of parting. :rolleyes:

Rwy in Sight
18th Aug 2011, 05:03
He used up all the happiness he bought with those 9,7 mil. So yes money buys happiness but not in an endless supply. For that you need an endless supply of money.

Rwy in Sight

Gordy
18th Aug 2011, 05:21
Slasher:

Smart money and a fool will always seek ways of parting.

OR...

Smart money and a fool will always seek ways of partying.

Slasher
18th Aug 2011, 05:45
I'm never one to use Wikipedia to present facts,
but in this case it's probably not that inaccurate -

Michael Carroll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Carroll_%28lottery_winner%29)

Fcukwit extraordinaire.

goudie
18th Aug 2011, 06:30
At the time he won his money he was in constant trouble with the local police and continued to be so. I reckon they and the local people must be feeling quietly satisfied with the (predictable) outcome.

I wonder how much he gave to charities or local causes?

Howard Hughes
18th Aug 2011, 06:51
419, I think you are confusing hapiness with fatness...:E

Like Tankertrashnav, I too have managed the transformation on a considerably smaller budget!;)

Ovation
18th Aug 2011, 10:06
There's only one thing that money can't buy - poverty.

UniFoxOs
18th Aug 2011, 10:11
There's only one thing that money can't buy - poverty.

Looks like it did on this occasion!

Cheers
UFO

tony draper
18th Aug 2011, 10:11
Who was it who said,
"I have been rich and I have been poor,it's much better to be rich"
:rolleyes:

crippen
18th Aug 2011, 10:17
In February 2006, he was jailed for nine months for affray. (wiki):oh:

probes
18th Aug 2011, 10:27
...lot of people in the sevrice sector...

"...spent his multi-million fortune on things such as illegal drugs, gambling and thousands of prostitutes" (thanks for the W-link, S) :E

Shouldn't the 'case study' be handy somewhere when the looters complain of too little from the state?

SpringHeeledJack
18th Aug 2011, 10:30
An old girlfriend once said to me that she could judge someone's character very quickly by observing them around money....With such windfalls, some spend, spend, spend, some hoard, some are wise and diligent, but whichever way is the correct way for the person(s) involved and to put them down is pointless. In this case the person took the spend, spend, spend option and as has been pointed out, a lot of people and companies have benefitted from his largesse over the years. Net result, happiness spread around :8 However, in this case the person was a dysfunctional anti-social oik and the stress and pain(?) he caused his neighbours over years is unforgiveable, what a shame he wasn't made to do social reparation work to them...:hmm:



SHJ

sisemen
18th Aug 2011, 10:32
He spent his multi-million fortune on things such as illegal drugs, gambling and thousands of prostitutes

At least he didn't waste the money. :}

MagnusP
18th Aug 2011, 10:47
a lot of people and companies have benefitted from his largesse over the years.

Including the dealers in crack cocaine, presumably. :suspect:

tony draper
18th Aug 2011, 10:54
Of course had he done the sensible thing and put his wealth into the hands of those London finacial adviser Bankers and such(spivs in suits)he could have been skint a lot quicker.
:rolleyes:

Checkboard
18th Aug 2011, 11:52
So 9 million pounds poured into one non-working chav meant nothing in terms of improving his life.

.. and the state pours 150.1 billion (2008/9 money) of benefits money into 2.03 million (the 2009 unemployed figure), and it means ... ?

Benefit payouts will exceed income tax revenue - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5651825/Benefit-payouts-will-exceed-income-tax-revenue.html)

Unemployment: number claiming benefits jumps by record number - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/5011375/Unemployment-number-claiming-benefits-jumps-by-record-number.html)

jayteeto
18th Aug 2011, 12:00
Probie said: "...spent his multi-million fortune on things such as illegal drugs, gambling and thousands of prostitutes"

And the rest he wasted.....................

Katamarino
18th Aug 2011, 12:23
Those figures are terrifying. 74,000 pounds spent per unemployed person. Social security is the stone around 1st World country's necks that will ultimately drag them down.

Checkboard
18th Aug 2011, 12:29
Benefits are paid to more than the unemployed, so the figure isn't 74,000 for each claimant - they also give out free cash for single women to have kids, free cash for couples to have kids, free cash to anyone who wants to claim a non-provable illness (neck pain, stress, depression, back pain) etc etc.

Then quite a lot goes to the apparatchiks who have made a nice living "administering" the giving out of the free cash. :ugh:

Personally - if I were in power (and I must discuss this with Mr D for after his revolution), any child after the first for a single mother, or second for a couple, is a lifestyle choice - and thus would get NO benefit.

Any person unemployed for more than two years would be required to move residence by at least 50 miles (as obviously there is no work in their current area.) Most benefit would be paid in food/energy stamps - not cash.

Any medical claim not provable (by x-ray, MRI etc) - i.e. not a "diagnosis of exclusion" such as yuppie flu, stress etc would attract NO benefit.

radeng
18th Aug 2011, 12:42
He could have got through the money far quicker by starting an airline....

treadigraph
18th Aug 2011, 12:43
any child after the first for a single mother, or second for a couple, is a lifestyle choice - and thus would get NO benefit

You'd get my vote for that one...

larssnowpharter
18th Aug 2011, 12:52
any child after the first for a single mother, or second for a couple, is a lifestyle choice - and thus would get NO benefit


Is that for each wife?

arcniz
18th Aug 2011, 13:59
any child after the first for a single mother, or second for a couple, is a lifestyle choice - and thus would get NO benefit

Hardly fair to stigmatize & punish the child. Might be more on point to punish the mum and dad -- - their own benefits each cut for the duration by a quarter - per excess sprog - and a bonus OBLIGATION of 10 hrs public service per month for each parent (with some healthy effort put into locating same... using good ol DNA) - for each kid over quota.

Checkboard
19th Aug 2011, 12:26
The children don't get the benefit - the parents do, to supplement their income while they are raising children (society supposedly wanting people to raise children and so prepared to pay for 'em).

Either that, or it's a cynical vote grab as most voters have kids (I don't, if you can't tell already :rolleyes:)

Tankertrashnav
19th Aug 2011, 16:08
most voters have kids (I don't, if you can't tell already :rolleyes:)

Dont forget that in x years time it will be someone's kid who'll be shovelling food down your throat and wiping your bum!

Slasher
19th Aug 2011, 16:29
Dont forget that in x years time it will be someone....who'll be...wiping your bum!


A7ujmkLTGNM
"I'm not going to change your sheets again Mr Trashnav!"

ehwatezedoing
19th Aug 2011, 20:56
Checkboard :ok:
So 9 million pounds poured into one non-working chav meant nothing in terms of improving his life.

.. and the state pours 150.1 billion (2008/9 money) of benefits money into 2.03 million (the 2009 unemployed figure), and it means ... ?




Now, instead of giving full children benefit for a toddler and reducing it to zero when he hit University (if ever)
How about reverting the thing.

Full Kids benefits when and only if they enter college/university which is actually when they cost the more to their family.
Nothing when they are toddler.



Michael Carroll !? The man is a retard who will never see further away than his nose :suspect:

Solid Rust Twotter
22nd Aug 2011, 10:39
Checkers, you reactionary capitalist running dog lackey, you.......:}