Originally Posted by Freewheeler
Then don't use a stupid and inaccurate quote about salaries, which uses the words "no matter how high".
Oh, for fuck's sake. First of all, you're WAY too hung up on the wording of that quote. You don't like the lettering of the second sentence? Fine. Fair. I'll concede that it was a poor choice. That said, the spirit of the quote holds true, and it's pretty fucking far from "stupid." Certainly wiser and more worthwhile than the inane semantics discussion you've brought to bear on this thread.
If you can add, then you know that someone who makes 10 million plus a year and has been doing that for a few years - then they obviously are worth more than 10 million dollars. 10 million a year for 10 years, minus the taxes and what do you get? Is that fuck you money? By the way, 10 million dollars is easily fuck you money for most people, when you consider the fact that you can live out the rest of your life very well with much less if you are smart with the money. Are you telling me the guy who have lived on 40,000 a year for many years now, can't quit his job tomorrow and live a great life with his 10 million dollars minus taxes? I am quite sure he would be in a position to tell everyone to fuck off and die a very happy man who never had to work for money to live since. It sounds like fuck you money by your standards is to be able to blow millions of dollars on cocaine, hookers, cars and nice clothes or whatever you want to waste money on - but still have a huge chunk of change in the bank. I guess Bruce Wayne is fuck you money.
Didn't I just predict that you'd start getting into a semantics discussion on quantifying the definition of fuck-you money? Did I not just call this and suggest that it was orthogonal to my point? I did, didn't I? Look, man. I don't know what's up your ass tonight, first of all, but your tone is a little unnecessarily aggro. Second, you're missing my point repeatedly in service of stupid semantics discussions. If I had any interest in continually picking nits over word choices with you, I have no doubt you'd be up for it all night. Unfortunately, I lack the interest. I don't think you've suggested anything that detracts from my broader point. Rather, you've bitten relentlessly into the quote I cited -- which was supposed to be a philosophical jumping-off point, and whose implications are still valid. If that's not computing with you, I'm sorry. We're just not going to go anywhere productive or worthwhile with more semantics debate, and I hope you feel the same. If not, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm done with it. I've made my point, it's a valid one, and if folks want to spin their wheels on the word choices like a bunch of lawyers in discovery, that's their prerogative. Going forward, I'd suggest that you bring productive value to the thread, such as offering your take on the OP's discussion. What, in your esteemed and scholarly opinion, is the better path to wealth? Clearly everything I've said has been like pig slop compared to the pearls you're about to lay down for everyone.