So much stupidity

Money to burn

Here's another way to Control Your Cash: use hackneyed, royalty-free, low-res images instead of paying for them or making your own

In lieu of original research, we’re letting the New York Times carry our load this week. With a story about Nick Martin, a community college teacher (What do you call the instructors at community colleges? Teachers? Professors? Babysitters?) in Kansas.

In 1998, Nick inherited $10 million when the family billboard company found a buyer. Today, he makes $51,000 teaching winemaking to kids who weren’t smart enough to get into Kansas State. Not because he needs to occupy his time, but because he needs to pay bills.

Oh my God! If he can’t make ends meet on 8 digits, I have no hope. This recession will surely kill us all.

Look, times are fantastic for very few of us. Even the Control Your Cash authors wouldn’t mind turning the clock back to 2007. But Martin and his family did the surest things possible to guarantee economic meltdown. They bought liabilities, and they sold (or at least, failed to buy) assets.

$10 million is enough to allow you to live comfortably for the rest of your life, but only if you use it intelligently. $10 million is not enough to allow you to live comfortably if you’re going to spend profusely. There’s rich, and then there’s rich. Larry Ellison gets to squander $10 million. Nick Martin doesn’t.

The Martins owned an Aston Martin and 2 other “stylish” cars; a $173,000 horse and 2 others; and Nick “treated his wife, Kate, to a birthday weekend at the Waldorf-Astoria, with dinner at the ‘21’ Club and a $7,000 mink coat.”

This is the game plan of someone who prefers being rich to staying rich.

First, people still wear fur in the 21st century? To what end? Not to endorse PETA’s oeuvre of ketchup-throwing and nude street performance art, but come on. If keeping warm is that important to Kate, how about this?

The creature modeling this was last seen on the cover of Black Sabbath's Mob Rules album

We just found one on eBay for $226. It works in negative temperatures. It’s good enough for Ed Viesturs to endorse and climb Everest in (he’s the only North American to reach the summit of every 8000-meter peak in the world.) So, it’s probably good enough for Mrs. Martin’s delicate constitution. Nor does the Mountain Hardwear jacket require minks to get skinned, although some geese did lose their feathers. Oh, and it costs 97% less than a mink coat, but, as we’re sure Nick would attest, it’s only money.

We take it back. Being fashionable is crucial, even if it means self-impoverishment.

The Martins’ cash flow was either negative or nonexistent. He jetted to England to pen a novel (an utterly douchey phrase that, God willing, will never describe this writer), one unavailable on Amazon and whose only Google mentions were in reference to Nick Martin’s inability to sell a single copy.

As to the $173,000 horse – and we’re guessing the other two weren’t old gray mares, either – why would you own a horse?

-breeding
-racing
-companionship
-labor.

On LiveryStable.net, horses range from $200 to $12,000. The average Arabian will set you back about $2000. If you want a challenge, you can adopt an authentic Great Basin mustang for $125. In claiming races – those thoroughbred stakes contests where anyone can buy the participants – $20,000 is standard. That’s for a trained, functional, healthy horse with a marketable skill. Bob Baffert can justify paying $173,000 for a horse, and would presumably know which aren’t worth that much. An equine amateur, especially a 59-year old legacy kid like Nick, presumably doesn’t.

What’s the return on investment with an Aston Martin? The story doesn’t say which model Nick bought, but the carmaker’s cheapest, the V8 Vantage, goes for around $120,000. Is it presumptuous to guess that he might have gone one step up and bought the Rapide (it means “fast”), which retails for $200,000? Or is Aston Martin-shopping the one facet of Nick’s life in which he exercises restraint?

The 3 highest current bids for Aston Martins on eBay Motors:

-$99,000
-$85,000
-$61,255.

Those bids tell us a little, but not everything. For more details, we should look at the highest bids that meet the seller’s reserve price (i.e. the price a seller can set at which he has the right to refuse any lower offer.) One problem: there aren’t any. Every single Aston Martin on the world’s largest used car site is definitively overpriced. Which, if you’re Nick Martin, clearly means you need to raise your bid.

In his own words: “We spent too much. I have a 4th grader, an 8th grader and a girl who just finished high school. I should have kept working and put the money in bonds.”

Well, if you wanted to. But you also could have, hmm, well, let’s see…not spent recklessly? Most people amass wealth, or attempt to, so they won’t have to work. It’s unclear what Nick did for a living, but he did work for his father’s winery – not to be confused with the billboard company, which Nick only sat on the board of.

Nick says some angel with a checking account took the Aston Martin off his hands for $395,000, an improbable claim the New York Times reporter accepted. That’s $125,000 more than the most expensive used Aston Martin available on the company’s own website. The priciest new Aston Martin at Control Your Cash’s nearest dealership costs $306,165.

Maybe Nick’s just atrocious at math and didn’t actually buy a quarter-million dollar plot in the Adirondacks and build a $5.3 million estate on it, wiping out most of his principal. No, wait, he did.

Someone recently offered Nick ¼ of that, which would have covered the $1.2 million mortgage. He refused, for reasons you’d have to ask him. Nick also owns, or finances, a home in Vermont where his wife and kid temporarily live. The wife makes $12,000 a year there and plans to join Nick in Kansas later this month.

Yet he blames bankers, lenders, and market conditions for some of his misfortune. All of which will certainly bring his spent millions back.

Nothing succeeds like succession

So virile, he did chinups with his hands backwards. IN A SUIT

George Steinbrenner died last month. Although he was the stereotype of the stuffy, autocratic tycoon, that stereotype’s validity is now as dead as The Boss himself.

Steinbrenner came from wealth – relatively modest wealth, compared to what he ended up creating. His father owned a shipping company, transporting ore and grain on the Great Lakes. Steinbrenner fils succeeded in the family business before expanding into sports. If you’d ranked the Major League Baseball owners by net worth, Steinbrenner would have been a lot closer to the bottom than the top. Unlike his fellow owners, Steinbrenner’s income stream consisted of little more than the revenue generated by his team itself, and its ever-increasing franchise value.

The federal estate tax, which can be as large as 55%, lapsed on January 1. Steinbrenner died at the right time for his heirs to avoid having to possibly liquidate the franchise to comply with a backwards, outdated tax based more in jealousy than in economic rationale. Still, people including our political betters argue that concentrating wealth in the hands of the Steinbrenner clan is somehow obscene and maintains the folkloric gap between rich and poor.

Well, what’s the alternative to letting dead people turn their wealth over to their children? There are two:

1) Evaporate the wealth. Destroy it. Flood the gold mine, unlock the doors on the sporting goods store, set the car dealership on fire after cancelling the insurance policy.

2) Hand the wealth over to the appropriate bureaucrats in the federal government.

Again, an important distinction with a huge difference: “the government” is not just an amorphous entity that inhabits stately marble buildings, denies you access to certain empty plots of land and gives you a convenient address to send your taxes to. It’s comprised of people. A rich dead man’s wealth that succumbs to the estate tax doesn’t go to “the government”, it goes to particular people. Who then mete it out to other people. Whether any of those people are entitled to said wealth isn’t the issue here: the important thing is that the recipients and transfer agents of this forced largesse are humans with prejudices and biases.

There are plenty of characteristics that distinguish America from a world full of lesser countries (four-down football, the Imperial system of weights and measures, Hamer guitars, Holly Halston, bison, the republican form of government, concealed possession of firearms, the Amazon Kindle, etc.) But one that’s taken a hit in recent years is the absence of class envy. Ten years ago, the only place you could find resentment of rich people was in the sociology department at the University of California’s main campus. Wealth was something to aspire to, not to begrudge.

That was before the lines between the political class and the financial class blurred. Put a former Goldman Sachs chairman in charge of the Treasury Department, give him unfettered access to taxpayer money, let him funnel it to men who run corporations of sufficient size and political bent, then defend it with one of the most ludicrous statements issued by a president (:28), and it’s easy to see how rank-and-file taxpayers might get resentful or at least suspicious. Especially given that this miscarriage was perpetrated by the political party that ostensibly stands for small government. The subsequent and current administration doesn’t even bother to mouth such ideals, and can afford to be more dogmatic. And reactionary. And confiscatory.

The argument for the estate tax is that wealth shouldn’t be concentrated in a few hands, or we’d end up like Mexico, where conventional wisdom states that only 150 families or so own almost all the means of production.

But isn’t that just a judgment call? Say Larry Ellison died tomorrow (we chose him instead of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, because Ellison is the richest guy on the Forbes 400 who hasn’t gone public with his intention to will most of his wealth to someone other than his kids.) Ellison is worth ~$27 billion, contingent on what Oracle stock did today. He has two kids and a (fourth, childless) wife. The wife presumably signed a prenup the size of Mount Whitney.

Is three heirs too few to enjoy Ellison’s wealth? If the answer’s “yes”, then how many should share in Ellison’s estate? All 300 million of us? Or the few thousands who would benefit indirectly were IRS agents to take $14.85 billion of that to distribute as they see fit?

It’s relevant, so perhaps we should mention that the author has no pig in this race. Nor does he believe that rich people are entitled to any fewer of the freedoms that middle-class and poor Americans accept as their birthright. The establishment and continuance of the estate tax puts government workers and legislators in charge of deciding who gets what. They might even be adept at this, that’s not the point. The point is that they should have no more right to award wealth than the person who created said wealth.

If Ellison dies on January 1, 2011, when the estate tax will presumably be reinstated, his heirs will be forced to sell controlling interest in Oracle. Which could mean the company’s eventual direction will fall in the hands of people without Ellison’s vision. Maybe irrationally motivated corporate raiders, maybe the agents of the federal government itself (why not? Go dig up General Motors founder Billy Durant and ask if he ever envisioned taxpayers “buying” his brainchild.)

The estate tax leaves us with perverse incentives. It can discourage family-run businesses from reinvesting profits, if doing so only will only accelerate the company’s eventual disassembly. This isn’t just a problem for Sam Walton’s kids, either. Almost all American farms are owned by families. You know, agriculture – the one indispensable industry that all the others derive from. The Department of Agriculture’s own employees – federal teat-suckers all – admit that as many as 10% of farms could soon fall victim to the estate tax.

But farmers aren’t rich. Why would they have to pay the estate tax?

They have to own a ton of capital to turn a profit. Farming is about the most labor-intensive, capital-intensive business there is. And the most critical.

More to the point, estates have already been taxed throughout their existence. It’s not like George Steinbrenner wasn’t sending tens of millions of dollars to the IRS every year to maintain his wealth in the first place.

Sure, Larry Ellison’s kids had no hand in creating his wealth. If that’s the criterion for deciding who doesn’t deserve it once he’s gone, who does deserve it?

**This post is featured in Tax Carnival #74: Labor Day 2010 Edition**

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Wealth #3**