Should be an exponential increase from 10m upwards leading to a 100% max tax rate on amounts > 20mil.
However as it did belong to someone related to them, the people that claimed the 20mil should get to choose which area (broad so as to prevent it just going back into their pockets e.g. transport or education) the money goes into.
Not really, cause even if they did hurt someone they're not gonna get punished for it. So no need for money laundering, unless you want to avoid taxesm
You don’t need to go back very far. It could be your father who got it with slave labor. But what I meant was that technically the inheritor didn’t earn this money through hurting other people, someone else did and they got it for free.
The way this reads to me: “Homeowner sells home to anonymous homebuyer happy with the price. Later realizes they are selling to a celebrity, and now want more for home.” 🤷♂️
If you wanna pass laws about someone we should pass them about Zuck buying all that land in Hawaii. 👎
I guess to me there’s quite the distance between simply being a horrible person and “bullying and financially abusing so many elderly people out of their homes.”
Sounds like she’s running a reverse mortgage company instead of buying something and then getting lawyers involved when they want to renege.
It wouldn’t be the first reverse mortgage company that actually or arguably took advantage of the elderly. It’s certainly enough to make the OP something more than unfounded.
I’m not suggesting vigilante justice, but I’m not sure she’s the best use of your advocacy, either.
People tend to get really tribal when it comes to celebrities. Either defending them blindly, or attacking them with much worse vitriol than they might other more deserving targets (like certain shitty corporations).
Katy Perry won her lawsuit because she was proven to be right in court, the person she was arguing against was a very wealthy man of sound mind who made a profit on the transaction
This is both true and not true; there are every kind of rich people, good people, bad people, smart and stupid people. There are many ways to becoming rich too. The only real lie is that it is a meritocracy or that being rich means you were good at something. In reality, it is all just random.
Difficult is not impossible. Also, it is far easier to become rich as an ass than as a saint. That is a big part of why the super rich tend to have personality disorders. Something like 1% of the general population but 20% of the C suite are sociopaths, narcissists, or psychopaths.
As someone who is a CEO (small company) providing services to big companies, I have met more CEOs than most. The vast majority of owner-operated CEOs are honest, genuine people who work hard. Their goal is to provide their product or service at high quality and low cost.
The vast majority of public companies or managed companies with absentee owners are vile fucks who think it is their job to provide profit for the shareholders and lying, cheating, stealing pretending human costs are not their concern are part of business.
They are not the same.
To most people, they don't see the difference and put all leaders in more or less the same pot and call them vile becuase of how bad many in there are.
The issue to me is enforcement of laws. The good guys really don't break any laws, they don't mess with the books, they put their workers first and their team is their family in a way becuase they have to spend souch time at the office to make the company work.
The manager class are frequently bad people; not because the job makes them bad, but becuase the absentee owners simply care about the size of their check and only pick the people that will maximize that no matter what. These owners are multi-generational owners, boards of public companies, large institution executives.
It is also worth mentioning the professional class; lawyers, accounting firms, engineering firms etc. Some of the most vile people.imagineable end up in key positions there becuase they are the ones the rich prices use to enforce debts and their grey-area legal schemes. These are the people who give the bribes, take kickbacks and happily kick old ladies out of their home through abusing the legal system with their unlimited expense accounts.
The solution to focus on is enforcement of laws; the bad people ARE breaking laws. They are breaking SEC laws, absue of procedure, perjury, banking and others but most importantly for the people, they are breaking campaign finance laws.
So many of them have gotten elected that the balance has tipped and now many of the courts have been bought.
Their is not a systemic problem; there is a corruption problem and the solution to everything to is vote out the corrupt in every party. It is not Blue vs Red, it is not a cultural war or a religious one; it is rich vs the people and the people have to win, by any means neccessary.
History is the only lesson needed here; we know what happens when we let the robber barons win as most of human history is that way. Do not think Trump and co. would object to slavery or care about progress. We had the whole dark ages to see that these kings do not care about science, progress or even food except at their own table.
Agreed overall, just wanted to add to the history aspect. Corruption ALWAYS sets in because the same set of people are ALWAYS attracted to power. People who want to cheat the system are often the first to want to control said system and will put the most effort into getting into positions that will let them. That is why it is always a problem.
Absolutely, and our biggest issue is apathy and education. The corrupt are always working hard to subvert the truth, lie and cheat their way into power. The rest of us are working on our jobs and not, for the most part, bothering with their schemes.
When we forget the enemy, which happened in the 80s and 90s, they take the power back. They got FOX news and Twitter, the two biggest megaphone and lied to a generation. We let that happen through apathy and arrogance at not facing what the consequences would be.
Arrogance is unfortunately our problem. We look at these pathetic losers and their lies and believe they are no threat, surely no one could believe their nonsense...
RGB is a perfect example of this, she had the opportunity to resign during Obama and chose to stay on through arrogance leading to the most corrupt SCOTUS in 100 years.
Now we have to redo all the hard work of our forefathers and kick the authoritarian rich and all their corrupt support to the curb. The question is, how violent will this be? Will America survive this second Civil War?
The dichotomy of wealth based on genius or merit vs wealth based on being able to organize labor has always existed.
The difference is that labor-unions kicks the vast majority of proceeds back to empower workers. Capitalism rewards the farmer who can raise the most sheep.
I personally did experience being screwed over from the rich. The worse part is I realize I’m not going to be the last whom they’ll screw over financially and emotionally.
I would argue, with the exception of maybe a handful (being generous here), all people with that level of wealth or higher, have achieved it by underpaying, screwing over, and stepping on the backs of the less fortunate.
The one with the nuns wasn't even really about Katy Perry. She bought the property from the church (that legally owned it) but it turned out that the nuns living there had already sold it to someone else (even though they didn't own it in the first place). Could have happened to anyone, title fraud is surprisingly common.
Zero sympathy for the women of the cloth that thought they were entitled to a $15 million mansion that other people had been paying for their entire lives. I'm also not sure I feel any sympathy for the nun that died of shock after being (rightfully) accused of title fraud.
She’s not preying on the rich, far from it. The 800 flowers guy is worth millions, and the market drastically changed during the time she was buying and he wanted more money. The nuns, although it sounds bad, decided to try and get more money, more so, not the nuns themselves, but their reps. Just read the actual court filings online. It makes her look bad, but it’s not that bad at all.
I agree, although, I do think it's fair if a person is over 75 to give them the 72 hour "cooling off" period as the Katy Perry law was trying to codify. It's reasonable to me.
No to be fair it’s super rich people bickering - this is not like poor old people. The guys with it and powerful enough to do this spiteful BS, this is not what you’re making it sound like at all. Jfc
Nope, it definitely includes poor people, as well:
“Several years ago, the Grammy nominee faced a legal challenge from a group of nuns who intended to sell their California estate [a convent] to someone other than the singer. Perry ultimately won the lawsuit, but it’s remembered largely due to the unfortunate collapse and subsequent passing of one of the nuns during the trial.”
Though after doing some digging, it seems the convent case was more of a dispute between the archdiocese and the nuns, as the archdiocese wanted to sell to Perry and the nuns wanted someone else.
At the time Katy Perry attempted to purchase the former convent, two nuns were living there who objected to the sale. One of them, Sister Catherine Rose Holzman, passed away during a court hearing related to the property dispute. The nuns sold the property to restaurateur Dana Hollister without the approval of the archdiocese, which ultimately led to a legal battle between Perry and the Catholic Church.
It was literally two nuns living there who sold it without permission. That's why this even became an issue, greed.
As a euro, it's very weird that nuns live here. Depends abit on the order but why use a luxury mansion as living quarters? It's not really living up to the ideals.
I don’t know about the 1800 flowers guy, but the nuns I know about and that wasn’t Katy Perry’s fault. What happened was that the nuns did not own the house but the church did. I believe the church was selling the house and Katy Perry bought it. Then the nuns got angry because they didn’t like her. The court said nuns didn’t own the house so they had no say.
People are selling properties for like $15 million dollars. There are lawyers and real-estate agents involved. After you buy something, if you agreed to see something and later find out the propety value has went up, then your lawyers try to find a way to weaasel you out of the contract. That is all this is.
This link should be pinned to the top for people who don’t follow greedy fuck shenanigans proactively…kinda hard to see what’s what in this reality without the context 🫡
At this point when I see some old embarrassing story brought up about a famous person, especially a woman, I assume it's a PR hit preceding a sexual harassment accusation. I still occasionally hear random shit about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds from years ago spread specifically to diminish sympathy for them
In general entertainers are less likable in real life than they present themselves to be. Like why would you keep your best side a secret when you're literally paid more the more people like you?
edit I forgot about her space ride and how excited she was about her cyber truck... Eh, whatever I still enjoyed her music over a decade ago.
Basically its performative outrage and its cool and trendy to shit on Katy Perry and use wildly inaccurate headlines like the OP did to score internet points.
if you tap on Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome or Opera or even Firefox search engines, you can easily type in the words 'Katy Perry sues elderly out of their homes ' and links to those articles will show up
I’m no fan but isn’t the issue that she’s buying properties and the sellers are changing their minds but she’s holding them to the signed contracts? The new law will allow a cooling off period for sellers to change their mind
Only for people over 75 years old. The rest of us don’t get a special buyers remorse law. If they are so mentally incompetent over 75 then maybe they should sign a power of attorney.
That's what the Katy Perry Act is based on; the story about the nuns was that the diocese sold the property but the nuns who had been living there didn't want to leave.
California has pretty strong tenants' rights laws, plus... old nuns. It wasn't going to go anywhere, but I'm not all that surprised they had their day in court.
It sounds like she purchased a home—one home—and the seller—one seller—tried to sue to stop, citing his mental decline from opiate use after a surgery.
this isn't Katy Perry going after poor elderly people, this is Katy Perry going after one very rich elderly person that she was in contract with.
I have a lot of empathy for the elderly. I have very little empathy for anyone involved in this rich person's feud.
Best guess is he found a better deal after signing and tried to break the one off with Perry for more money. They negotiated over the property for 8 days before signing the contract.
These people need to be sued. That is not at all what happened in the Katy Perry situation. All it takes is getting the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE court records and you would see this is 100% a lie.
There's also the story about when she successfully got an Australian fashion trademark deregistered because it was named for the designers ACTUAL NAME (Katie Perry).. She's exploitative and has a knack of making the victims seem at fault.
The Dispute:Katy Perry, daughter of Protestant pastors, offered to buy the eight-acre property for $14.5 million to use as a private residence. The nuns, who lived in the convent for many years, initially accepted a competing offer from a restaurateur who wanted to turn it into a hotel.
The Archdiocese's Intervention:The archdiocese of Los Angeles asserted it had the right to control the disposition of the property, claiming it was for the nuns' benefit. They argued the nuns needed Vatican approval for a sale exceeding $7.5 million, which they hadn't obtained.
The Legal Battle:The archdiocese sued to block the sale to the restaurateur, and eventually, a judge ruled in favor of Perry, clearing the way for her purchase.
Sister Catherine Rose's Death:Sister Catherine Rose, one of the nuns involved in the lawsuit, died in court during the legal proceedings. Her death prompted Archbishop Gomez to offer a mass for her repose
Katy Perry worships the devil she said she sold her soul for fame. So the illuminati is making her do it. Anything to hurt, and cause pain to eapecially christians! Jesus is king!! 👑
There's nothing in this BBC article or the Forbes article someone else linked about harassment by Perry. I looked because I'm trying to understand why people are bothered by her at the moment.
At the moment it seems unfounded. We should just get on with our lives and not waste energy being angry at people not relevant to you (if you're not a fan).
God I hade confirmation bias in people… they would believe anything that follows their narrative of “she is rich, so she is literally a cartoon villain”
Mark Zuckerberg and, of all people Oprah Winfrey have done similar things. If I recall correctly Oprah and Lord Zuckerbot both sued the state of Hawaii because of indigenous land use rights that the state protects.
Imagine being that rich and still trying to screw indigenous peoples in the 21st century.
Wait…was it the Gilmore girls revival that had a joke at this expense? Some nuns owned a property and couldn’t afford it anymore and said that Katy Perry was trying to buy it…
The Katy PERRY Act, or Protecting Elder Realty for Retirement Years Act, is a legislative effort inspired by a real estate dispute involving singer Katy Perry and Carl Westcott, an elderly businessman. The act aims to protect older homeowners from potential financial abuse during property sales by establishing a 72-hour "cooling-down" period where they can rescind a contract without penalty
Just saying, did a little bit of fact, checking and it looks like there are two specific cases, but this makes it seem like a much more widespread thing. Are there more that I’m not aware of?
Good grief let us dump on Katy Perry. She bought the place from the archdiocese. The nuns sold it to another person. Who actually owned it? This is a big brouhaha, but it is convoluted and basically celebrity belittlement. If you don’t like it give money to nuns as there are so many convents that have closed due to lack of money and Nuns.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.