Comments on: Couple Spends Nearly $248,000 on Playhouses!

By: J. Money

J. Money — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:21:52 +0000

You know, that’s a damn good point my friend. I could still never do it myself, but yes – it does take all kinds of people to keep this country running! Glad you found this old post of mine randomly, haha…

By: JoeTaxpayer

JoeTaxpayer — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:28:36 +0000

Treehouses, yaughts, high end cars, watches, the list goes on.
Years ago I read about a kid’s birthday party that cost north of $50,000. The author made a compelling economic argument listing the numerous people employed to support the party. The place renting the tables, chairs, and silverware. The caterers. The entertainment. The day before the party, this couple had $50,000. The day after, it was spread among the folk who provided goods and services. The economy is better off when these people are spending, not squirreling their money away. It’s not just treehouses, it’s anything that would appear frivolous to a reader, yet for all of these luxury items, there are regular workers who stay employed by providing such luxuries. The economy is pretty complex, but as much as I’d not care to buy a treehouse, I’m just as glad there are those who do.

By: J. Money

J. Money — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:46:38 +0000

It’s true – we live in a free world! :)

By: Sherman Unkefer

Sherman Unkefer — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:25:34 +0000

You should be free to do with your money as you please! I love the treehouse and I’m sure the memories that will be made are worth the price tag.

By: J. Money

J. Money — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:08:11 +0000

Lovin’ that most of y’all are on my side ;) Though kinda unfair since “Aaron” hasn’t shown up to debate yet… we might just have to leave it alone though, enough drama for one week ;)

Some more responses:

@StackingCash – Hah! I blogged about that too :) https://eliteedgemoney.com/2011/05/most-expensive-bar-tab-ever/ — Did they ever find who’s it was?
@Paula @ AffordAnything.org – Yup, agreed!
@Gene – Uh oh, better be careful w/ the politics part – you might open up a whole can of worms here! :) But yes, in general I agree with you. Very well thought out, as always my man!
@Mike – HAH! Now that would be funny :) But not as sexy to blog about, haha…

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:02:10 +0000

There is another twist… What if the play house was not for kids but for birds. That’s right a playhouse for birds or renamed as a sanctuary. In doing this it is possible the playhouse can be a total write-off especially the the facility caters to an endangered species. … ;-)

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:14:41 +0000

Value is a perception, an human invented perception. Money’s value to most is the effort involved to obtain it. But everybody is different some people find things either to obtain than others, hence the differing perception in what’s “worth the money” and what’s not.

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:32:17 +0000

This has been a very entertaining topic. I’ve heard a lot of diverse viewpoints and would like to throw in my two cents.
First, I’d like to point out some of the things that are being discussed that I consider irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion (which I am defining as whether or not it was ok for Burnham to pay a quarter mil for a tree house).
1. The source of the income. (I also have a strong opinion about federal subsidies to the oil industry, but it isn’t germane to the discussion)
2. What kind of character the children raised with these advantages will develop. (Probably slightly increases the chances they’ll grow up to be A$$Holes, but again – not the point)
3. I’ve read a couple of posts that touch on perspective. I’d like to expound on that.
I seriously doubt that “Aaron” would jump a family that went to Home Depot and bought their kid a small playhouse. For instance, something like the Swing-N-Slide Grand Tower Playhouse which goes for $1800. A little pricey for a toy, but say for a family making $70k/yr not excessive when you consider the years the kid will play with it (hopefully).
That’s $1800 for a gift for your child when your income is $70k. So now look from a different perspective than you are used to. Burnham doesn’t make $70k/yr. His last year’s income that I could find on the internet was from 2002. Between his salary, bonus, and exercised stock options his gross was $8.8 MILLION.
If he spends the same percentage of his pay as I might (had I a child) on his kid’s playhouse, he would spend $226,000. When you scale the purchase to what the guy makes it’s not out of line with what we mere mortals do for our children.
Now I think that perspective was an interesting point, but it is still the third thing that I consider irrelevant to the discussion. Sorry. I don’t care if he spent the entire 8mil on the playhouse. It doesn’t change the fact that it was his money to dispose of as he sees fit. Heck for all I care he could spend $10mil if he could find someone to lend him the other 2mil. (Would the mortgage be written on a 3’x5’ card? :) )
4. What, if anything, Burnham donates to charity. This has been a re-occurring theme in the comments and the one that bothers me the most. It’s as if the money he may donate to worthy causes would somehow validate or pay off the guilt he should feel over giving such an extravagant gift to his grandchildren.
Inferring from multiple comments, it seems like many would like to see him required to pay for the privilege of spending his money on “wants”, if not just flat out take his money away from him from the beginning because he isn’t spending it “morally”. I find that position disturbing. This country was founded to protect everyone’s freedoms so that your things can’t be taken away at the whim of the government. Not to get overly-dramatic, but communism was designed to make sure everyone gets their “fair share” (at least that was the main selling point to the revolutionaries). It fails miserably because it erases the motivation for innovation and productivity.
There is no ethical obligation to provide for anyone else’s needs just because you are fortunate enough to have more than you require to fulfill your own. Depending on your personal or religious convictions you may feel that there is a moral obligation to help others if you have an excess. But it is not the place of government to enforce one group’s idea of morality and redistribute the industrious’ excess to those who will vote to put them in charge.
Now (as you might have already guessed, grin) I am not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican either (I believe in personal freedom too). I am a Libertarian and I disagree with policies that forcibly take money away from successful individuals and give it to others because they are less successful. I think that that is both immoral and un-ethical (I think that it’s called “stealing”). The Preamble says “promote the general welfare”, not “provide for”.
Charities exist to let people VOLUNTARILY help others less fortunate than themselves. And whether you give to them or not, you should be free to spend your money however you want.
5. “They’re spending more on that tree house than we are on our HOME”. See #3. There are a lot of people out there that have more than you. Get over it. They can buy and sell me many times over. I don’t lose any sleep over it.
Simian narcotic binges notwithstanding (monkeys on coke), the only things that really matter are that he owned the land, built to code, and paid the people that constructed the tree house what he said he would.

By: Paula @ AffordAnything.org

Paula @ AffordAnything.org — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:03:29 +0000

I’m on your side of the argument, J. Mo … if Aaron’s going to criticize someone for spending a “relatively” large chunk of money on a discretionary item, how can he justify spending a “relatively” large chunk of money (say, $50 for two people) on eating at a restaurant, when there are starving people in India living on less than $1 U.S. Dollar a day, who could use that same $50 to buy food for 4 months? His logic has a slippery, slippery slope ….

By: kody

kody — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:03:50 +0000

As long as its legal people shouldn’t care what other people spend money on. It is their OWN money so why should i care? Their kids deserve to be kids and enjoy the playhouse. That is the important part. People are just too caught up in everyone else business, they should learn to stay out and worry about themselves :)