Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am not surprised that people can have a home, international travel, etc and still have money for a country club. I am just shocked that you would spend $100k on a country club, of all things. Imagine all you could do with that money by scaling back just a tiiiiiny bit.
This. It's hard to even fathom anyone spending that kind of money so frivolously when some of us don't even have a house to live in.
It is their money and they can spend it how they wish. A few people have $50,000 watches, you can tell time just as well on a $1,000 watch, but it's their money and they can spend $100,000 on a watch, country club membership, whatever. Some people don't have a car and some people drive cars that cost more than $75,000. Again, it is their money. There is not obligation, moral or legal, for the very rich to buy a house or car for anyone else. There is a moral obligation to give to charity but no legal obligation.
Frankly, I enjoy seeing the very rich enjoying themselves as it gives me a better perspective on my own life. I can't have their life style but I like my life and I am happy.
My SIL is a member. I don't know the dues or initiation fee. She's a legacy. Her parents are Republicans, and her father was a Federal judge. We ate dinner there once, and it seemed like a very nice place, very pleasant. I'd join if it weren't exclusive or expensive, but it sounds like it is both. And I'm a Democrat, so I probably wouldn't fit in anyway.
I grew up in a family where everyone belonged to country clubs. I would not dream of joining one. I don't share the country club values of my family members, even though I do enjoy the nice meals and parties when I'm invited. DH and I belong to a public pool that requires dues, but does not exclude anyone. It's not expensive, but its expensive enough to exclude very poor people. The water is wet, the pool is clean, and my kids enjoy it.
I agree with PP that people can spend their money as they wish, but I don't condone spending excessive amounts of money on things that can be bought for far less money and still provide the same function. I'd never spend $100K on a car or a watch when I can buy a perfectly good car or watch for a fraction of that amount and send the rest of the money to Haiti or give it to some other worthy cause I believe in. Cartier and CCC don't need my money, but the lives of Hatians or poor children in the District would be improved immeasurably by that money.
I for one, do not enjoy seeing the very rich spend large amounts of money on frivolous things. Rome burns while the rich play, and I, for one, find it sickening.