OT: Refreshing Honesty From Steve Nash
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2014-03-13/steve-nash-lakers-reti…
"On the other hand, it's just a reality, I'm not going to retire because I want the money," Nash said. "It's honest."
I'd like to announce that I will be playing for the Lakers next year too.
Danny Fortson once mumbled the same thing while double fisting glazed donuts.
I'm pretty sure "double fisting glazed donuts" is a euphemism for something, but I can't figure out what.
It involves 2 girls from OSU, some rubber gloves, and an emu.
How much money does one guy need?
X + $9.8 million.
even if you didn't want the money, wouldn't you take it and give it to charity rather than letting jerry buss keep it?
Enough isnt enough..
I don't blame him, but you'd think that after 18 years in the league, he'd have saved up enough.
Why is it okay for every other segment of society to make as much money as possible but not athletes? This is a response that frequently gets tossed around. Why doesn't Warren Buffet divest of all his interests and retire?
Principles have nothing to do with it.
Warren Buffett doesn't have to throw his body in a meat grinder for nine months to earn his money. The NBA season is grueling. I wouldn't want any part of it if I were 40 years old.
It's no football. And the problem, or at least situation with Nash is, why he won't just retire and not attempt a comeback. He's not playing at the moment.
It may be marginally less brutal than football, but an 82-game season is still hard as hell on your body. Landing on that hardwood isn't comfortable. And it's a sport with very quick turnaround between games - there's not much in the way of recovery time.
March 14th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^
You're (apparently) not 40 years old. And you're (probably) not in as good of condition as Steve Nash is.
Yes, it's grueling, and yes, I'm sure he's recovering slower than he used to. But if I had a chance to keep doing what I've been doing for the last 20-ish years of my life and make $9.7 million, I might just go ahead and do it. Hell, Warren Buffett might put himself through a grinder, too, if he needed to do so to make another 10% of what he's already accrued.
(I have no idea how much Nash has made throughout his career, so the 10% figure is random.)
Fun fact: Warren Buffett's total salary last year was less than $500,000. His base salary of $100,000 has been static for 25 years.
Why take a huge salary when you'll have to pay a high tax rate when you can just make tons more just paying a lower tax on your investment income? Warren's salary is symbolic.
Warren's a hypocrtical SOB especially when it comes to the inheritance tax.
Warren Buffett is so full of shit.
But he's correct about inheritance tax.
One of the typical lines of attack on Warren Buffet's supposedly hypocritical opinion on the inheritance tax (he believes it should be increased) is that it forces heirs to sell, amongst other things, their inherited statkes in companies in order to pay the inheritance tax. Warren Buffet, being rich, is then in a position to scoop up those assets at fire sale prices. I find this idea to be laughable.
First, it is not as if Buffet is given first crack at any company that comes up for sale. He could of course outbid all comers for the company, but that is hardly his style. Second (as a CPA), I have seen some instances where a decedent's estate had to sell assets in order to pay the estate tax. However, and this fact has been noted by others besides me, the idea that family businesses are being auctioned off left and right to pay the estate tax is, with one or two exceptions, a piece of fiction. All of the individuals whose estates will owe the tax are worth, at the very least, several million dollars. THese types of people, almost without exception, hold highly diversified portfolios. There are usually plenty of liquid asets around to pay the tax.
More to the point, it seems to also turn out that the heirs want to cash out anyway. They want the value that has built up in these companies, and so it seems like they are most often sold relatively soon after the death of the decedent, after all estae taxes have been paid.
I have not really seen any argument that claims that Buffet is a hypocrite on these matters that really withstands any scrutiny. Do you know any?
March 15th, 2014 at 12:15 AM ^
I always get a good laugh out of people who defend Warren Buffet.
March 15th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
Who's that? Does he own a string of Ryan's Steakhouses?
What's your point? He's earned tons of money, lives in a small house, drives a Bronco, and should also fly coach? Should he also hop behind the counter of Chick-Fil-A and make his own sandwich? You act as if doing a couple money-saving things should force him to live his whole life as a regular, $50,000-a-year Joe Schmoe.
March 15th, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^
he doesn't have *a* private jet, his company owns a whole fleet of them (another of the wonders of Columbus): 
That's nothing. Buffett's got far dirtier secrets than that.
I guess I don't see the problem with it. The guy clearly takes pains to help others and show that money should not be concentrated in a small number.
Yes. But he owns many many shares of Berkshire Hathaway which are valued at many billions of dollars, amongst other assets. His salary may be lower than one might expect, but if he needs cash all he has to do is unload a few shares and viola, millions appear in his bank account.
Make that dough while you can. What the heck else is he going to do the rest of his life?
At this point, he should have earned enough to invest a big chunk and let his money work for him. He shouldn't need to work at all.
Who said he needs to work? He literally said he "wants" the money. You're making assumptions and imposing your own beliefs about money/saving/investing on some guy you've probably never met and probably will never meet.
I completely agree. Why should he walk away from his contract? 9.8 million more is a pretty nice chunk.
Every year, I say to myself "if only I made this amount of money per year, I'd be pleased." Well, the next year comes along and I get that raise and I again say to myself, "well, I guess what I actually meant is that this other amount of money would be more sufficient."
If that happens with me as I slooowly rise through the ranks of the middle class, I'm sure that feeling of wanting more money never really stops, even with the multi-millionaires.
I saw an interview with Howard Cosell once and even though he had amassed some $60 million, he always felt like it wasn't enough, not because of a sense of greed but because he had a constant fear (which he attributed to the Depression) that it would run out. It plagued him. He didn't spend a lot, he just could never feel 100% secure.
He probably has saved a good deal. Adding $9.8M to that total isn't bad at all.
March 14th, 2014 at 10:26 PM ^
Steve Nash knows what he's getting into.
And Steve Nash wants to try.
Perhaps Steve Nash's motivation is larger than the sound byte, or he didn't describe his motivation very well.
Or maybe Steve Nash's drive is higher than most, and he's hard-wired to keep going.
In any event, it's Steve Nash's choice. If Steve Nash can get the deal, then more power to Steve Nash.
Did I make it clear that I was referring to Steve Nash?
.
If I were in Nash's position, I would soak up every last dollar as a player and then try to stay in the game as a coach or a TV analyst.
As Jalen would say, "Keep gettin dem checks!"
...many people here are down on him. I, for one, am simply blowing off almost-lost-Illinois steam with my posts...From what I know of Nash, I want him to have a bunch of money. He'll probably do good things with it. /no politics
"There is not much logic in millionaires making concessions for billionaires. It only takes basic common sense to understand that, and Nash has it." - from the article
I will be honest and say that I agree with that sentiment - I can see where being asked to take cuts by someone whose worth is an order of magnitude higher than yours perhaps really doesn't make much sense on its face.