Man Returns $45,000 Found in New House

Off Topic
101

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

Did anybody see what I posted on the first page? The simple fact that he bought the house doesnt necessarily give him EVERYTHING in it. If the property is MISLAID, then the original owner can get it back.[/quote]

Yeah, I saw your post, but I don’t think the money qualifies as mislaid because the original owner knew exactly where he put, he just died without telling anyone. The son never even knew it existed, and because he did not properly search the house before he sold it he can only be said to have abandoned it. I’m not a lawyer but my understanding of Virginia law is that when you sell a house, you sell the house and contents, and it’s set up this way to settle issues like this before they come up. For example, if you lost your grandmother’s precious diamond engagement ring years ago and don’t want to lose it forever when you sell the house, then you get off your ass and find it before the closing date on the sale. Otherwise if the new owner finds the ring ten years from now when he is renovating, he has no obligation to track you down to give it back to you, because it is now his property.

Ethically, you could say the house buyer did the right thing by giving the money to the intended recipient, the old man’s son, but as he had bought the house and contents, it was his property to do with as he saw fit. If he really wanted to do the right thing, he should have quietly given the money to the son without making a big deal about it. Obviously the old man kept the money a secret because he didn’t want the tax man to take a bite (and I don’t blame him). Now the son’s going to have to declare it on his income tax.

But yall carry on with your self-righteous pissing contest.

102

[quote]Edevus wrote:
I don’t think it’s an age thing, but rather about values. My mother always taught me values like helping those who need it, be honest and humble, etc. She didn’t teach me these things by words, but by actions. Once we took a taxi back home and when we were out of the taxi, she realized that the taxi driver had given totally wrong exchange. I don’t remember the quantities, but the taxi driver had given her back a lot more than she had actually paid. My mother made a big effort to find this taxi driver and give her back the money.

Things like this marked me and made me a man of values. I’m far from perfect of course, but I try to stay as “righteous” as I can. 45000$ is a lot of money, but I know I’d be quite restless if I kept it. Plus, I haven’t earned that money, it’s not mine and this money was intended for someone else. I just couldn’t keep it and spend it.

I’ve gotten in arguments with people who’d keep it and don’t want to believe that some of us wouldn’t.

[/quote]
People make mistakes. When I lose something, I realize my mistake and deal with it. My uncle has lost a laptop worth more than 2 months of his salary. Guess what? He was mentally strong enough to deal with his losses and still slept soundly that night knowing that he would never get it back. Life goes on, it’s alright.
These are random events that occur in life and you’ll just have to make the best of them no matter whether you’re on the losing or the gaining side.
You think the guy who sold the house earned that money? He didn’t earn it either. You think it wouldn’t do the greater good for people if you donated the money to something like doctors or engineers without boarders instead? Look at the global picture, man. The would doesn’t just involve you and the people you directly deal with.

103

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Push, your condescending attitude in this thread, while initially adorable, has grown old…

[/quote]

It matters little to me how adorable or old my condescending attitude may seem to you. When I look at the “finders keepers” responses on this thread I think how pathetic and character debilitating a greedy attitude is. I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess, that most of the “I’d keep it” crowd would be the younger (16 - 25) respondents. That’s makes me wonder where as a nation(s) we will be in 20 - 50 years.

[/quote]

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

That is some crazy mental gymnastics right there LOL

Sorry, but the right thing to do doesn’t change based on whatever imaginary evils you paint the old man or his son with. Even if the old man was an ass and his son was a rich douchebag and you kept the money, you are still morally wrong to do so.

104

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
The same people would be back in there getting a refund if they were overcharged.[/quote]

That line stuck out as pretty condescending in all of this, when with the logical point of view to it you just laid out you would think it is just status quo for them to be entitled to pay the proper amount for what they bought. It’s the exact same situation as your 2 Dr Pepper cases but in reverse(you bought 1 charged for 2, the store has essentially ‘accidentally stolen’ 1 case of Dr Pepper from you in a sense).

Continuing your line of thought from later in the post as well, the amount of money on the overcharge should have no bearing on how you perceive a person seeking that refund, they shouldn’t only see it was wrong when it’s 45,000 dollars.

105

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.

106

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
The same people would be back in there getting a refund if they were overcharged.[/quote]

That line stuck out as pretty condescending in all of this, when with the logical point of view to it you just laid out you would think it is just status quo for them to be entitled to pay the proper amount for what they bought. It’s the exact same situation as your 2 Dr Pepper cases but in reverse(you bought 1 charged for 2, the store has essentially ‘accidentally stolen’ 1 case of Dr Pepper from you in a sense).

Continuing your line of thought from later in the post as well, the amount of money on the overcharge should have no bearing on how you perceive a person seeking that refund, they shouldn’t only see it was wrong when it’s 45,000 dollars.
[/quote]

Sort of related: Yesterday I got some Wendy’s a the drive through and ordered 2 Double burgers and when I got home the burgers were SINGLES! I did nothing but eat them and be cranky. If it were still in the parking lot when I realized I would have demanded a refund or something. But there is no way I’d be giving back an extra burger or paying for extra patties or anything like that.

107

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

No problem with saving in banks or any sort of reasonable investments. Just don’t hid that shit in your attic. When you save it in a bank, others who actually need the money can borrow it from the bank. But if you just stash it, you are wasting that money.

108

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

No problem with saving in banks or any sort of reasonable investments. Just don’t hid that shit in your attic. When you save it in a bank, others who actually need the money can borrow it from the bank. But if you just stash it, you are wasting that money.
[/quote]

How is he wasting the money he earned. I don’t think you understand supply and demand to see how this is actually beneficial to “society”. You do seem to be very generous with other peoples money tho.

109

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

No problem with saving in banks or any sort of reasonable investments. Just don’t hid that shit in your attic. When you save it in a bank, others who actually need the money can borrow it from the bank. But if you just stash it, you are wasting that money.
[/quote]

How is he wasting the money he earned. I don’t think you understand supply and demand to see how this is actually beneficial to “society”. You do seem to be very generous with other peoples money tho.[/quote]

Increased GDP is good, yes? I’d say it measures an improvement in society. Of course there are many different arguments about measuring standards of living, but that’s another topic.
There is nothing to do with supply/demand, but about increasing GDP. When the money is no in circulation (eg being stashed in an attic), it cannot be counted for GDP. But when you save it in a bank, the money has plenty of opportunities to be counted towards consumption or investments depending on what the bank does with the money, which increases GDP.

110

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

No problem with saving in banks or any sort of reasonable investments. Just don’t hid that shit in your attic. When you save it in a bank, others who actually need the money can borrow it from the bank. But if you just stash it, you are wasting that money.
[/quote]

How is he wasting the money he earned. I don’t think you understand supply and demand to see how this is actually beneficial to “society”. You do seem to be very generous with other peoples money tho.[/quote]

Increased GDP is good, yes? I’d say it measures an improvement in society. Of course there are many different arguments about measuring standards of living, but that’s another topic.
There is nothing to do with supply/demand, but about increasing GDP. When the money is no in circulation (eg being stashed in an attic), it cannot be counted for GDP. But when you save it in a bank, the money has plenty of opportunities to be counted towards consumption or investments depending on what the bank does with the money, which increases GDP.
[/quote]

You completely ignore supply and demand to make your point.

Here is how it works. Money is out of circulation thus the purchasing power of everyone else’s dollar goes up.

Your mental gymnastics you use to steal an old mans savings he was giving to his kids is really mind blowing. Perhaps you should take 2-3 minutes and think about what you are saying and see if you still arrive at the same conclusion.

111

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
The same people would be back in there getting a refund if they were overcharged.[/quote]

That line stuck out as pretty condescending in all of this, when with the logical point of view to it you just laid out you would think it is just status quo for them to be entitled to pay the proper amount for what they bought. It’s the exact same situation as your 2 Dr Pepper cases but in reverse(you bought 1 charged for 2, the store has essentially ‘accidentally stolen’ 1 case of Dr Pepper from you in a sense).

Continuing your line of thought from later in the post as well, the amount of money on the overcharge should have no bearing on how you perceive a person seeking that refund, they shouldn’t only see it was wrong when it’s 45,000 dollars.
[/quote]

Damn right I’m condescending. :wink: I’m just pointing out that we rationalize these things because it’s a store, not a “real person”, or maybe because it’s something small. VTballa pointed out that our tendency to be honest goes up when it’s personal or emotional. I’d agree. Still, just because a store has formulas for “shrinkage” doesn’t mean keeping stuff you didn’t pay for is what you “should do”. It doesn’t really change the principle of the thing.

I know someone with twins. They bought two highchairs and were charged for one. They considered that to just be “lucky” and justified it because twins are expensive, and they buy tons of “overpriced” stuff from Target all the time. IF they had been overcharged instead, ie. bought two but were charged for four…I don’t think they’d just consider that “bad luck” and live with it. When we engage in this kind of logic, it ought to go both ways, right? Might as well try to be consistent.

Deb brought up mistakes that are immediately perishable, like food. Some of that kind of thing just gets impossible to fix because it’s going to be thrown away, right? So, most of us would just live with it. That becomes a gray area. I’m fine with that.

TO KEEP IT SIMPLE

If you can fix a mistake, fix it.
If you find something that’s lost, return it.
If something doesn’t belong to you, give it back.

When people fail to understand this, we are all in deep sh*t.

112

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

Well… He was probably evading the tax man. So the way he was saving was greedy.

113

If a guy was walkin down the street and I saw cash fall out his pocket, I’d give it back. In fact I did this when I was real young.

However, in the case of the $45k in the house, I may have to enact the “Tough Titty” law :wink:

It’s not about finders keepers, it’s about tough titty

seriously though, something similar was on the radio the other day.

A teenage girl found $1500 in an envelope (TX I think), turned it into the bank, they called the cops. Cops took it, no one claimed it and the girl didn’t get it because now the cash was owned by the city. VA and MD I believe have similar laws. If something isn’t claimed it becomes the city’s property.

just something else to think about, maybe not related to the house cash

114

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

Well… He was probably evading the tax man. So the way he was saving was greedy.
[/quote]

Unless he got his money is a shady way I don’t see him avoiding the tax man. I know that my grandparents had a safe with a fair bit of cash in their house and they certainly where not avoiding the tax man.

115

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

x2
Some people don’t like the idea of private property rights. If I want to keep my money under my mattress, or use it for toilet paper, I will. LWI! Next thing we’ll have a law making it illegal to keep cash in your house since it should be out there circulating “for the greater good”. Come on cct, how much do you have in your dresser drawer? Enough to be just a little immoral, or really obscene?

116

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

No problem with saving in banks or any sort of reasonable investments. Just don’t hid that shit in your attic. When you save it in a bank, others who actually need the money can borrow it from the bank. But if you just stash it, you are wasting that money.
[/quote]

How is he wasting the money he earned. I don’t think you understand supply and demand to see how this is actually beneficial to “society”. You do seem to be very generous with other peoples money tho.[/quote]

Increased GDP is good, yes? I’d say it measures an improvement in society. Of course there are many different arguments about measuring standards of living, but that’s another topic.
There is nothing to do with supply/demand, but about increasing GDP. When the money is no in circulation (eg being stashed in an attic), it cannot be counted for GDP. But when you save it in a bank, the money has plenty of opportunities to be counted towards consumption or investments depending on what the bank does with the money, which increases GDP.
[/quote]

You completely ignore supply and demand to make your point.

Here is how it works. Money is out of circulation thus the purchasing power of everyone else’s dollar goes up.

Your mental gymnastics you use to steal an old mans savings he was giving to his kids is really mind blowing. Perhaps you should take 2-3 minutes and think about what you are saying and see if you still arrive at the same conclusion.[/quote]

OK, you are trying to look at absolute purchasing power, which makes things a bit more complex. I can drop that argument and assume that his $45000 is insignificant to the whole economy no matter what he does with it.
The fact is that he is hiding that money in an attic and did not tell anyone. That is a greedy act, no? He clearly was not saving the money for his kids.
When a man dies, he cease to exist and goes back to nature. You bought the house and all the contents. The money is as fairly yours as the grass on the lawn of the property.

117

[quote]cct wrote:
The fact is that he is hiding that money in an attic and did not tell anyone. That is a greedy act, no? [/quote]

How is this a greedy act? You say it as though it’s obvious and not debatable but I am totally missing how that could be greedy.

118

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

x2
Some people don’t like the idea of private property rights. If I want to keep my money under my mattress, or use it for toilet paper, I will. LWI! Next thing we’ll have a law making it illegal to keep cash in your house since it should be out there circulating “for the greater good”. Come on cct, how much do you have in your dresser drawer? Enough to be just a little immoral, or really obscene?

[/quote]

Fair enough. But I don’t see how the money must belong to his family. The city has as good of a claim on it as anyone. So if you are the one who finds it, you might as well as keep it considering that you would the only living person who knows about it. That gives you more connection to that money than anyone in the world.

119

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:
The fact is that he is hiding that money in an attic and did not tell anyone. That is a greedy act, no? [/quote]

How is this a greedy act? You say it as though it’s obvious and not debatable but I am totally missing how that could be greedy.
[/quote]

Maybe selfish is a better word. A secret stash is obviously only going to be spent on yourself. It has nothing to do with his kids.
It definitely shows a distrust in his family and society.

120

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

In my eyes, the old man has already done wrong by hiding the money rather than using it or putting it in a bank. Rather than using the money in some way so that society can collectively progress, he hid it selfishly so that he would be safe in case something happens and everyone else is screwed over. He is the most selfish of them all and even hid his money from his own offsprings. Thank god the old bastard died so that money can once again go into circulation to benefit society.
As I see it, the descendants of this man never owned the money, so it is not moral to give the money back. Giving the money to the descendants of this man is as stupid as giving back your hard earned money back to your boss’s son. It is definitely more moral to keep the money and do something that benefits the whole society with it (like donating to a charity) than to give it back to some greedy fool’s descendant who don’t even know the money exists and would just end up squandering it.[/quote]

When saving is considered greedy we know there is a big fucking problem.[/quote]

Well… He was probably evading the tax man. So the way he was saving was greedy.
[/quote]

Unless he got his money is a shady way I don’t see him avoiding the tax man. I know that my grandparents had a safe with a fair bit of cash in their house and they certainly where not avoiding the tax man.[/quote]

Sure it’s possible, but I have a hard time seeing it.

This guy filled garbage bags with rolls of small bills and stored them in the attic. He also didn’t bother to tell anyone else about it. I would say that’s much different than storing cash in a safe multiple people have knowledge of.

If I were to guess, he took side jobs paid in cash, and accumulated the earnings in his attic. It’s not uncommon for police officers to take side jobs.