Neutering trust fund babies will not make America safer

[yurbud]

Given the epic financial damage caused by Wall Street and the presidency of George W. Bush, scientists and security experts have been studying how to limit the damage trust fund babies can do to America but concluded that sterilizing them will not solve the problem.

"Trust fund babies were once thought to be a benign species because of their small numbers," said forensic psychologist Craig McCann. "However, recent history has shown otherwise, and we are beginning to understand why. They grow up without having to wonder how they will pay their rent or how they will afford to take their kids to the doctor. Their nagging subconscious awareness of their pampered incompetence leads them to act out with their money asself-appointed "masters of the universe" hoping to prove their self-worth by accumulating more than their distance ancestors who actually had to work to make the original family fortune."

"Unfortunately, they have no real knowledge of how to make anything or provide any service, so they fall back on bookkeeping tricks they learned in their MBA programs to create the illusion of success. While this creates paper profits, when coupled with their lack of empathy for those who actually must work to survive, the effect on the real economy is equivalent to an ebola outbreak or dropping an atom bomb."

McCann and his colleagues thought neutering trust fund babies, possible by posing as servants at a country club and sneaking some pruning shears into the sauna, or even using scuba gear to lay in wait at the bottom of the jacuzzis, would get the job done.

There was just one problem: most trust fund babies are not the children of their legal fathers.

"We stumbled upon it quite by accident while examining a blood sample we took from one we shot with a tranquilizer dart and tagged for observation," McCann said. "We had a reference sample from some fraternity oath his grandfather had to sign with his own blood. They were not related."

To insure that this wasn't a fluke, they did paternity tests on all the samples they had taken in the past and found that 91% were not related to their legal fathers.

The culture of trust fund babies offers clues to why: most of them join exclusive secret societies in college that have homoerotic, sado-masochistic initiation rituals. Although the percentage that are actually gay is probably the same as the rest of society, since these "men" could use their wealth to buy the finest prostitutes and are used to being fawned over by less wealthy women, the furtive, forbidden violation of those initiations holds a lasting appeal to them and becomes their primary sexual outlet.

Their wives are left to mate with golf and tennis pros or even gardeners.

"While this avenue has proven to be a dead end," McCann said, "We will not give up, anymore than we would give up if a giant meteor was heading toward the earth. The fate of the world could depend on work."

[annabanana]

1. heehee. . . . n/t

[Greyhound]

2. LOL! K&R

[rhett o rick]

3. k & r. great post. nm

[The Doctor.]

4. "Did you say your wife learned everything about sex from a manual?"

"Yes, Emmanuel was our gardener."

I think that a relocation program would be more appropriate. Placing the TFBs with their biological fathers after anesthetizing them and removing any dangerous lines of cash or credit may well re-invigorate the species and make them productive members of society.

:silly:

As an original piece, that was brilliant.

[yurbud]

5. thanks

[Chulanowa]

6. We must collar them and return them to their natural habitat - Connecticut

[Truthiness Inspector]

7. What is wrong with trusts exactly?

I think the term "trust fund babies" has taken on illogical proportions.

If you, for example, earn X amount in your lifetime and would like to pass that on to your children, friends, whoever, in trust, (in other words do with it what YOU want) so what?

[yurbud]

8. law of unintended consequences: you mean well, but the effect is psychologically deformed kid like

Bush.

[Truthiness Inspector]

9. That is very short-sighted

What you are saying is basically no parents should leave any assets of any type to their children, even though that is what most parents work FOR, to make sure their loved ones (often of multiple generations) will be ok and will be the ones to benefit from their hard work. Or is it just "trusts" you have a concern with, because that is the same thing just smarter tax-wise.

[yurbud]

11. those with inherited wealth often fall into the trap of feeling superior when in fact they are just

lucky.

I would want to leave something for my kids too, but not so much they could rub elbows with the idle rich and think they can destroy other people's lives and not lose a night's sleep.

[Truthiness Inspector]

12. And where would you draw that line?

And on what grounds do you think you should be entitled to draw the line of how much earned wealth a person should be able to leave in his or her own volition, in trust, to the people he or she desires?

How much do you make an hour? Maybe we could assemble a committee to decide how much of that, after taxes, you should be ALLOWED to leave to your loved ones, throw in a volcano, go to the grave with you, etc. After all, there are people whose incomes are zero. You should not be allowed to earn money and leave it to whom you choose, especially in a trust, because, that might make the beneficiaries of your trust "lucky." It's best that others decide for you, and judge you and your loved ones, right?

Think it through is all I'm saying.

[yurbud]

13. others should have a say when it leads to the harm of society as a whole

[Thothmes]

15. or the Kennedy brothers.

[yurbud]

16. also, totally apart from how we tax these people, do you want them running our country & the world?

And if you don't, how do you reduce their power and influence?

[otherlander]

10. Is there a definite line

between "trust fund babies" and "person with a trust fund"? Could one fall into the later category without falling into the former? Is a "trust fund baby" simply someone with such a large trust fund that they will never have to actually get a job? Or would the label also include someone who inherited a quarter of the wealth of a deceased, working-class relative in the form of a trust fund?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Yes, yes, very funny. Of course, JFK was born rich, too.

And Hitler had a decidedly middle class upbringing.

Truth is, there are good people- and assholes- from all sorts of backgrounds. I think it's facile to blame all of Bush's incompetence on something like a trust fund.