A lawyer might call this "cold hand" control. He, like every other rich old person, is probably setting up a complex will to control how his wealth functions after his death (the cold hand from the grave). If he gives a song to someone, that person can do what they want with it. They could keep the money. Sell the song. Or just sit on it and let it never be played again. The dead man would not be in control. But if he convert that song into a pile of cash, and inserts that cash into a trust, then the dead man can exercise more direct/itemized control for many years to come.
Give your house to your son and the day after you die he can sell it. But fund a trust to "administer" the house and you can tell the kid he can live in it but never sell it. Even decades later, the dead hand still controls the house and behavior of the child. Rich people do these things. When I was a law student working at a legal clinic, maybe 1/4 of the clients were old people who wanted to leave their house to their daughter but didn't want her to sell the day after they died. My advice was always to not do this because it burdened the daughter immensely. They didn't care. They wanted the house to continue in the family forever regardless.
(Generic situation, not an ethics violation): One couple I talked to wanted to give their house to their infant grandson. So long as Billy lived in the house his parents could stay too. (Parents effectively passed over, avoiding some taxation issue.) I had a standard approach to this:
So you don't want Billy to join the army? What if Billy wants to be a fighter pilot? Then he won't then be living in the house. What if he is offered a great job in New York? Do you want him to turn that job down in order to keep his parents living your house? When Little Billy is 50 years old, and you have been dead for decades, do you still want him opening up your will to ask your permission before he makes a life choice? Instead, how about we let him live in the house until he is 25 and then he can sell it?
When people get old their mobility/independence/memory diminishes. To combat that they try to maintain a routine, a steady state. They fear change. Dynamic young people become scary unpredictable things. The answer is to exercise control in those areas over which you exercise effective control: finance and property. The natural extension of this control during life is to maintain control after one's death. That's what wills are all about.
Imagination also suffers with age. Old people that enjoy their later years want their kids to enjoy the same life... literally. So they leave the house to the daughter so that she can drop into her parents life. The parents cannot imagine that their daughter has her own perspective. They cannot imagine that the only reason the daughter even lives in town is to help take care of her wealthy parents, that the day after the funeral she will be on a plane to california.
After 2-3 million you don't really "need" money for anything yourself.
You take them for family, because you can, to not let it go away, because you want the power that comes with it, and for extravagance. But not for "need".
There's a great story about the police getting a call for a homeless man wandering around a super posh neighborhood. Turned out to be bob dylan, I think he might have been house hunting.
With 3-4 million (less in many countries) all your needs are covered for life. You wont die or have any harmful effect (lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage) when you don't get to have more, except for things common to everybody like natural death, accidents etc.
If you go for more, you do it for various wants, not for needs.
Even when it comes to happiness, there's a plataeu at around that level:
> lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage
Minimum wage is enough for this.
And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
Even with a $80,000 salary, in the US a medical or other emergency (e.g. getting fired in a bad economy), can leave you unemployed, homeless, or living with a big debt. Even worse so for your retirement prospects (or lack thereof).
With a few cool million in the bank you don't need to worry about any of those things.
>And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
Can you even understood what I said. I have more needs than "lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage". If I have have 10 million dollar, I wouldn't reject earning another 10 million dollar. I am answering the poster whos said "need" is defined as that for which I think minimum wage could do. My need is dynamic in that case.
It was less likely that Dylan was looking to unload his catalogue, and more likely Universal were just extremely hungry for it. At that point you can name the price.
Well I'd also wonder what he'd need to retain ownership for. For some people that's important, but others it's not, especially if they trust the new stewards.
I wonder why he needs the liquidity. I'm sure he's making a ton of money from royalties alone. Even to his ancestors, it's probably better off long term, and good enough short term, to leave the catalog than cash.
