Latest on MJJC

Was Michael Jackson a "Good billionaire"?

Mister_Jay_Tee

Mister_Jay_Tee

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2022
Donations
$1.00
Messages
9,926
Points
113
Some people say there is no such thing. A lotta people are gonna quibble and say he wasn't even a billionaire. (He wasn't, not technically, but he came so close and was worth so much he basically achieved it).

Anyway, how do you answer? In my estimate, money was never much of a big deal to MJ so much as expensive propositions entertained him in this lifetime.
 
What struck me when I learned about the numbers (remark: any number/info I mention here is just how I remember it, I'm not fact-checking while writing this post), it was something like he made 30 million USD/year (which, if you convert from 90s USD to 2020s USD is already a lot) and the cost of running Neverland was approximately 1/3 of that, then he gave a lot away, and he used to spend a lot... My guess is that he assumed his incomes would be constant or even grow forever. And this doesn't sound like great wealth management.

According to I-don-t-remember-the-name-of-the-site, most of the Jacksons have/had underwhelming official wealth in comparison to their fame. If I remember well, Tito was doing OK, maybe Rebbie. In comparison, random punk band musicians scored much wealthier. I expect that Janet, who was the second most successful in her career, did good too.

But also, I'm not sure if any of the Jacksons precise wealth is actually accurately known.
 
I don't understand the question. Is it - was Michael good at managing his enormous wealth? Or - was he generous and philanthropic with his enormous wealth?

We know he gave away crazy amounts of his money. I stopped long ago trying to keep a mental tally of how many people were the beneficiaries of his generosity. If he spent his money too freely and gave it away too freely I can't comment on that bc I have not lived that kind of life. He seems to have always had a generous impulse which is admirable.
 
He was in debt for the last years of his life, which led him to (almost) auction off his personal items and do This Is It. Seems he was not that good at managing his own money.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I don't understand the question. Is it - was Michael good at managing his enormous wealth? Or - was he generous and philanthropic with his enormous wealth?
Click to expand...
Oh right. I wondered the same thing when I read, and them I thought the question was about his wealth and not philanthropy... But now I'm wondering again.
 
Maxym said:
Oh right. I wondered the same thing when I read, and them I thought the question was about his wealth and not philanthropy... But now I'm wondering again.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. I'm just confused. I like the way Mr JT's mind works but, ngl, I can't always follow it. :D

He did say ...
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Anyway, how do you answer? In my estimate, money was never much of a big deal to MJ so much as expensive propositions entertained him in this lifetime.
Click to expand...
... which does seem to put the emphasis on wealth, spending it or whatever. I'm still not sure. :unsure:
 
We're not talking about Michael's management of his money, were talking about the "moral obligation" that comes with being rich and if Michael lives up to that.

They say Taylor Swift in her private jets makes her the celebrity with the highest CO2 emissions. That's her rich privilege. And yet it damages our planet, the environment. How might one look at how Michael lived his life with his funds? Again, I'll say that I don't think he inflicted a true danger to the world around him based on his living.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
the "moral obligation" that comes with being rich
Click to expand...

There's no such thing.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
and if Michael lives up to that.
Click to expand...

If there was, yeah, definitely.
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
They say Taylor Swift in her private jets makes her the celebrity with the highest CO2 emissions. That's her rich privilege.
Click to expand...
MJ's CO2 footprint was probably huge, like many artists who did that kind of tours and lived in big estates. Can't judge MJ based factors that weren't so relevant back then.

TS's private jet CO2 is likely mostly the result of people wanting to see her perform in many places. So if you want her to become "cleaner", just stop buying tickets. (Same for most big artists and other popular figures).
Shortly before he died, Joe Strummer (who most likely wasn't a billionaire) was trying to push a tree-planting program, if I remember well, he wanted a tree planted for each record he ever sold. I don't know if that is actually efficient as I heard some critics about tree-planting programs more recently...
 
Last edited:
Maxym said:
TS's private jet CO2 is likely mostly the result of people wanting to see her perform in many places. So if you want her to become "cleaner", just stop buying tickets. (Same for most big artists and other popular figures).
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna harp so long on it, but there's still a tour bus option. That's what a lotta big artists and popular figures use.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I'm not gonna harp so long on it, but there's still a tour bus option. That's what a lotta big artists and popular figures use.
Click to expand...

I think that MJ's tours were using 2 airliners or something like that (I not sure how private jets compare to airliners in terms of CO2).
 
If he were still here, I think he'd be very supportive of sustainable touring (Coldplay's most recent world tour as an example) and hopefully not using a private jet for travel. I can't imagine he'd be able to after being presented with evidence of how terrible they are for the environment.

People have been aware of the climate crisis for a long time, and Michael certainly was, but it seems like celebrities have only recently been expected to take personal responsibility for their carbon footprint. I think we as a society spent a long time talking about how someone needs to do something to save our planet but now we understand that we're all the someone who needs to do something and we're running out of time. Michael himself said as much during the This Is It rehearsals and that was 15 years ago. That being said, our efforts are undermined if people like Taylor Swift and Kylie Jenner (as well as the top polluting industries like agriculture, fashion, manufacturing of plastics etc. but this isn't the thread for that...) can't won't change their ways.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
[...] They say Taylor Swift in her private jets makes her the celebrity with the highest CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
How did Michael travel around? As a solo artist, I mean? Didn't he have a private jet? And doesn't it make sense if you are that famous and that hard-working? I'd rather criticise Bill Gates or the many other millionaire/billionaire men over the age of 50 who routinely travel by private jet when, really, there is no need. No-one is going to mob those guys, no-one cares. People flying in to the Olympics or travelling by plane to climate change conferences bother me way more than Taylor trying to a) get some respite and privacy from her fans and b) trying to get to the next concert in a timely fashion. She's onstage for over 3 hours. She's probably knackered and would like some rest.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
That's her rich privilege. And yet it damages our planet, the environment. [...]
Click to expand...
Maybe everyone should stop doing world tours. Just do a Las Vegas residency and upload to the web. There has to be a better solution to everyone travelling round the world the way they do, I just don't know what it is. That big sphere that U2 used on their last tour - if that used 70% renewables (allegedly) that still leaves 30% that wasn't sourced responsibly.

Anyway. Michael. I don't believe a rich person has a moral obligation to share their wealth but it is admirable and lovely if they do. It still blows my mind that Michael took all of his personal profits from Victory & DWT and donated all of that money to charity. I remember reading somewhere that Michael earned between $1m - $3m per show at his peak. I have no idea if that's true although it sounds more than plausible to me. That's a lot of money to give away. Sometimes I watch Victory and can't get my head around the fact that he's working that hard but he's already pledged his money elsewhere.

He didn't have homes in 5 or 6 different countries. Afaik, he had Neverland, a place in LA and one in New York - that is fairly modest by the standards of people at his level of wealth.

Michael donating expensive medical equipment to hospitals. I know it's not new info but it's worth remembering, I think. I know people do similar things nowadays - donating to local food banks or whatever - and maybe Madonna did similar stuff back in the day, I wouldn't know. But Michael definitely did this type of thing over and over. For me it's not about the total amount of $/Ā£ that he donated and getting into the Guinness Book of World Records, it's about the individual acts of generosity that he carried out. Donating money to set up a hospital burns unit, that's what blows my mind.

I'm probably off-topic if the focus is meant to be the environmental impact of rich people. :unsure:
 
zinniabooklover said:
Taylor trying to a) get some respite and privacy from her fans and b) trying to get to the next concert in a timely fashion. She's onstage for over 3 hours. She's probably knackered and would like some rest.
Click to expand...
She also uses it to watch her boyfriend play football.

I mean, that's its own subject really.
 
The subject entails a lot of things really. Did Michael care about paying his taxes? I'd say yeah. Did he deal fairly with his subordinates? Absolutely, sure enough. Never a flawless person but none of us are. And in comparison to most rich people, well. Yeah.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
She also uses it to watch her boyfriend play football.
Click to expand...
I know and I'm just fed-up with everyone jumping on every tiny thing she does. She's allowed to have a life. Was the football thing just once or is she doing it every week? I think it was just once. Politicians flying to some random location to talk about climate change when they could do that online. ā˜¹ļø

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I mean, that's its own subject really.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not the topic of your thread. It just triggers me, is all. LOL.

Your thread has got me thinking again about Michael's philanthropy. :)
 
Michael was good at making millionaires.
He probably didn't think too much about his own money, as he donated a lot. He was asset rich but cash poor from what you read.
 
ā¬†ļø Exactly ! !

MJ in his later years was cash poor / asset rich.

He "only" would have needed to sell some (rather 2) of his valuable assets. With one of them being a huge cost factor in addition.

Meaning:
1. Sell the catalog - create a huge sum of cash.
2. Sell Neverland - create a huge sum of cash AND eliminate the biggest cost factor.

Outcome:
Debts would've been payed off. And MJ & his kids would have been set with generational wealth, if the created sums would have been managed & spent wisely. First and foremost by buying a home which does not eat up your whole wealth for operating & maintaining it.
 
Last edited:
zinniabooklover said:
Was the football thing just once or is she doing it every week? I think it was just once.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not really sure. It's really not so relevant neither, it's just the closest way to illustrate what I'm talking about.


Let's pick on another billionaire then, Bill Gates. Was Michael Jackson more ethical than Bill Gates?
 
Was he ever really a billionaire or was that a PR thing? Because it seemed like those billions evaporated really fast. The catalog money wasn't cash readily available at the bank. But it's crazy to me he couldn't maintain himself with just the royalties he got for the songs. Neverland was peanuts compared to the billions the catalogs was worth.

The became a billionaire by early Bad era and by 1995 people were saying he was broke.
 
applešŸŽ said:
Was he ever really a billionaire or was that a PR thing? Because it seemed like those billions evaporated really fast. The catalog money wasn't cash readily available at the bank. But it's crazy to me he couldn't maintain himself with just the royalties he got for the songs. Neverland was peanuts compared to the billions the catalogs was worth.

The became a billionaire by early Bad era and by 1995 people were saying he was broke.
Click to expand...
Not really the point of the thread but whatever.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Not really the point of the thread but whatever.
Click to expand...
I mean, it is. How can he be or be not an ethical billionaire if it all just sounds like he was played and exploited by the real billionaires who own the record labels?

He generated billions for Motown, Sony, the press. He probably didn't get back 1% of the money he generated. The ones getting billions on his back weren't good guy billionaires, but I don't know if he actually ever was one too.
 
Last edited:
applešŸŽ said:
I mean, it is. How can he be or be not an ethical billionaire if it all just sounds like he was played and exploited by the real billionaires who own the record labels?

He generated billions for Motown, Sony, the press. He probably didn't get back 1% of the money he generated. The ones getting billions on his back weren't good guy billionaires, but I don't know if he actually ever was one too.
Click to expand...
Actually, when you put it like tha...
 
I can't decide about this. It's a tricky question. I think for me it's more about the charitable donations - that said, I don't know much about it. That part of Michael's life, I didn't follow it closely, tbh. And I don't know too much about Bill Gates bc he doesn't interest me but he comes across as someone who has made massive donations over many years and now expects to achieve a certain amount of political influence. I could be completely wrong - it could be unfair media coverage. I don't know whether they like him or not. But he has a reputation for this and it's not positive.

Michael seemed to donate money for good causes just bc it's a good thing to do. I mean, there is that quote about North Korea and peace - whatever it was, can't quite remember it offhand - but he mostly seemed to give money and / or his time in a very practical way. BG has donated more money than Michael bc he's way richer but Michael seems to be about generosity whereas BG seems to be about becoming even more of a player than he already is.

Maybe there is no (easy) answer to this. :unsure:
 
He had a luxurious life ofc like any rich person but he gave SO MUCH not only to avoid taxes but because he really wanted to help others. Michael was an honest and generous human.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I can't decide about this. It's a tricky question. I think for me it's more about the charitable donations - that said, I don't know much about it. That part of Michael's life, I didn't follow it closely, tbh. And I don't know too much about Bill Gates bc he doesn't interest me but he comes across as someone who has made massive donations over many years and now expects to achieve a certain amount of political influence. I could be completely wrong - it could be unfair media coverage. I don't know whether they like him or not. But he has a reputation for this and it's not positive.

Michael seemed to donate money for good causes just bc it's a good thing to do. I mean, there is that quote about North Korea and peace - whatever it was, can't quite remember it offhand - but he mostly seemed to give money and / or his time in a very practical way. BG has donated more money than Michael bc he's way richer but Michael seems to be about generosity whereas BG seems to be about becoming even more of a player than he already is.

Maybe there is no (easy) answer to this. :unsure:
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with you that MJ seemed to give just because he felt it was for a good cause or something he genuinely believed was a good thing.

I think comparing him to other people who do stuff like this for personal gain reasons doesn't really hold up.

Not really gonna comment much further on the whole ethical billionaire thing other than to say it's not a thing.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I definitely agree with you that MJ seemed to give just because he felt it was for a good cause or something he genuinely believed was a good thing.

I think comparing him to other people who do stuff like this for personal gain reasons doesn't really hold up.

Not really gonna comment much further on the whole ethical billionaire thing other than to say it's not a thing.
Click to expand...
šŸŽÆ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top