I am really puzzled by something I am seeing here. What is the difference whether the loser or the finder of the money were rich or not?
IMO, if a person finds something that is not theirs, and if there is any way to find the owner of the money, it is the obligation of the finder to do what he can to return the money.
I don't care if the loser was a millionaire or a pauper ,(the same for the finder)the concept is exactly the same. Why this concern for the level of wealth of each individual? Are there different standards for different people based on their wealth?
Phoenix,
I don't think there should be any different levels for concern. I guess I was just trying to say whenever you find something like this, you don't know who is missing or what their circumstances are.
Nice to see you BTW!
Phoenix32890 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Phoenix,
I don't think there should be any different levels for concern. I guess I was just trying to say whenever you find something like this, you don't know who is missing or what their circumstances are.
Nice to see you BTW!
The only circumstance that I would even think about is that some person lost something that belonged to him.
And actually, that should be anyone's only concern, IMO. We do tend to muddy things up sometimes, don't we?
You just changed my perspective. Thank you.
Phoenix32890 wrote:I am really puzzled by something I am seeing here. What is the difference whether the loser or the finder of the money were rich or not?
IMO, if a person finds something that is not theirs, and if there is any way to find the owner of the money, it is the obligation of the finder to do what he can to return the money.
I don't care if the loser was a millionaire or a pauper ,(the same for the finder)the concept is exactly the same. Why this concern for the level of wealth of each individual? Are there different standards for different people based on their wealth?
Thank you! I think the same thing.
Why does it matter if I could afford to lose $100 or not? I still did, and I worked damn hard for that money!
You are right, it should not matter what the circumstances if someone finds money... the right thing to do is to return it, or at least try to get it back to the person who lost it. The fact that they are rich or poor does not matter for this purpose. However, I think that most of us have more empathy for the pensioner or person of little means that loses money. It would affect their life more than someone who would just shrug and get more money out of the bank to replace it. Does this make sense?
True. It does make me feel a little better (but not much!) to think that someone who really needed it, found it and now is able to have a nice Christmas dinner with their family; one they'd not be able to have otherwise.
Bella Dea wrote:sozobe wrote:If it's your name, they should get it back to you.
When did it happen? Maybe they still will...
Just my first name.
I've called the store. No one turned it in.
If it's on the street, I would keep it. If it's in your scenario where it's in a store in an envelope with a name on it, I turn it in. If it's a lot of money, I would turn it into the police, even of it was on the street. Someone who lost a large sum of money would probably check with them.
