Man with sick wife, overdue rent, returns $17,000

I guess I don't see the point in listing every single possible scenario until there is one that you find compelling enough. The point is still that we don't know.

There is the fact that the 17 grand was in dollars, while she gave the guy pesos. Why do you think? Could it have been everything she had in her pocket? Could it be that she thought pesos would be more useful to the guy than dollars? Could it be that the 17 grand was to pay for something that cost, gasp, 17 grand? Like a business, or equipment, or a house?

I'm just remembering the story of the guy who was traveling (in Texas I think) with something like $40,000 in cash to buy farm equipment for his business. Because he also happened to be black, the local authorities confiscated the money because they said they had reason to believe it was earned from drugs or would be used to purchase drugs. Did they really have reason? No. Their reasoning was that if somebody was carrying around that much money in cash then it must be to buy drugs. Now, this isn't the same case, obviously. But it keeps coming to my mind because of the shallowness of the reasoning. "I can't think of any other possibility, so it must be this." Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I get what you're saying about the global inequalities and how some of us are lucky enough to be born in countries where even our worst standard of living is better than that of a third world country. And I'm not saying that there is no responsibility there or at the very least an acknowledgment of that inequality and a respect for the luck each of us has. But comparing whole dollar amounts between countries doesn't really tell the whole story. It's the same in this country. The money I make would go a lot further in other parts of this country -- less populated cities, cities with cheaper housing and cheaper food and cheaper insurance. But that doesn't make me rich compared to people who live there, and it won't make me rich for the week or so that I spend visiting those areas either. I still have to make the house payment on the one that I live in, not the one I would live in if I lived there. I still have to pay for transportation to and from my work, not to their work. I still have to pay for daycare at my local rate, not their rate. Yes I'm lucky. Yes if I had what I have now in a third world country I would be rich. But I don't live there, I live here. And I'm not rich.

And the fact that it is nothing but luck that has me living in a country with a strong economy means that I don't have to feel guilty about it.

0 Replies

Chai, ya just never know. :wink:

We could surmise all kinds of things.

Betting proceeds from the afternoon's cock-fights, dog fights or cat juggling.

0 Replies

I have quite different ideas here, about the amount of money offered as reward.

I suppose, this has a lot to do with our civil code where such has been regulated since more than one hundred years (and thus everyone knows, it has to be more).

Quote:

Section 971
Finders reward
(1) The finder may require a finder's reward from the person entitled to
receive. The finder's reward is five per cent of the value of the thing up to
five hundred euros, three per cent of the value above this, and three per
cent in the case of animals. If the thing is of value only for the person
entitled to receive, the finder's reward is to be determined as appears
just.
(2) The claim is excluded if the finder violates the duty of notification or
conceals the finding on being questioned.

0 Replies

Ha! I was thinking exactly the same thing...

You're all talking about entitlement, and how being poor in no way entitled the cab driver to receive more money.

So here is what I don't get: if you loose your money, are you entitled to get it back? Say, you invest money in stocks. Stocks drop, you loose money. You were aware of the risk, but certainly didn't mean to loose money. Are you now somehow entitled to get your money back?

Same thing here: you carry a huge amount of cash around with you. You don't pay attention, you loose the money. You were aware of the risk, but you certainly didn't plan on loosing the money.

So, how come people think you are somehow entitled to get your money back in case #2, but not in case #1? In my opinion, once the money and you have parted ways, you've lost the money. And you've lost all entitlement towards the money. Persuade me that that's not the case.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So, how come people think you are somehow entitled to get your money back in case #2, but not in case #1? In my opinion, once the money and you have parted ways, you've lost the money. And you've lost all entitlement towards the money. Persuade me that that's not the case.

I don't think entitlement has anything to do with it. If you lose something you've lost it. If someone gives it back to you then you're lucky.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't think entitlement has anything to do with it. If you lose something you've lost it. If someone gives it back to you then you're lucky.

There you go.

Okay. Now think about this way: somebody helps you to make one million dollars. You have done nothing to earn the money. This person says all the money is yours, though, but feel free to pay him a reasonable fee.

How much, percentage-wise, would you think would be reasonable?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Ha! I was thinking exactly the same thing...

You're all talking about entitlement, and how being poor in no way entitled the cab driver to receive more money.

So here is what I don't get: if you loose your money, are you entitled to get it back? Say, you invest money in stocks. Stocks drop, you loose money. You were aware of the risk, but certainly didn't mean to loose money. Are you now somehow entitled to get your money back?

Same thing here: you carry a huge amount of cash around with you. You don't pay attention, you loose the money. You were aware of the risk, but you certainly didn't plan on loosing the money.

So, how come people think you are somehow entitled to get your money back in case #2, but not in case #1? In my opinion, once the money and you have parted ways, you've lost the money. And you've lost all entitlement towards the money. Persuade me that that's not the case.

Hmmm....you mean like Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers?

0 Replies

I just look the percent up in an old encyclopedia: in the late 19th century it was 5% up to 300 Marks, 1% above (those 300 Marks would be about $3,000 today [considering the average salary of an average German than and today).

The older law texts (late medieval/early modern times) don't give clear sums).

[Besides in East Frisia: everything found is mine. :wink: ]

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I don't think entitlement has anything to do with it. If you lose something you've lost it. If someone gives it back to you then you're lucky.

There you go.

Okay. Now think about this way: somebody helps you to make one million dollars. You have done nothing to earn the money. This person says all the money is yours, though, but feel free to pay him a reasonable fee.

How much, percentage-wise, would you think would be reasonable?

I guess it depends on the situation, but personally, since that is so much more money than I need, I guess I'd say 5 or 10%. I don't know.

Now what if they said, no, no, I don't need a fee because helping you make 1 million dollars was the right thing to do?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I guess it depends on the situation, but personally, since that is so much more money than I need, I guess I'd say 5 or 10%. I don't know.

Why not more? What if it was only 1,000 dollars? Why does the amount of money make a difference? If it was just 10 dollars, would you split it evenly? Would you say, "no, I don't need it", or would you keep it all if it was less money to begin with?

FreeDuck wrote:

Now what if they said, no, no, I don't need a fee because helping you make 1 million dollars was the right thing to do?

That would change things, I guess. I mean, that was nimh's argument - that nothing exists in a vacuum. So if that would change things, then the financial situation of the guy helping you would change things just as well. Which people have been arguing against.

I'd just like to see how people would argue in a similar situation, but outside that specific scenario of money lost and found.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I guess it depends on the situation, but personally, since that is so much more money than I need, I guess I'd say 5 or 10%. I don't know.

Why not more? What if it was only 1,000 dollars? Why does the amount of money make a difference? If it was just 10 dollars, would you split it evenly? Would you say, "no, I don't need it", or would you keep it all if it was less money to begin with?

I don't know. A lot depends on the situation, like I said. Is the person a relative, a friend, how exactly did they help me earn the money? And yes, do they need money? My whole argument is one of "I don't know". I don't know what the right amount is and therefore I can't say whether what this woman gave was the right amount under the circumstances.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Especially in the light of the obliviously arrogant response of the woman leaving him with a baffling thirtytwo dollar finders reward (now there's gratitude for you..), I for one would not have blamed him for keeping it. Except that it might have just gotten him into even bigger trouble.

Obviously arrogant? How so? How do you know that she didn't try to give him more? All we know is what is in the article soz linked.

All we know is that he found the money in his cab. He then took it to the police station where the woman who had lost the money was making a claim. By his own words he never considered keeping it.

Quote:

But he said he was never tempted to keep the money. "It was not mine," was his simple answer when asked why he did not keep the money.

From the same story, the woman was grateful and the driver was pushed into accepting a reward.

Quote:

He said the woman gave him P1,500 as a reward. He said he was initially hesistant to accept the money but upon the prodding of the grateful passenger and the police officers at the station, he did.

From this small accounting, where do you come up with "obviously arrogant"?

For the record, I wouldn't have 'blamed him' if he'd kept it either. I don't wish that he had because of her 'obviously arrogant response', because I don't see her response as arrogant in the least. From the story it appears that he was doing what he felt was the right thing to do (be it from fear or other motivations) and she rewarded him as a measure of her gratitude.

You assume that the money was hers, that she's an arrogant bitch, and has no clue how the other half lives. I make no such assumptions and wonder what the hell someone who is carrying $17,000 of their own money in a separate pouch is doing in a motorcycle cab? If the money was hers, wouldn't she have her own transportation? Is it not equally reasonable to assume that she was transporting the money on behalf of someone else and gave him everything she had as a reward? Or that she offered him much more and he was talked into accepting the P1,500?

If anything is baffling here, nimh, it's the assumptions that you immediately jump to.

0 Replies

The driver didn't actually find the money. It was left in his cab by a fare-paying customer during his work hours. It's not as if he found it on the sidewalk. If I left a suitcase in a cab on my way home from the airport, I wouldn't expect that cabdriver to assume it now belonged to him!
So it's not a case of finders keepers....and she didn't actually have to give him anything at all.

There's so many ways of looking at this situation, especially since we don't know jack about it.

0 Replies

Wow. This thread really took off after I left it to go to the job. I can't read all the responses, so, I may retread somebody else's comment. Odds are, the woman had no knowledge of the cab driver's state of affairs anyway. So, she can't be held accountable for being hard hearted, if that bears out. Any reward at all is still money he didn't have. I bet he was grateful.

0 Replies

Man with sick wife, overdue rent, returns $17,000

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know