<p>
</p>
<p>[India’s</a> richest man Mukesh Ambani moves into £630m home - Telegraph](<a href=“India's richest man Mukesh Ambani moves into £630m home”>India's richest man Mukesh Ambani moves into £630m home)</p>
<p>Check out the picture of his new pad. Would you be caught living in a place that ugly?</p>
<p>Not half as ugly as the packing crates most Mumbai residents inhabit (but pretty close)</p>
<p>btw: it will have a staff of 600 and spaces for 160 cars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Best line in the article. It’s a shame that someone so wealthy seems so unwilling to help others, presumably those who (at least indirectly) helped him reach his lofty financial position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he is helping people…people who staff the building, building the cars, maintain the cars, etc, etc, etc. A lot of jobs will be created through this item that his owns.</p>
<p>Personal tax rate for India, is lower than average wealthy and middle income USA’ian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is nothing in comparison to his capability to help others, given his net worth.</p>
<p>If he sends a piece of bread to every starving person on the planet, he is technically helping them. That doesn’t mean that he is a philanthropist if his net worth is a trillion dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you quote the part of the article where it says he doesn’t donate money to less fortunate people?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pointing out out how others should spend their money is an easy thing to do. We should focus instead on what to do with the money that we do have.</p>
<p>Throughout human history, there are countless examples of people who spent their wealth on themselves rather than others. And countless examples of people who spent their livelehood dedicated to helping other people.</p>
<p>Both kinds of people contribute to our modern society and both have places in society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. The part where his home costs 670 million pounds and his net worth is at 18 billion, which it would not be if he had donated it. Furthermore, none of the recognitions listed on Wikipedia have anything to do with philanthropy, nor is there any mention of philanthropic work, which the articles usually mention if substantial/relevant. These factors suggest my conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is that supposed to mean exactly? To me, these two folks you describe are not of comparable character and character is more important that a hell of a lot of other things. I hold some people in higher regard and awe than others. </p>
<p>Have you been to India? This level of flaunting is beyond disgusting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s not the first. Steve Jobs. Bill Gates. Saddam Hussein. Julius Caesar. Michael Jackson. Any number of celebrities. Professional athletes. All live(d) in unnecessarily opulent houses or live extravagent and unnecessary lifestyles.</p>
<p>But without the economic incentive to work, Michael Jackson would not have become a star. We would have missed out a great person in the history of modern pop music. Julius Caesar may never have built the roman baths and we would have missed out on a great era of history. Bill Gates would not have furthered personal computing as much as he did. Without Steve Jobs, we may not be running around listening to iPods or talking on iPhones. </p>
<p>(Steve Jobs house has 14 bedrooms. Bill Gates cost $100 million. Michael Jackson owned an amusement park called Neverland. All are opulent).</p>
<p>It’s impossible for most people to grasp that if you are a mega-billionaire like Bill Gates (who is his own charitable foundation these days) spending $100M on a house is small potatoes. Why shouldn’t he have both charity AND an expensive home? Is your home value/status proportional to your net worth?</p>
<p>Google images “antilla house” or “mukesh ambani house” and there are some pics of the inside.</p>
<p>“Really bad taste” is really subjective. I think it looks OK, not my own preferred style, but its his choice.</p>
<p>Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (the two wealthiest people in the US) meet with the other top wealthy people in the world to convince them to donate 1/2 of their money to charity. It’s mostly a PR stunt as there’s no binding contract or even follow-up phone call, but it does inspire some to be more generous and embarrass those who are barely philanthropic at all.</p>
<p>Standards for wealth distribution. Gotta love it. Guess what- the adherence rate to Buffett’s standard and Baelors’ apparent standard is pretty low in the universe of billionaires. </p>
<p>Let them do what they want with their cash. All I ask is they be civil if ever in a conversation with me.</p>