Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



Meme Poker Party posted:

anime is blood.

:hmmyes:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



Hasn't R. Kelly been broke for awhile now? Pretty sure that's the entire reason he's going to jail.

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010




In 2018 he said he released a song because he couldn't make rent, was evicted from two properties in Atlanta because he couldn't pay $31k in back rent, supposedly couldn't pay $161k in child support, and had an ex-landlord sue for his music royalties because he owed $171k in back rent in Chicago. This is all just the last 3 years.

e: Oh, and according to court documents he owes the IRS $2 million in back taxes.

Regrettable fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Oct 3, 2021

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



crazy eyes mustafa posted:

Rich people have the option to just stop paying people money they owe, there really aren't any consequences so long as the right people still get their money

And then you no longer have money to give them so you finally face repercussions, which is what's happening now.

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



The man is illiterate and, as you just said, makes extremely poor decisions that are now coming back to bite him. R. Kelly himself said he only had about $350k in the bank about a decade ago when he should've been worth about $100 million.

e: That landlord I mentioned that originally wanted $170k from him managed to secure a $3.5 million judgement against him. Sony was forced to freeze his royalties and give $1.5 million to them. He also owes one of his victims $4 million. And his label dropped him in January of 2019 which is probably not something they would do if the thought he was still valuable in any way.

So, going by your numbers we know he probably made around $6 million over a few years in order to owe that much in back taxes but he owed the IRS, his landlords, and just one of his victims nearly $10 million.

Regrettable fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Oct 3, 2021

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



Keep kicking those goal posts down the line. You balked at the idea that he's broke, then did some math to try to prove it but now you're talking about his social value to cover up the fact that you were wrong and he already lost/spent it all and is in massive amounts of debt.

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



Lol, yes, the singer who is notoriously bad with money and had his royalties frozen is definitely collecting millions from ?

The question was whether or not he's broke and the answer seems to be that he most likely is. I'm sorry you're so upset about this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Regrettable
Jan 5, 2010



Alright, I have some free time so I might as well pop back in to say that the argument that R Kelly is in his current situation despite being extremely wealthy seems predicated on R Kelly still being wealthy. This is not to say he wouldn't wield influence through his popularity or ties he may still have but that it would be diminished, potentially to a great degree. If he were sitting on several million dollars he would have greater means to influence people, including potentially his victims, whether through harassment and intimidation, attempts at monetary compensation, or likely both. He would have greater means to make their personal and professional lives more of a living hell than he already has, or maybe he could try to pay someone to lose some evidence, or try to agree to steep fines to receive a lighter sentence. And he would have greater means to influence the general public, including to keep giving him money so he can perpetuate his abuse.

That it appears he is no longer wealthy means we are most likely seeing what's happening when he doesn't have most avenues available to him, or at least the degree to which they are available is lessened. I'm not saying that he would see zero repercussions if he were still sitting on massive stacks of cash but that he may not have to pay as dearly for what he's done. It's also not an attempt to downplay what his victims and the people who supported them have accomplished because it's still pretty incredible considering the popularity and influence he does have. And while it does feel nice to think that he was taken down in spite his wealth it also feels nice to think that his ability to target his victims has been lessened and his life will be much less comfortable from now on than it could have been, even in prison.

IMO

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply