The implication was that they should be distinct but are not.

I didn't get that at all. Can you explain?

Generals do not earn millions in salary. To afford millions worth of automobiles, the general must have misappropriated funds.

> To afford millions worth of automobiles, the general must have misappropriated funds.

Or have, or at least have once had, a lucrative side business (military personnel can do this, legally.)

Or have inherited money.

Or have a spouse with a greater income or inheritance.

Or restore cars, such that the market value of their vehicles vastly exceeds the purchase price.

Or purchase cars that have significantly appreciated in value for other reasons (lots of high-end luxury cars that are limited run not only are pricey but limit sales to selected buyers, and the market value of the cars is almost immediately much higher than the purchase price and appreciates rapidly.)

Or a combination of the above.

What's the most plausible explanation? My wild guess is inherited wealth. The lucrative businesses come after retirement, as far as I know.

xapata's interpretation of solotronics's post is that "Pentagon's impenetrable, unauditable accounting" + "Reports of trillions of dollars missing" + "General with a multi-million-dollar sports car collection" = The sports cars were paid for by embezzlement.

Of course, it's also possible the general saved up, or made lucky investments, or married into money, or there was an exaggeration or misunderstanding.