# The Proper Use of Wealth



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16726193

For a man that at one time I had little good to say about, naming him 'thief' amongst other things for the allegedly slightly shadowy way in which he came into possession of certain operating system code, Bill gates has certainly made me eat my words and revise my opinion of him as a human being.  His philanthropy puts to shame those grubbing politico's and businessmen who seek only to ever line their own pockets.

But it brings to my mind quite an important question, viz, what is the proper use to put wealth to?  By what scale should we measure the actions of the ultra rich, whose cash balances are so monumental that we can scarcely imagine them?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 25, 2012)

Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have jointly pledged to donate the majority of their assets to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Buffett has indicated he will give his entire estate on his death.

One applauds the largesse and the nobless oblige that they seem to feel.  Good for them.

Of course, one also notes that only in societies where one is permitted to amass a vast fortune does one have such a fortune to give away.

Bit of a double-edged sword.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 25, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16726193
> 
> But it brings to my mind quite an important question, viz, what is the proper use to put wealth to? By what scale should we measure the actions of the ultra rich, whose cash balances are so monumental that we can scarcely imagine them?


Its none of our business how others use thier money or how much they have. Good for him he chooses to donate alot of his wealth but I also dont fault a person that chooses not to its his money not mine he can do with it as he pleases. I dont understand why everyones always so worried about what others have and what the do with it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

Speaking for this country we have a long history of 'noblesse oblige', the Victorians surely the greatest capitalists going felt that if one had money one was obliged to do good with it. It was unthinkable to them that one didn't do charitable works, pay for buildings such as schools, libraries and hospitals etc. It was felt by the working class that one had to better oneself, to get all the education one could to rise as high as one could and in turn you should enable those following you to do the same. These of course were days when 'duty' and country before self' and such like actually had meaning.
Today, it's every man for themselves... 'I'm alright Jack'... and duty is a dirty word.

I think it's not about the money, it's about attitude, how much do we feel we should do for our fellow man, how much do we do for those who are disadvantaged? Just how selfish are we? 

For me, it's clear, being brought up the way I was, looking after your fellow man is important, charity is important as is how it's given, we are our brother's keeper. I give as much money as I can to various charities, I give as much time as I can as well. One should be kind and people matter. If I were rich, I would make sure I did the best I could for as many as I could. I also believe that doing things for others makes you a better person, I find it sad when people can do nothing but spend on themselves, these are the people who know the price of everything and the value of none.

This is an interesting read.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj0022.html

_"When Beatrice Webb started work as a visitor for the COS (before she married Sidney Webb and became a Fabian socialist), she pondered on "the relationship of giver and receiver" and decided that the moral effect on the giver was as important as that on the receiver. It was "distinctly advantageous to us," she wrote, "to go amongst poor," not only to have a better understanding of their problems but also because "contact with them develops on the whole our finer qualities, disgusting us with our false and worldly application of men and things and educating in us a thoughtful benevolence."_
_I do not agree with Beatrice Webb about much else, but I do think she got that quite right. Charity is, or should be, the exercise of "a thoughtful benevolence." Not benevolence alone but a thoughtful benevolence &#8212; a reasoned, prudent, discriminating, even skeptical benevolence &#8212; a benevolence that is acutely aware of the often unintended consequences of goodwill, that knows that it is more important to do good than to feel good, that is morally and spiritually satisfying for the giver, and morally as well as materially beneficial to the receiver. It is this kind of charity that promotes welfare in the proper sense of that word &#8212; the well-being of the citizenry." _


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 25, 2012)

I agree with you Tez I donate myself to St Judes Childrens Hospital and Wounder Warrior Foundation on my little income.  But I dont look down upon people that dont donate its between them and their maker.  It shouldnt be anyone elses concern.  People get too wrapped up over what this guy has or that guy has.  Im glad he and buffett have decided to donate large sums of money and if I had that kind of money I would love to do more with it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 25, 2012)

Competing opinions take us from the notion of a society motivated by character; of self-improvement, self-reliance, and noblesse oblige; to the basics of societal responsibility for those not helped by voluntary giving; and finally to the opinions that since many choose not to give, it must be taken from them and redistributed by the government, under the theory that government can do the most good for the most people.

The first is a laudable goal; but often unreached.
The second is a typical modern society; unable to serve those most in need except through a combination of private giving and social programs.
The third is where many feel modern society is headed.

None are perfect solutions to issues that all decent people want to see; good health, food, shelter, education, and opportunity for all who wish it, with the minimum necessary infringement on those who do not need help and are already succeeding.  All fall short of meeting the needs and desires of a just society.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

I don't think it's a case of looking down on people that don't donate, I think it's a wider issue than that, perhaps it goes back to us being a small country but I feel it's more of being a community, the sense that we are all in this together. We have the rich here, some with inherited wealth, some self made, before there was always the feeling, much engendered by the public school system ( the top private schools such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc) that one was bound to service in some way, either to be a a civilian or military leader, perhaps in the church but one was to lead. The school I went to certainly had this ethos, one had to 'do' something, if you had money you couldn't just lead the life of Riley, you had responsibilities. What you did was to be of benefit to your fellow man and to your country. This attitude is obvious in times of crisis ie the spirit of the Blitz but it's quietly there even now I think lurking around, despite Thatcher's best efforts to destroy it. Her attitude was everyone for themselves and stuff you, she has no sense of social justice, no compassion (don't believe the film btw) and not a charitable bone in her body, by the lights of the Victorians she would be considered a very bad Tory I think.


If someone has money, hogs it to themselves and doesn't use it to do some good, it shows his lack of a sense of community, the sense that he is part of something bigger than himself, it's a selfishnessness of a peculiar kind. There's an emptiness there. Our countries need well rounded personalities who can lead the country through thick and thin, being rich only shows you can make money or even just inherit it, it says nothing about the real character. the charities and causes they support says so much more. We have to decide whether money alone is our god or whether we are bigger than that.
http://cpnl.rice.edu/What_Will_You_Do_Main.aspx


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2012)

I didn't give to charity at all this winter.  I usually do.  I caught a local headline from a worthy charity saying that giving is down this year.  Perhaps it looks like someone like me is being selfish.
But am I?

In early December, a fellow that has helped me with my photo studio drove his (well-worn) car to work as he usually does.  At work, some undercarriage rust gave way, which ultimately resulted in the loss of his gas tank, a suspension spring and a couple of minor parts. This is an older fellow that had lost his primary way of supporting himself when he had a heart attack a few years ago.  He's been battling on to survive and build a life back.

His boss had mercy on him, opening up his home that evening for him to stay, and making arrangements for the car to be repaired at less than market price by a local fellow who does some work on the side.  I decided to give him a lift in to work.  Although we live relatively near each other, and work relatively near each other, this ended up nearly tripling my commute and nearly tripling my gas consumption.  This went on for almost the entire month of December....he got back on the road shortly before New Years.

It was quite a drain on my time, my wallet, and sometimes my patience.  There were times the arrangement made for a few tense moments.  But, there were pleasant spots as well.  My friend would always offer to drive when I came to pick him up (an offer I gratefully accepted each time). The part of the commute where we were both in the car was filled with interesting conversation and goofy jokes. My friend who is "partly homeless" as he says (he stays on a friend's couch at night) managed to keep his job and continue fighting the good fight.  We're continuing to get both of our studios up and going in our shared workshop.  Life is back to normal for both of us, whatever normal is.  He has thanked me several times for "saving his bacon", and even friends of his have gone out of their way to thank me when they have seen me.  It was the right thing to do, so I did it.   

But, you won't see that anywhere.  You won't find it on my IRS records.  It didn't make the papers.  No one other than my friend, and those close to him know that I did it.  And to be honest, I prefer it that way.  What I do to help others is no one's business.  It is my time, my resources, my choice.  And my choice -- whatever that may or may not be -- is not up for debate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2012)

Gate, and Buffett are doing more good with their amassed wealth than any 'obligation' or 'redistribution' ever will.  I've not been a fan of Gates. 5 bios on him and he simply wasn't a 'nice guy' back in the early days. But, he's not that guy any more.   His foundation has helped millions around the world, and what I've seen is him refocusing his passion and drive from dominating software to helping the world.   I've gained quite a bit of respect for him over the last few years. 

Gates, and Buffett are challenging the 'wealthy' to do good, and some are stepping forward. Others may or may not be, we don't know. Not all are as 'public' a figure as they are.  Steve Jobs for example, kept his charitable giving private, as was his right. He might have given a lot, he might have given none. I don't know. But charity should never be an obligation. It should come from the heart.


----------



## granfire (Jan 25, 2012)

Giving does not mean it has to be a charitable group. You game much of yourself, in time and resources. That is sharing your wealth.
It is probably more meaningful than writing a check to group X or Y, although they do appreciate the shot in the arm as well.

I have spend this fall putting a bit of folding money in a kid's pocket: he is finishing highschool, his parents moved out of state, he moved in with his step brother...
Working one small job, looking for another I found him going hungry ay football games (he's in the band with my kid) or rejoycing over 2 bucks for gas money...
I made him a  little bag to take to his folks when he went to see them for Christmas. I hope it was a success. 

I, too was raised that possession comes with obligation. not to the extent as some folks, but yes, you help a person if you can swing it. 
That can be as simple and meaningful as to offer a friend to care for her pets for a short while (I think just the offer set things right for her so I never needed to follow through) or to offer a lift to the doctor. 

Sometimes the time, the _you_ you give is much more important than just money. Though that is a good thing to give, too: Easy to carry, and useful in many situations.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 25, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have jointly pledged to donate the majority of their assets to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Buffett has indicated he will give his entire estate on his death.
> 
> One applauds the largesse and the nobless oblige that they seem to feel.  Good for them.
> 
> ...



Also, the use of the word "Proper" in the OP is incorrect. The correct word would be philanthropic. There is NOTHING legal/moral that says you have to give away what you earned.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2012)

I didn't mean it that way, Don.  I intended the sense of a question as to what the 'best' or 'most purposeful' utilisation of wealth was rather than a pre-determined moral judgement.


----------



## billc (Jan 25, 2012)

Keep in mind as well that neither Buffet or Bill Gates is taking the money that they are going to give to their own charitable foundations and just give it to the federal government to be disbursed.  They will maintain strict control over how those funds are dispersed, not some politician or government bureaucrat.  They also receive the tax benefits of donating that money to their foundations.  Each of them, however, wants the federal government to increase taxes on other people, to confiscate their wealth so that the federal government and bureaucrats can decide how to use that money.  If they followed what they actually demand of others, they would fold their foundations and charities and just give those billions of dollars to the government.  This is especially true for Warren Buffet who actually makes money when taxes are increased on other people.  Several of the companies he owns handle estate planning, planning which becomes more necessary when taxes are really high and the tax code is really complicated.  I admire wealthy people who decide to help others with their wealth, and I do not complain for the wealthy who do not give a great deal to charity.  Just by earning and creating wealth they are helping lots and lots of people also enjoy the ability to earn money.  Rich people don't stick their money in a cave and guard it with trolls, they invest it or they put it in the bank, who then lend it to other people.  Either way, just earning money through their cleverness and hard work benefits society greatly, wether or not they give extra money to charities.


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Keep in mind as well that neither Buffet or Bill Gates is taking the money that they are going to give to their own charitable foundations and just give it to the federal government to be disbursed.  They will maintain strict control over how those funds are dispersed, not some politician or government bureaucrat.  They also receive the tax benefits of donating that money to their foundations.  Each of them, however, wants the federal government to increase taxes on other people, to confiscate their wealth so that the federal government and bureaucrats can decide how to use that money.  If they followed what they actually demand of others, they would fold their foundations and charities and just give those billions of dollars to the government.  This is especially true for Warren Buffet who actually makes money when taxes are increased on other people.  Several of the companies he owns handle estate planning, planning which becomes more necessary when taxes are really high and the tax code is really complicated.  I admire wealthy people who decide to help others with their wealth, and I do not complain for the wealthy who do not give a great deal to charity.  Just by earning and creating wealth they are helping lots and lots of people also enjoy the ability to earn money.  Rich people don't stick their money in a cave and guard it with trolls, they invest it or they put it in the bank, who then lend it to other people.  Either way, just earning money through their cleverness and hard work benefits society greatly, wether or not they give extra money to charities.



You think those commy pinko leftist fascists are any different than the Koch Brothers?
Once you hit a certain level of personal wealth you are forced to become wealthier.
To limit the tax burden you have to invest and donate, which in return brings in more money.
And since they are not owing the money to the government, why should they give it to Uncle Sam and give up control? 

But seriously, who told you that society benefits when rich people make money?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 26, 2012)

I'd like to be rich.
I could spend my remaining years drifting around the Bahamas, or wandering around old battlefields, taking pictures as I go.
It'd be a nice life of semi-luxury.

I'd also fully fund the 'Talk sites, adding new features and content and a full time paid staff.
I'd set up funds to help put good charities like Bob White's kids one, various veteran's groups, Make a Wish, etc.
I'd set up training and development services for start up schools.
I'd be able to contribute more directly to people in need.

All while being a scummy rich person, living it up without a care.

I want to be rich.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'd like to be rich.
> I could spend my remaining years drifting around the Bahamas, or wandering around old battlefields, taking pictures as I go.
> It'd be a nice life of semi-luxury.
> 
> ...




Don't we all!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 26, 2012)

I also want a TARDIS.   (That I'll have soon as I finish closing on the house and build it in the back yard, LOL)


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

what's a tardis?

Yeah, I'd like to be wealthier.
But strangely enough, thee is not so much I want for myself. But I know a lot of people and places I'd love to spend money on.

Wealth is not just money.

And money is only as good as what you do with it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 26, 2012)

{looks in shocked horror at Gran}

Not *a* TARDIS, *the* Tardis (there were many at one time but not any more)

Time and Relative Dimension in Space


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> {looks in shocked horror at Gran}
> 
> Not *a* TARDIS, *the* Tardis (there were many at one time but not any more)
> 
> Time and Relative Dimension in Space




I am not as nerdy as I thought I was.....



I promise I will close this education hole!


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 26, 2012)

In my opinion, we should all strive to leave this world a better place than when we entered it.  Its not my job to judge what is acceptable or not in donation of time or money.  I don't spend any of my time looking to see what others are doing.  I concern myself with what I can do.  However, don't tell me Gordon Gecko's "Greed is good!" mentality is okay either.   If you are a greedy, selfish, person, who does nothing for society,  you are as bad, if not worse, than those who want to redistribute everyone's wealth.

There are so many who are a part of society that believe it is okay to give nothing back.  They take goods and services, both from the government and private sources that has been made possible by the society those people live in.  Then when it comes time to give back to society thier answer is, "Its mine, you can't have it!"  It just seems childish to me.  Sure, no one should have to give away more than thier fair share, but those that think thier fair share is nothing, like many corporations in America, are nothing better than thieves.


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2012)

Okay, here's a challenge.  Name one corporation that does not give back in some way to the society.  Tax rates are not allowed in this excercise because even if their effective rate is like the President's big buddies G.E. and equals 0, they are still creating jobs, and paying gas taxes and taxes on the goods and services they purchase for their use.  I am talking about corporations that do no charitable works, or help people even as a matter of good P.R.  McDonalds's for example, Ronald McDonald house, most pharmacuetical companies have compassionate use policies for people who can't afford their drugs.  The myth of the evil corporations who do nothing charitable should be looked at.  Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ben and Jerry, Donald Trump, they all run foundations or do charity work.  So I ask, where is the company or corporation that doesn't do one charitable thing?  Can you name any?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

Here McDonalds raises money from it's customers to donate to charities. Has collections on the counters.


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Here McDonalds raises money from it's customers to donate to charities. Has collections on the counters.



Yes, for Ronald McDonald houses. A little bit of pocket change can add up in a hurry!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> Yes, for Ronald McDonald houses. A little bit of pocket change can add up in a hurry!




True, but it comes from the customers lol!


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Okay, here's a challenge.  Name one corporation that does not give back in some way to the society.  Tax rates are not allowed in this excercise because even if their effective rate is like the President's big buddies G.E. and equals 0, they are still creating jobs, and paying gas taxes and taxes on the goods and services they purchase for their use.  I am talking about corporations that do no charitable works, or help people even as a matter of good P.R.  McDonalds's for example, Ronald McDonald house, most pharmacuetical companies have compassionate use policies for people who can't afford their drugs.  The myth of the evil corporations who do nothing charitable should be looked at.  Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ben and Jerry, Donald Trump, they all run foundations or do charity work.  So I ask, where is the company or corporation that doesn't do one charitable thing?  Can you name any?



Corporations are not philantropic.
Phama companies who make it possible for poor people to use their medication that's not charity.

As mentioned above, charitable donations have a reward other than the warm fuzzies. Again, it's for tax purposes.
Or for public perception. 
A persona who isn't a real person...I don't think that really counts in this context.

A challenge for you: What did you do to give.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 26, 2012)

Ronald McDonald House funds
http://rmhc.org/who-we-are/our-relationship-with-mcdonald-s/


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ronald McDonald House funds
> http://rmhc.org/who-we-are/our-relationship-with-mcdonald-s/



We don't have tax breaks for donations and there's only one McDonalds 'house' in the UK.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> Corporations are not philantropic.
> Phama companies who make it possible for poor people to use their medication that's not charity.


Well it be stupid for them to buy you other peoples product.  Point is they dont have to do it at all but they do.



> As mentioned above, charitable donations have a reward other than the warm fuzzies. Again, it's for tax purposes.
> Or for public perception.
> A persona who isn't a real person...I don't think that really counts in this context.


I claim my donations on my taxes so are you saying my money is less useful?  Again who cares why they do it just be glad they do.  



> A challenge for you: What did you do to give.


Wounded Warrior Foundation, St Judes Hospital, and my Church.


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2012)

My own giving, at my church, feed the children and other charitable giving, off the book type charitable actions where people need help but  have no organized support.


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2012)

Adam Corolla once again speaks to the issue of being rich, and how it used to be seen as a good thing...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289290/can-it-nancy-brian-bolduc?pg=1



> He hates the fact that the rich have to pretend they&#8217;re not wealthy. &#8220;We&#8217;ve turned our world into some kind of prison yard, and if somebody finds out you&#8217;ve got a couple of cartons of cigarettes stuffed down your pants, you&#8217;re going to get torn apart [on] the handball courts.&#8221;
> Given the contributions rich families such as the Carnegies and the Rockefellers have made to the arts, Carolla finds it &#8220;weird&#8221; to equate rich with evil. If the rich are evil, &#8220;why are you sitting in their library? Why are you sitting in their hall? Why did I just listen to a whole show on orangutans with no commercials that they paid for?&#8221;
> When asked about the hullaballoo over Mitt Romney&#8217;s tax returns, Carolla adds, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know who is sending mosquito nets over trying to cure malaria in Africa, but last time I checked it was Bill Gates. Is Bill Gates evil? Are all rich guys evil or just guys with nice hair?&#8221;


----------



## David43515 (Jan 26, 2012)

I`ve been giving this alot of thought lately because so many people in the news seem to be interested in the different presidential candidates` taxes and charitable donations. I assume that it`s the same for the big business types whom we might not know by name. Once you reach a level of wealth that most people can`t imagine, what should you do? When you`ve made more money than you`ll ever need.....what do you do with your time? Do you continue working at something you love or retire? What are the best ways to give back to the community that made it possible for you to succeed? Do you spend all your time in charitable works? Do you try to go into politics and make lasting changes? What kind of charity is the most effective: giving money to those in immediate need (paying for food , heat, clothes, and other bills), or use your fortune to help others help themselves ( Job training, scholarships,daycare,libraries,etc)? Should everything be unconditional pure charity, or should it have strings attached to help the good go farther (like medical scholarships that require the doctor to spend their first few years working among underpriveliged communities)? So many questions.

It almost makes me glad to be poor. My choices are more limited and are always on a much smaller scale. I give money to my church and a couple community charities to help the poor. I donate my time and talents when I can, baking cookies for the preschool across the street, helping with the school`s track team, shoveling snow for those who aren`t as able to get around. But I think just chatting with someone who`s lonely, sharing a joke and asking how they`re getting along can make a big difference too. Tez hit the nail on the head, big or small our charity should be thoughtful. And it helps us as much as those who are recieving it.


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well it be stupid for them to buy you other peoples product.  Point is they dont have to do it at all but they do.



The point is that they keep prices artificially high. Giving a few pills away to people who are poor is not going to afect the bottom line beyond that they can probably write it off. Making the product cheaper (and it can be done, other countries have the same stuff from the same company for a lot less, so most, if not all arguments are BS that reason for the higher price)



> I claim my donations on my taxes so are you saying my money is less useful?  Again who cares why they do it just be glad they do.


Say what?
You lost me. 
I am sure you got something wrong here. But sadly I am not seeing where you went off course.

you are not a business, or a corporation. You pick your causes different than a corporation would. 
For a different return.




> Wounded Warrior Foundation, St Judes Hospital, and my Church.



I remembered you support St Judes, from a while back.

However, the challenge was for billi, the man who looks with suspicion upon rich people who willingly part with much of their money.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

granfire said:


> The point is that they keep prices artificially high. Giving a few pills away to people who are poor is not going to afect the bottom line beyond that they can probably write it off. Making the product cheaper (and it can be done, other countries have the same stuff from the same company for a lot less, so most, if not all arguments are BS that reason for the higher price)


There are hundreds of reason why prices are what they are and none of it is artificial, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they still give out reduced or even free prescriptions.  They dont have to do it so Im glad they do.  You just look like the spoiled little kid saying more more more I want more.




> Say what?
> You lost me.
> I am sure you got something wrong here. But sadly I am not seeing where you went off course.
> 
> ...


You were saying the only reason corporations donate is for tax reason.  Again I say WHO CARES at least they do it.  Just because they give for tax reason does that make the money less valuable to the places that get the money?  I was saying I claim my deductions on my taxes so that makes my donations less important or helpful?  Just because companies are in the business of making money does not make them evil.  I dont understand that mentality from some people.






> I remembered you support St Judes, from a while back.
> 
> However, the challenge was for billi, the man who looks with suspicion upon rich people who willingly part with much of their money.


Does him donating or not makes his opinon any different?  Why does it matter what he donates?  You look upon companies with the same suspicion is your point more valid because you donate more or less then others?

In the end Im just glad they decided to donate and I dont care the reason.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

How are the rich 'imprisoned' because they are rich? There's so much conspicious consumption to be seen these days it's as if the celebs with their designer handbags are bashing the rest of us over the head with their wealth. The footballers and their WAGS, the film stars, the reality stars all showing us how much money they have, if only they were imprisioned...literally! The bankers with their obscene bonuses off the back of the taxpayers who bailed their banks out who spend a couple of thousand pound a night on champagne and nightclubs. 

The 'rich' aren't only the business people they are also the Charlie Sheens etc of this world. They are the Beckhams, the Jordans, the sports people, and their ilk. None of whom hide their wealth away.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> How are the rich 'imprisoned' because they are rich? There's so much conspicious consumption to be seen these days it's as if the celebs with their designer handbags are bashing the rest of us over the head with their wealth. The footballers and their WAGS, the film stars, the reality stars all showing us how much money they have, if only they were imprisioned...literally! The bankers with their obscene bonuses off the back of the taxpayers who bailed their banks out who spend a couple of thousand pound a night on champagne and nightclubs.
> 
> The 'rich' aren't only the business people they are also the Charlie Sheens etc of this world. They are the Beckhams, the Jordans, the sports people, and their ilk. None of whom hide their wealth away.



And?

Why do you care what the rich do?  Its their money they can spend it as they see fit.  Just think of every hand bag and bottle of champagne that is purchased is someone that gets to have another paycheck that week.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> And?
> 
> Why do you care what the rich do? Its their money they can spend it as they see fit. Just think of every hand bag and bottle of champagne that is purchased is someone that gets to have another paycheck that week.



I care very much what the bankers do with their money...such as the Royal Bank of Scotland ones who were bailed out by taxpayers money and were given big bonuses, supposedly a reward for being successful but in reality they were a huge disaster, those bonuses came from the tax payer so yes I care very much what those rich do with their money, wouldn't you? that's my money they are spending!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/24/rbs-bankers-bonuses-despite-loss

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/08/14/we-want-our-money-back-from-rbs/
http://www.goldmadesimplenews.com/g...ds-would-be-up-52-2bn-if-it-bought-gold-4967/


It's not that I care about the rest but Bili was trying to say we should feel sorry for them because they had to hide, I was pointing out that most don't actually hide as seen by the handbags, etc etc. they are out there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

Ok got it.  I guess I missed where he said that I didn't understand what you were talking about and why you were just talking about rich spending money.  


Tez3 said:


> I care very much what the bankers do with their money...such as the Royal Bank of Scotland ones who were bailed out by taxpayers money and were given big bonuses, supposedly a reward for being successful but in reality they were a huge disaster, those bonuses came from the tax payer so yes I care very much what those rich do with their money, wouldn't you? that's my money they are spending!
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/24/rbs-bankers-bonuses-despite-loss
> 
> http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/08/14/we-want-our-money-back-from-rbs/
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok got it. I guess I missed where he said that I didn't understand what you were talking about and why you were just talking about rich spending money.




I find it easy to overlook his posts too  I should have replied with the quote, would have answered it better.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I should have replied with the quote, would have answered it better.



Naa I just need better reading skills lol. I just didnt get where all that came from I though you flipped you rocker and were arguing with imaginary posts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Naa I just need better reading skills lol. I just didnt get where all that came from I though you flipped you rocker and were arguing with imaginary posts.



I'm Jewish of course I can argue with myself!!


----------



## Big Don (Jan 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I care very much what the bankers do with their money


Really, so the Man who broke the bank of England, being deeply involved in liberal politics concerns you?
Does Warren Buffett's loud mouth about raising taxes on the rich, thus supporting Obama's goals, and his ownership of the Burlington Northern railroad, which is going to profit hugely since President Obama denied the building of the Keystone pipeline not sound a little like quid pro quo?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Really, so the Man who broke the bank of England, being deeply involved in liberal politics concerns you?




To be honest I don't know what you are getting at. is it because he's Jewish? Your liberal politics aren't the same as ours, as far as we are concerned he looks every bit the conservative. Other than that I don't see your point.

I thought I had made my point clear, that the RBS was one of the banks that had to be bailed out with tax payers money, we own over 80% of it and the bankers from there are getting million pound bonuses despite making a loss. Am I not supposed to be concerned that these people are getting bonuses from tax payers money?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I don't know what you are getting at. is it because he's Jewish? Your liberal politics aren't the same as ours, as far as we are concerned he looks every bit the conservative. Other than that I don't see your point.
> 
> I thought I had made my point clear, that the RBS was one of the banks that had to be bailed out with tax payers money, we own over 80% of it and the bankers from there are getting million pound bonuses despite making a loss. Am I not supposed to be concerned that these people are getting bonuses from tax payers money?



No, because he's a banker, he screwed the Bank of England, royally, and reaped huge profits while doing so, that isn't something that concerns you? His politics, while liberal means different things on either side of the Atlantic, notwithstanding, aren't something that should be looked at?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

Big Don said:


> No, because he's a banker, he screwed the Bank of England, royally, and reaped huge profits while doing so, that isn't something that concerns you? His politics, while liberal means different things on either side of the Atlantic, notwithstanding, aren't something that should be looked at?




In 1992 the Conservative government with it's usual 'I know best' attitude made a massive cock up, he profited from their negligence, well that's the Tories for you. What do you think should have been done?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> In 1992 the Conservative government with it's usual 'I know best' attitude made a massive cock up, he profited from their negligence, well that's the Tories for you. What do you think should have been done?



I don't know, but, when someone worked that hard to screw people over, I watch what he does and says. Don't you?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I don't know, but, when someone worked that hard to screw people over, I watch what he does and says. Don't you?



I don't think he had to work hard actually, the Tories made it easy for him. It's probably a matter of opinon whther he screwed the country over or the Tories were hugely negligent and allowed people to profit from that. You leave the chicken coop door open you can't blame the fox for taking the chickens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday


----------

