The Proper Use of Wealth

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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]

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 — a reasoned, prudent, discriminating, even skeptical benevolence — 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 — the well-being of the citizenry."

 

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Don't we all!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

{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]

{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!