The Rich Get Richer? What Do You Think of This?

[Tee&A]

I got this from another site; it discussed America's Youngest Billionaires. This is what one poster had to comment:

"More than 1/3 of the world population lives on less than $2 a day. This is over 2 billions peoples. In the same world, there are multi-billionaires. This is morally wrong. Why cannot all these billionaires keep 1 billion of their money for personal use and use the rest of their money to better humanity in real and consequential ways? No one ask for hand out, they can educate billions of children around the world. If for they personal use they spend one million dollars a month for the next 80 years, then they will still have money left over from one billion dollars..."

That having been posted, I've noticed that it seems the pressure to give is mostly on the rich. "Take the Billionaire Pledge and give all your fortune away except a million dollars"; "Why don't the billionaires give away millions to the poor when they have so much?" etc, etc. Well, this is the way I look at it: If a person worth 10 million and they give 2 million of their income to charity, they've given away 20%; how many non-billionaires are willing to do the same thing? How do you think people that make $50,000 a year would react if people below the poverty line were publically calling them to give away $10,000 a year to charity. It's only 20%, right?

Of course it stands to reason that in theory the more you have, the more you should be able to give. I just find it really funny how the "non-rich" are so giving when it comes to the wealthy's money.

 

[DiscoBoy]

We're only human.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

well u prefer communism? just that all children also deserve a chance to show their colors too.

money is a token in return for what you're good at giving, you then use these tokens to get more of it, the more you get, the more it is said that you are better at giving(/providing for peoples needs), so the more they have the better for all as they have proven themselves as the best custodians to bring us our needs.

then there are these darn accountants and their fraud systems are still out right criminal, we need more insight into this. Why is the scientiest and the patent holders left in the back seat while leemans ceos and f&m gets hundreds of millions in payoffs for the shit that they part caused. we also need to rework who we allow to lone money to and need to lower taxes for the upper middle class, and creative startups. the rich can also do with a great deal more children the've got ample to teach and such trust would be a good bet too take. the reason many of these people are so rich is also because of a glitch that still remains in the system. it's very difficult to work these things out, but we do eventually.

spreading the wealth won't really help anyone, it will only provide somebody else with a number that they haven't earned, and now who's going to have to work for them to have this number? likely the class just directly above them. so esencially here, what they are doing is riping off the middle class.


instead of Gates giving his money away, he could have rather invested it in fusion tech or aging technologies for his own and the benefit of humanity, not only would he grow his wealth a great deal more, but the greater humanity will be enriched as well. i say this all has to do with something other (inadvertently paying for population control, something that is commonly seen as politically incorrect)

 

[JTalbain]

There's also the other saying to consider, "It takes money to make money." People that are exceptionally charitable with their cash are not as likely to ever make it to billionaire status in the first place.

This kind of reminds me of the Politics thread which pointed out the Republican talking point of "Obama wants 90% of the tax burden to be supported by 1% of the population could be easily flipped around to say, "90% of the nation's wealth is held by 1% of the population."

This just comes down to a question of whether you find the current distribution of wealth disturbing. Many of us are quick to point out the destitute in other countries and how an elite few hide the wealth away and deny them even the basic necessities for living, but when they're shown the same destitution in our own country, they tell those people to "Get a job." Kind of sad really. I myself would give heavily if I were filthy rich, but I think that's a moral choice to make, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone. The greedy will get theirs in the end.

 

[maxcok]

Of course it stands to reason that in theory the more you have, the more you should be able to give. I just find it really funny how the "non-rich" are so giving when it comes to the wealthy's money.

It might surprise you to learn that in America the people who give the greatest percentage of their financial resources to charity are those in the lowest income levels, and the percentage given away decreases as income rises. Compound that with the notion that those in the lowest income levels have the least amount of 'disposable income' after covering their basic living expenses, and many are struggling as it is. Compare that with the uber wealthy who could give away half, three quarters of their income or more, and it wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all. Think about that.

We're only human.

Some more than others.

 

[Rikter8]

the rich are good at creating solutions, and it's those solutions that we need.

Not necessarily. Part of the reason we're in the situation we are is because of Inheritance children being placed into positions of power when they don't have a clue.

Money breeds money. Always has, always will.

If you want to get anywhere in life, you have to Look like money, smell like money, and talk like money.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

Tee&A,

Good thread/question.

It'd be interesting to fire up the "what if...?" computer and see what would happen to private wealth creation if your anonymous poster's idea became passed policy somewhere in the world. To him or her, it sounds oh-so-easy to focus on the multi-billionaires. But, if we ever got to an in-force law, if the comparison is people making it on less than $2/day, where would the "wealthy" line be drawn?

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Not necessarily. Part of the reason we're in the situation we are is because of Inheritance children being placed into positions of power when they don't have a clue.

Money breeds money. Always has, always will.

If you want to get anywhere in life, you have to Look like money, smell like money, and talk like money.

well i guess the same logic applies to when you give somebody random on the street a buck, it's theirs now question asked. however this is only when you do give them this buck, if you don't, well then it's not theirs. so nothing we could justfully do about this.

as to children being placed into positions of power, well 68% of forbes 400 are of the self-made lower-middle class, the rest are doing quite well tooo. politically incorrect or not, i can't imaging that we could do somthign about this unless we had to rule the world like they did in the book 'brave new world' where nobody has children and children are grown by state in hatcheries.

let them inherit(as long as their (hopefully not evil) parents actually say that they can have it, else it is handed in as taxes) it, fully, just that we also need to ensure that every child has a chance, as similar logic applies to say that these irresponsible parents who can't even afford to raise a pet, have so many chidrne that they can't afford. now who's to blame, the 'spoit rich kid', or the 'irresponsible clown who can't even take care of thier own pets and thinks that they can raise 5 children'? either way, part responsibility is at society too, they should ensure that things like this don't happen in society. a solution? i don't know, perhaps the chinese are right on this one. how somethign like this could be done ethically is another thing

 

[maxcok]

Imported from another thread:

Guess who are the most charitable givers in American society? Surprise, surprise:

"In fact, America's poor donate more, in percentage terms, than higher-income groups do, surveys of charitable giving show. What's more, their generosity declines less in hard times than the generosity of richer givers does.

"The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity," said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington-based association of major nonprofit agencies. "The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."​

What makes poor people's generosity even more impressive is that their giving generally isn't tax-deductible, because they don't earn enough to justify itemizing their charitable tax deductions. In effect, giving a dollar to charity costs poor people a dollar while it costs deduction itemizers 65 cents."

chart ..America's poor are its most generous givers | McClatchy

". . . the most common explanation for the lack of giving is a perceived deficiency of means: Two-thirds of nondonors say that they simply cannot afford to give. This sounds reasonable. There are plenty of Americans having trouble making ends meet, so why give away what little money they have? Thus we can logically assume that most of the Americans who don't give are poor, right?

Wrong. In fact, Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent.*​

If the poor are doing so much giving, who are the folks who claimed in Independent Sector's 2001 survey that they can't afford to? Ironically, this is a typical upper-income excuse. Among the people with above-average incomes who did not give charitably in the year 2000, a majority of survey respondents said they didn't have enough money. And they probably believe it. We live in a country in which three out of five families carry balances on their credit cards from month to month and the average household debt for consumer items is about $18,000."​

Poor Give More To Charity - News Markets - Portfolio.com

* Note: This is from a much earlier study included here for comparison with the McClatchy survey. Giving among those earning $100K or more is now down to between 2% and 2.1% of income, the lowest percentage of income on the survey. I guess the Great Recession hit everybody hard.

Of course, comparing giving as a percentage of income doesn't even begin to tell the story. The fact that the most generous people are those struggling to pay for basic necessities is remarkable. The more disposable income one has, the percent that could be given to charity increases exponentially, but instead, it drops. The numbers clearly show that the higher people are on the economic ladder, the stingier they are. Furthermore, the wealthy are very good at using charitable contributions to offset their tax 'burden'. Most rich people don't get that way by accident. Those who complain about social welfare programs are just stingy bastards who want somebody else to pay. "Greed is good." :biggrin1:

If we rely on those of means to provide 'charity', the disadvantaged will surely be up shit creek.

 

[Bbucko]

...perhaps the chinese are right on this one...

Care to elaborate, please?

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Care to elaborate, please?

One-child policy, or something simmilar to ensure that people are responsible and able enogh to take care of children responsibly and that they will have a place to contribute too. I'm only saying that the most important tasks of all, should require some criteria too, just(exactly) as flying an airoplane would. (i don't know how it will be done, i'm only saying that it should be done', how is another thing i am not perfectly sure about, however nothing says that it can't be done ethically either)

 

[Bbucko]

One-child policy, or something simmilar to ensure that people are responsible and able enogh to take care of children responsibly and that they will have a place to contribute too. I'm only saying that the most important tasks of all, should require some criteria too, just(exactly) as flying an airoplane would. (i don't know how it will be done, i'm only saying that it should be done', how is another thing i am not perfectly sure about, however nothing says that it can't be done ethically either)

Personally, I would not be functional in a society with so much control over its citizens as to dictate something as fundamental as reproduction on a governmental level. Nor do I believe that anyone who has survived such a regime would/can be unscathed. Autonomy of the individual is just too ingrained in me as a concept.

As to the OP, the rich only remain rich because they are supported by the other 98% of the population in some fashion or other. With heroic wealth comes great responsibilities which sound disproportional but are necessary. I am not of the mindset that we should confiscate any wealth beyond some arbitrary line of "what's essential to survive comfortably", however I do believe that in a more just society such questions would never need be asked.

When I was growing up, we called such enormous disparities between wealth and poverty "third world" and as Americans all congratulated each on our middle class. Even my intensely reactionary parents believed such things and understood that unimaginable wealth comes at the expense of the unimaginably poor. This is not Communism, it's common sense. Money doesn't grow on trees and there's only so much to be had.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

who said that we need so much control? americans find easy ways around things, there must be another way we could do the same, while it not havnig to 'chip' people or something as such. peoples imaginations are way off track, this is no Orwellian thing, neither was the pilots license either. well we need to do something, that's all im saying, and i think that the chinese have the best way. just don't agree with the sterilisations part. most of the chinese agree with the one-child policy, so i don't think that it really is such a streneous task either, and perhaps we'l get an iphone app to do pregnancy tests remotely

money isn't like oil either, it's not a commodity, it's a token that one needs to win over by offering somebody else something that they are willing to pay for. this is the only just way, the problem is how humanity understands this. the crime done unto those children was not done by the rich or by government, it was done by their parents

 

[Mem]

How do you think people that make $50,000 a year would react if people below the poverty line were publically calling them to give away $10,000 a year to charity. It's only 20%, right?

The difference is that a billionaire or multi-millionaire does not have to worry about having money to put gas in the car or food on the table or have rent money. a person making $50K does.

 

[0cram]

There should be no obligation from the government to give away money. Incentives such as tax deductions are fine because many taxes are unjust. Of course, if money was earned because of exploitation or any means of living off of other people, that money should belong to those exploited or at least given to the less fortunate.

No one should live for others' nor should anyone ask others to live for them.

If someone works hard and invents or makes something everyone else uses, he deserves every cent of that profit and he should be proud to set an example of supporting or creating charities. This is why I admire J. D. Rockefeller and B. Gates, Gates especially.

 

[DiscoBoy]

who said that we need so much control? americans find easy ways around things, there must be another way we could do the same, while it not havnig to 'chip' people or something as such. peoples imaginations are way off track, this is no Orwellian thing, neither was the pilots license either. well we need to do something, that's all im saying, and i think that the chinese have the best way. just don't agree with the sterilisations part. most of the chinese agree with the one-child policy, so i don't think that it really is such a streneous task either, and perhaps we'l get an iphone app to do pregnancy tests remotely

We're only human.

Maybe in a perfect world where humans felt no emotions would your idea work. Communism has repeatedly failed for a reason.

Oh, and I'm not so sure the Chinese have it down pat either judging from recent (and not-so-recent) events.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Maybe in a perfect world where humans felt no emotions would your idea work. Communism has repeatedly failed for a reason.

Oh, and I'm not so sure the Chinese have it down pat either judging from recent (and not-so-recent) events.

wasn't referring to communism, was referring to the one-child policy, which yes, was a huge success

 

[HiddenLacey]

It might surprise you to learn that in America the people who give the greatest percentage of their financial resources to charity are those in the lowest income levels, and the percentage given away decreases as income rises. Compound that with the notion that those in the lowest income levels have the least amount of 'disposable income' after covering their basic living expenses, and many are struggling as it is. Compare that with the uber wealthy who could give away half, three quarters of their income or more, and it wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all. Think about that.

Some more than others.

What exactly is considered a low income level? Under 100K?

 

[maxcok]

What exactly is considered a low income level? Under 100K?

Oh no, not even close. More like 10K at the lowest level.

Check the links in my second post, hun. Here, I'll help you. :wink: chart

wasn't referring to communism, was referring to the one-child policy, which yes, was a huge success

Really? Why don't you ask all the baby girls who were aborted, killed or abandoned to make room for a boy?

Why don't you ask the parents who were restricted by the government to having one child?

If that weren't draconian enough, it goes against everything in the tradition of Chinese family life, where the elderly are revered and children are expected to take care of their parents in old age. Who will take care of these parents if something happens to that one child, or he/she shirks his traditional responsibility?
The Chinese government? HAHAHAHAHA.

 

[HiddenLacey]

Oh no, not even close. More like 10K at the lowest level.

Check the links in my second post, hun. Here, I'll help you. :wink: chart

Interesting I donate way more money now than I did when I made a lower income years ago. Honestly, when I was that poor I was lucky to afford food. Not that I'm rich by any means, I've always given whatever I can. The only places I've consistently given to through good times and bad is St Judes and the HSUS.