quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


There is a finite amount of money,

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might be the case that some people here are conflating the production of (economic) wealth with the accumulation and distribution of that wealth.

As a rough guide (and focussing solely on the human contribution, omitting the cost of materials etc) :

Economic wealth is produced by the collective efforts of all people involved in a commercial enterprise;

and in the US that is every living body since they commercialized everything including their livestock! 
Say moo!

Economic wealth is accumulated by smaller numbers of people controlling the wealth produced by various enterprises; [The gubafia] and
Economic wealth is distributed by various means (eg salaries, profits and dividends, taxes) according to the prevailing economic system and political system.

It seems to me that the question at the heart of the matter here is what mix/balance of the above will generate optimal outcomes. A person's understanding of 'optimal outcomes' here will be largely influenced by what purpose one attaches to the production of economic wealth.

So, is economic wealth:
a means to end (eg general prosperity, general standards of living and health and so on); or
an end in itself (eg personal wealth, individual prosperity and so on).

quote:

The lower class has more empathy? I dunno...I haven't seen anyone from Malibu knocking over a liquor store and shooting the clerk in the face lately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The math doesn't lie there is more wealth in the hands of the top 5% then there is in the bottom 50%. Gee, I wonder how it got that way ?

Chance Favors the Concentration of Wealth, Study Shows

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Check me on this. To retain tax exempt status a charity need distribute only 5% of its Funds each year. The remainder can go to salaries/costs or continue to grow untaxed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The lower class has more empathy? I dunno...I haven't seen anyone from Malibu knocking over a liquor store and shooting the clerk in the face lately.

Maybe not. But financial scams can be devastating to greater numbers of victims. Bernie Madoff might as well have held a gun to the heads of the people he conned. And don't get me started on AAA rated sub-prime mortgages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might be the case that some people here are conflating the production of (economic) wealth with the accumulation and distribution of that wealth.

As a rough guide (and focussing solely on the human contribution, omitting the cost of materials etc) :

Economic wealth is produced by the collective efforts of all people involved in a commercial enterprise;

and in the US that is every living body since they commercialized everything including their livestock! 
Say moo!

Economic wealth is accumulated by smaller numbers of people controlling the wealth produced by various enterprises; [The gubafia] and
Economic wealth is distributed by various means (eg salaries, profits and dividends, taxes) according to the prevailing economic system and political system.

It seems to me that the question at the heart of the matter here is what mix/balance of the above will generate optimal outcomes. A person's understanding of 'optimal outcomes' here will be largely influenced by what purpose one attaches to the production of economic wealth.

So, is economic wealth:
a means to end (eg general prosperity, general standards of living and health and so on); or
an end in itself (eg personal wealth, individual prosperity and so on).

welcome to the desert of da-MOB-cracy!

yeh buhbah!

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The rich are different from the rest of us.

quote:


Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish.

In fact, he says, the philosophical battle over economics, taxes, debt ceilings and defaults that are now roiling the stock market is partly rooted in an upper class "ideology of self-interest."

“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

The article ends with one other curious observation:

quote:


There is one interesting piece of evidence showing that many rich people may not be selfish as much as willfully clueless, and therefore unable to make the cognitive link between need and resources. Last year, research at Duke and Harvard universities showed that regardless of political affiliation or income, Americans tended to think wealth distribution ought to be more equal.

The problem? Rich people wrongly believed it already was.

Typical asshole post.  How many universities have YOU founded?  How many hospitals?  Last I checked, Danny Thomas was famously rich and his children's hospital in Memphis is one of the best in the country.  How many libraries did you fund?  Carnegie founded a bunch.  Have you give as much to AIDS research as Gates?  America is the most charitable country in the world....whom do you think has the majority of excess cash in their pockets to be able to donate in the first place? 

The lower class has more empathy?  I dunno...I haven't seen anyone from Malibu knocking over a liquor store and shooting the clerk in the face lately.

You know what this post is?  This is a post by someone who WILL NEVER BE RICH.  The person will never be rich because he/she is petty, envious, unambitious, lazy, unfocused.............a myriad of reasons.  And that some people have wealth drives this type of person up the fucking wall.

Let me tell you something about the rich.  One common trait is that they don't tolerate excuses from non-starters. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Are not resources finite?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
It is naive to believe that pride and power are not motivators for philanthropy. Why else do Carnegie, Stanford, Rockefeller, and Bill and Melinda Gates have their names on Foundations and Buildings? Modesty? Nah. The wealthy build monuments to themselves like the pharaohs built pyramids, but they call them institutes or colleges.

Check me on this. To retain tax exempt status a charity need distribute only 5% of its Funds each year. The remainder can go to salaries/costs or continue to grow untaxed. Once Bill and Melinda completed their 66,000 square foot cottage for two (lavishly advertized and showcased) any further accumulation of price in Microsoft shares would be taxed at what 35%? His donations were in the form of Microsoft shares. What else could he do with them? And, oh btw, wasn't the donation tax deductable? Makes me wonder how much charity would be given by the wealthy if it were not denied to the Federal and State govts.

Pride, power, and tax evasion: prominant motivators for charitable giving by the wealthy, I think.[/size]

quote:

Hardly. If Madoff had used a gun, he would have been caught before defrauding billions from thousands. His type of thievery is one simply of confidence and how he was able to get 'friends' to give him large sums of money and do it for what...20 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If the rich wish to retain their wealth, they would be well advised to ensure that the masses of people less well off have a comfortable standard of living. It's prudent from the point of view of the wealthy.

The rich do that, thru the businesses they started and own they provide jobs for their employees.

quote:

Yeah, and where i am living now the owner has subdivided his property into 4 lots and named the lane after himself.. so what? He is not rich and imo he named it that for lack of a better or more unique name (since so many have already been used). Imo, just because someone names a charity after themselves, it doesnt mean they do it just to see their name up in lights. FFS, him starting Microsoft and turning it into what it is today has done that for his name and ego well before his charities.

quote:

Imo, him using his name for his charity gives it instant credibility, encourages people to learn more about the charity and give a donation where they would not had it been named something generic, and those that he knows and respect him likely give a greater amount.. so a win for the charity, in that respect.

quote:

Do you have links to your claims to show that his charities showing that only a small amount actually goes to the cause and the rest to pay him a salary? Did the cost of his cottage get paid for by one of his charities? Again, I would like to see links?

quote:

I would think donating the shares makes more sense since he would have to sell them otherwise and that would lower the amount he would get, as soon as he started selling them people would panic thinking their MS shares are gonna tank and they would sell too, creating a downward price spiral so less for the charity once he got thru selling them.

quote:

Why shouldnt donations be tax deductible? I am far from rich but I can donate my old car and get a tax deduction too, tax deductions provide one incentive but not the only reason people give. Sometimes they do it because they lost someone dear to them (like from AIDs) or because they want to give back to the school and help someone else deserving help or various other personal reasons.

quote:

But you go ahead and think what you want, I just dont happen to agree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might be the case that some people here are conflating the production of (economic) wealth with the accumulation and distribution of that wealth.

THIS is a very important point.

As a rough guide (and focussing solely on the human contribution, omitting the cost of materials etc) :
Economic wealth is produced by the collective efforts of all people involved in a commercial enterprise;
Economic wealth is accumulated by smaller numbers of people controlling the wealth produced by various enterprises; and
Economic wealth is distributed by various means (eg salaries, profits and dividends, taxes) according to the prevailing economic system and political system.

It seems to me that the question at the heart of the matter here is what mix/balance of the above will generate optimal outcomes. A person's understanding of 'optimal outcomes' here will be largely influenced by what purpose one attaches to the production of economic wealth.

So, is economic wealth:
a means to end (eg general prosperity, general standards of living and health and so on); or
an end in itself (eg personal wealth, individual prosperity and so on).

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If the rich wish to retain their wealth, they would be well advised to ensure that the masses of people less well off have a comfortable standard of living. It's prudent from the point of view of the wealthy.

The rich do that, thru the businesses they started and own they provide jobs for their employees.

How wonderful.

Unless we forget that their employees provide them with income.

It's not a one-way street and I'm sick of hearing this boot-licking nonsense.