What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[daveman]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

 

[Againsheila]

But that's not playing fair DT. I didn't suggest there were ONLY three ways to use the money. And I didn't ask an opinion of what would be the best use of the money, period. (We all know what PERIOD means yes? )

I asked members to choose between three options: taxes or charity or private enterprise as the choice that would contribute the most to the common good. So if you are limited to those three options, which would you choose and why?

Technically my answer is #3, Foxy. It is an investment in "commerce and industry". The difference being that the investments are just very small but the end results are still commerce and industry of one sort or another. Yes, the investor isn't seeing a significant ROI but that isn't the point unless you equate greed with investment. Investing in people isn't greed, it is more like giving but in this case you are expecting a return with a small profit too which makes it commerce.

You must be very much richer than I am if you consider $100 million to be a small investment. But does it matter what the amount is or what profit is expected? If I am offered a job at a salary I am willing to work for, how does it affect me in any way how much the company I work for earns......except the more it earns, the more chance there is I will be given opportunity to better my own position in it?

I do know that I will personally benefit more from a good job with that company than I could expect to benefit from a one time or occasional charitable gift or anything the government is likely to do for me with the same money. And even if the $100 million is used to sustain me in my poverty, in poverty I will likely stay in that situation for as long as I can with little or no practical way out offered. An entry level job isn't very appeal if it means losing the government assistance I am receving.

But when I am employed by a private sector employer, I have every incentive to improve my situation because that will enrich me rather than cost me.

Having been told to my face I was too good at my job to get a better job, no I disagree. Without certain controls, investing the 100 million in commerce and infrastructure doesn't really help anyone but the people exploiting the workers. Check out Walmart for example. How many of their employees are being subsidized by welfare while they are among the richest people in the world?

 

[BlackSand]

Having been told to my face I was too good at my job to get a better job, no I disagree. Without certain controls, investing the 100 million in commerce and infrastructure doesn't really help anyone but the people exploiting the workers. Check out Walmart for example. How many of their employees are being subsidized by welfare while they are among the richest people in the world?

Are you saying that you would do what Wal-Mart does given the opportunity and money to invest it in your own business?

.

 

[Nosmo King]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

What is charity? Is it the chance to make more money? Is it the opportunity to help the less advantaged?

Investing in commerce and industry is the noble call of the Capitalist, but not necessarily the philanthropist. Surely some may find an advantage in the investment rationalization. Certainly those who hope for greater profits for themselves. But the problem is how many in the real world will benefit in real tangible ways other than the investors?

Can anyone get a job at the new factory, or will employment be elusive to those with mental, physical and emotional challenges? Will those new jobs treat he new employees fairly, paying a living wage and be free of hazardous conditions?

Could a homeless family apply for one of the new jobs, or will they be turned away due to their lack of a home? Catch 22.

Let the industrialist make his money. If he is typical of the contemporary investors, he will exploit his workforce and shut the thing down and move it all to China where exploitation is easier, even state mandated.

Rationalizing an investment as charity is like rationalizing taxation as robbery. A fool's game.

 

[daveman]

Studies prove that Republicans give more to charity. There are countless charities that have been around forever and probably do more good than government.

If you give money to government, they waste it. Not all of the money goes to help the intended cause because bureaucrats get paid and pork is added to every spending bill to ensure even more money is wasted.

If you give it all to charity, it helps some people for a while, then runs out.

If you create jobs with it, then it offers people the chance to lift themselves up so they no longer require charity. In the long run, this is the most benevolent choice. Unfortunately, many reject or even resent the notion that they should work if they are able. Liberals see nothing but helpless people and greedy people. They never, ever comment on the successful people who deserve everything they have. They want equal outcomes, so if you have more than your neighbor, you are seen as greedy, not as someone who works hard and sees the virtue in taking personal responsibility for your life.

Allowing people to keep their money means that they will donate more to charity. If liberals believed in people, they would make it easier for some to give, but they prefer to treat the entire populace as children who must be forced to do what the government wants.

Government has taken in trillions and managed to make the problem worse. Of course, they don't blame themselves for failed programs and like to pass blame to those who didn't pay more into government. Never mind that government can take what it wants from any of us and if the rich aren't paying more, then it's totally government's fault.

Why don't some of these big time liberals start writing checks if they believe they have too much money. Madonna made over $100 million this year, so she and others like her could send as much as they wanted to government. They never do that willingly and are likely as anyone to look for tax shelters. Hmmm, could they be hypocrites? How much has Barbra Streisand and others voluntarily given to government to help people? They constantly bash others who are not nearly as wealthy as they are and say we should all pay more. IF they believed that, the checks would have been sent all these years to back up what they say. Funny that hasn't happened.

Obama's own wealth has increased by leaps and bounds since becoming president. Does he voluntarily hand it over to pay for his big ideas? If he believed in what he was doing, he would have been the first to sign up for Obamacare, he would have capped the salaries of himself and congress and he would have given up millions to help the needy he claims to help.

Watch what people do, not what they say. I see greed in Washington far more than in the private sector.

Warren Buffet famously complained that his secretary paid a greater percentage in taxes than he did...but his company owes the government a billion dollars in taxes.

 

[daveman]

Wall Street has never been any kind of net benefit to society and never will be, the very concept runs counter to their mission of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few lucky people at the top of a pyamid of greed.

Where was the choice of Wall Street?
I only see three choices and Wall St. is not one of them.

Don't be dense, the thrust of the author in the op is that investment is more of a net benefit than taxes or charity and that is just insane, there is not a bit of altruism in investing money in business.

Investment doesn't require going through Wall Street.

Kickstarter

8 Kickstarter Alternatives You Should Know About

6 Cool Crowdsourcing Business Tools | Inc.com

10 kickass crowdsourcing sites for your business | Econsultancy

 

[daveman]

Why is investing money considered greed?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

Very noble, but like a couple or three other of my favorite people on the thread, you dodged the question. Hee hee. (I don't get to say that to the conservatives very often--I constantly say that to our leftist friends. )

The question is not what would YOU do with the money. The question is what benefits the general public or society the most?
- Paying it to the government in taxes?
- Giving it to a good charity?
- Investing it in private sector commerce and industry?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

I certainly don't believe in handing over to Obama-types, a government which ignores article 1, section 8....



But the other two courses of action are interesting choices.


I like the idea of incentivizing the free market....but it hardly exists....
Now, if it did, and we could encourage entrepreneurship.....I'd be down wit' dat.....

In fact, that's my choice from your list.


Why? Because Americans would take care of the charity aspect as they always have.
" We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

 

[Foxfyre]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

What is charity? Is it the chance to make more money? Is it the opportunity to help the less advantaged?

Investing in commerce and industry is the noble call of the Capitalist, but not necessarily the philanthropist. Surely some may find an advantage in the investment rationalization. Certainly those who hope for greater profits for themselves. But the problem is how many in the real world will benefit in real tangible ways other than the investors?

Can anyone get a job at the new factory, or will employment be elusive to those with mental, physical and emotional challenges? Will those new jobs treat he new employees fairly, paying a living wage and be free of hazardous conditions?

Could a homeless family apply for one of the new jobs, or will they be turned away due to their lack of a home? Catch 22.

Let the industrialist make his money. If he is typical of the contemporary investors, he will exploit his workforce and shut the thing down and move it all to China where exploitation is easier, even state mandated.

Rationalizing an investment as charity is like rationalizing taxation as robbery. A fool's game.

No it is not a Catch 22 if you focus on the principle rather than on the anecdotal example.

It is really simple. You have a guy with $100 million dollars to burn. Is he more likely to benefit society in general more if he:
1. Pays it in taxes?
2. Gives it to a good charity?
3. Invests it to grow or expand his private sector business or somebody else's private sector business?

 

[Nosmo King]

A good charity. That's the best, most historically reliable way to spread largess around. $100 million in taxes is a drop in the bucket, bound to be diluted in a labyrinth of bureaucracy. Investment is self interested, as it should be and always has been. That's why the rationalization of this option serves only those who do not value charity as much as they value a profitable quarterly report.

But a good charity knows both the real need and how best to address it. Capitalists don't and government is too clumsy.

 

[Indeependent]

I vote for investing in yet another factory in China.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you earned $100 million ... If you inherited $100 million ... If you invested money and received $100 million in dividends ... The government has already gotten its share before you have the $100 million to decide what to do with.

.

But I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the question was if you had $100mm, where would be the most advantageous place to invest at that point in time? I think it's irrelevant what the gov't had or had not received up to that point.

Again, there's an argument to be made that the superhighway the gov't constructs would yield more of an overall benefit than just sprinkling the $100mm across various key areas of the private sector - you agree? Again, in an economy with an already strong infrastructure this might not be the case, but in developing nations it could mean all the difference...

 

[Derideo_Te]

But that's not playing fair DT. I didn't suggest there were ONLY three ways to use the money. And I didn't ask an opinion of what would be the best use of the money, period. (We all know what PERIOD means yes? )

I asked members to choose between three options: taxes or charity or private enterprise as the choice that would contribute the most to the common good. So if you are limited to those three options, which would you choose and why?

Technically my answer is #3, Foxy. It is an investment in "commerce and industry". The difference being that the investments are just very small but the end results are still commerce and industry of one sort or another. Yes, the investor isn't seeing a significant ROI but that isn't the point unless you equate greed with investment. Investing in people isn't greed, it is more like giving but in this case you are expecting a return with a small profit too which makes it commerce.

You must be very much richer than I am if you consider $100 million to be a small investment. But does it matter what the amount is or what profit is expected? If I am offered a job at a salary I am willing to work for, how does it affect me in any way how much the company I work for earns......except the more it earns, the more chance there is I will be given opportunity to better my own position in it?

I do know that I will personally benefit more from a good job with that company than I could expect to benefit from a one time or occasional charitable gift or anything the government is likely to do for me with the same money. And even if the $100 million is used to sustain me in my poverty, in poverty I will likely stay in that situation for as long as I can with little or no practical way out offered. An entry level job isn't very appealing if it means losing the government assistance I am receving.

But when I am employed by a private sector employer, I have every incentive to improve my situation because that will enrich me rather than cost me.

Did you read any of the stories on that link, Foxy? For some poor woman who lives in a rural area and sells the eggs from her chickens to the person who takes them to market and then sells them at a higher price to be able to take a $50 loan to buy a bicycle so she can take her own eggs directly to market and sell them at a higher price means a way out of a subsistence level lifestyle. The additional profit pays off the bicycle and the increased revenue thereafter improves her life and that of her family. The investment is small when compared to the $100 million total and the interest of 2% amounts to a $1. But when you multiply that small investment by the number of people like that who only need a $50 loan to improve their lives the real return in far greater than can be measured in terms of money alone. This is more than charity and more than greed. It is investing in people and making a real difference. So yes, they have the incentive to improve their own situation but lack the means. A micro loan provides that means to those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to improve their own situation.

 

[Foxfyre]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

I certainly don't believe in handing over to Obama-types, a government which ignores article 1, section 8....



But the other two courses of action are interesting choices.


I like the idea of incentivizing the free market....but it hardly exists....
Now, if it did, and we could encourage entrepreneurship.....I'd be down wit' dat.....

In fact, that's my choice from your list.


Why? Because Americans would take care of the charity aspect as they always have.
" We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

That was the rationale the author putting forth the concept used.

Private enterprise grows and expands the economy rather than taking from it while both government and charity take money out of the economy no matter how worthy are the reasons it does so.

Private enterprise produces more tax payers so the government receives. And it produces more affluence among the people that can generally result in more charitable contributions and, more importantly, reduce the need for charity in the first place.

But because such a concept so often results in the very rich becoming even richer, it is generally dismissed or detracted from by those who put heavy importance on class envy. A pity that is too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see this thread got busted to the General Discussion zone. And that too is a pity because it is a discussion that our statists and political class should be engaged in and one that should be engaged in by all our elected leaders.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you earned $100 million ... If you inherited $100 million ... If you invested money and received $100 million in dividends ... The government has already gotten its share before you have the $100 million to decide what to do with.

.

But I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the question was if you had $100mm, where would be the most advantageous place to invest at that point in time? I think it's irrelevant what the gov't had or had not received up to that point.

Again, there's an argument to be made that the superhighway the gov't constructs would yield more of an overall benefit than just sprinkling the $100mm across various key areas of the private sector - you agree? Again, in an economy with an already strong infrastructure this might not be the case, but in developing nations it could mean all the difference...

But you too hit all around it, but I think have inadvertently avoided answering the question directly:

We have a very rich guy--say Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or Donald Trump or pick anybody who has gazillions of dollars. This person has $100 million burning a hole in his pocket.

So what would likely be the most beneficial to society depending on where that money goes:

1. To the government?
2. To a good charity?
3. Invested in growing or expanding his or somebody else's private sector business?

In response to your infrastructure example, bear in mind that expanding and growing the economy results in many more taxpayers and much less drain on public relief resources so that the money for your major highway could be funded by increased tax revenues generated by the expansion.

 

[G.T.]

They're all better at different times under different circumstances.

 

[daveman]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

I think the problem lies in how that $100 million is invested in commerce and industry. If you are talking about building factories overseas with slave labor, that doesn't help our economy. If you are talking about building factories here with living wage jobs, that's an enormous help to our economy. Unfortunately, most of the corporations are going with option number 1.

And that's government's fault.

 

[Politico]

I spent my whole life on the giving and government part. That gets you nothing. So I guess greed is the way to go.