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

[Derideo_Te]

Obviously, option 3 would be the best use of the money and do the greatest amount of good for society.

Vulture capitalist would all agree with you.

And in my opinion they would be absolutely 100% correct just as would be non-vulture capitalists.

I was making a little joke because of Darkwind's avi but I understand that my gallows humor is sometimes just a little too obscure.

 

[Againsheila]

Even the best government in the world has to remove that $100 million from the economy before it can use it, no matter how well it uses it. And it requires a goodly portion of the $100 million just to feed itself before it distributes whatever is left over.

It is the same with a good charity, though generally a good private charity will not swallow up nearly as much of the money in its own bureaucracy as the government does. And a good charity can also be funded by endowments that are invested and grow themselves increasing the funds available for the charity to use. (Corrupt charities that exist only to feed themselves are not any better than the government in my opinion, but that is also a topic for another thread as we are considering only good charities here.)

Only private sector investment in private sector commerce and industry takes nothing out of the economy but rather contributes to it and increases it.

Really foxfyre? The government has to remove that $100 from the economy first? Even if the person with the $100 million chose not to invest the money in our economy or is just sitting on it doing nothing with it? I don't think it is a "given" that this $100 million would have been $100 million taken from the economy, unless I am not understanding you?

Is number 3 what is considered "trickle down" theory?

See, I can't answer your question because there are so many unanswered questions regarding this scenario...

like, what business was this individual in that he made $100 million dollars extra a year? And what does this individual pay his employees? A walmart wage where all of us tax payers are having to pay them welfare benefits in order for them to just get by in life, while the owner takes the $100 million in profits he made off of paying his own workers that made him the money so little? So he can go in and grow his business by hiring more workers to make him another $100 million while paying these new workers such a low salary that they too will have to collect welfare/food stamps where the rest of us tax payers have to front?

Or is this a company owner that pays it's producer employees well and what they deserve for making him so much "extra money"?

and with the number 2 scenario, what kind of charity? A charity that only 30% of its money actually gets to people in need, or a donation of a new Museum, or a charity for animals, or for a Jim Jones retreat, or by supplying lap top computers to a school system?

I guess it's hard for me to answer the poll without truly knowing more....it isn't as simple as the answers in the poll are.....imho Foxy!

Yes, Care, the government generates no real money or resources of its own. Whatever it spends it has to take away from those who earned it in the private sector. That is why government spending has so much less net effect on the economy than private sector spending does even if the money is spent for the same things.

And the question is quite simple.

You have somebody with $100 million to use. We are not concerned with all the things that person MIGHT do with that money. The question is what will produce the most benefit to society based on the three choices and ONLY the three choices offered

1. Pay the money to government via taxes
2. Give the money away to a good charity.
3. Invest the money in a new private sector business or grow or expand an existing one.

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really foxfyre? The government has to remove that $100 from the economy first? Even if the person with the $100 million chose not to invest the money in our economy or is just sitting on it doing nothing with it? I don't think it is a "given" that this $100 million would have been $100 million taken from the economy, unless I am not understanding you?

Is number 3 what is considered "trickle down" theory?

See, I can't answer your question because there are so many unanswered questions regarding this scenario...

like, what business was this individual in that he made $100 million dollars extra a year? And what does this individual pay his employees? A walmart wage where all of us tax payers are having to pay them welfare benefits in order for them to just get by in life, while the owner takes the $100 million in profits he made off of paying his own workers that made him the money so little? So he can go in and grow his business by hiring more workers to make him another $100 million while paying these new workers such a low salary that they too will have to collect welfare/food stamps where the rest of us tax payers have to front?

Or is this a company owner that pays it's producer employees well and what they deserve for making him so much "extra money"?

and with the number 2 scenario, what kind of charity? A charity that only 30% of its money actually gets to people in need, or a donation of a new Museum, or a charity for animals, or for a Jim Jones retreat, or by supplying lap top computers to a school system?

I guess it's hard for me to answer the poll without truly knowing more....it isn't as simple as the answers in the poll are.....imho Foxy!

Yes, Care, the government generates no real money or resources of its own. Whatever it spends it has to take away from those who earned it in the private sector. That is why government spending has so much less net effect on the economy than private sector spending does even if the money is spent for the same things.

And the question is quite simple.

You have somebody with $100 million to use. We are not concerned with all the things that person MIGHT do with that money. The question is what will produce the most benefit to society based on the three choices and ONLY the three choices offered

1. Pay the money to government via taxes
2. Give the money away to a good charity.
3. Invest the money in a new private sector business or grow or expand an existing one.

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

Can you? Not according to some who invariably equate the ambition of the rich as greed and will almost always answer a poll that the rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rest of us for that reason. And those who put way more faith in government than I do honestly believe the government would do more good with that $100 million than that rich guy would do.

Of course such people have little basic understanding of economics and little appreciation for how the most successful societies become successful or appreciation for a work ethic for that matter. To them the unsuccessful are almost always victims while the most successful are generally viewed as having achieved that success by nefarious, crass, or greedy means. Therefore that success must be reviled and punished and any overall benefit to society must be ignored.

 

[BlackSand]

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

That is true ... But there is no less corruption in government than venture capitalism.
Charity would be a better option if it was more of a fix than a Band-Aid.
The onus is on the provider ... And development comes with greater ease and less waste at the local level when business is successful.

.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Obviously, option 3 would be the best use of the money and do the greatest amount of good for society.

Vulture capitalist would all agree with you.

They probably would, but for different reasons.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

That is true ... But there is no less corruption in government than venture capitalism.
Charity would be a better option if it was more of a fix than a Band-Aid.
The onus is on the provider ... And development comes with greater ease and less waste at the local level when business is successful.

.

The option, however, was investing the $100 million in a new business or to expand or grow an existing one. What does it matter if the owner is 'greedy'? He is subject to the same laws and restrictions as all other businesses. We are not focused on the character of the business owner but rather on the net benefit to society as a whole. And we are not focused on anecdotal situations but rather on the the big picture and the 'in general' scenarios.

Which of the three choices would mostly likely produce the most benefit to society overall?

 

[WillReadmore]

Yes - your author can certainly make a case against private charity.

While you're off deciding how this guy with the extra pile of cash should best use his wealth (a question haunting rich folks everywhere, I'm sure), perhaps there should be a thread addressing another issue:

How to best design and adequately fund our social safety net

 

[BlackSand]

The option, however, was investing the $100 million in a new business or to expand or grow an existing one. What does it matter if the owner is 'greedy'? He is subject to the same laws and restrictions as all other businesses. We are not focused on the character of the business owner but rather on the net benefit to society as a whole. And we are not focused on anecdotal situations but rather on the the big picture and the 'in general' scenarios.

Which of the three choices would mostly likely produce the most benefit to society overall?

Well ... I tried to keep it as general as the original question in your OP ... But since you asked ... And Number three is the only choice that rightfully can provide for both the others when absent corruption.

How someone invests their money and manages their business does have an effect on the community and has the opportunity to touch more lives in a positive manner.
A healthy work environment promotes healthy relationships between the employer, employees and exculpatory businesses.
Quality production practices produce better products, market development, healthy fiscal growth and an awareness of sustainability on the environmental level.

Good Businesses spend capital on developing resources at the community level.
They can do this by supporting academic achievement, athletic programs, community awareness and local charities.
The efforts they put forth in these areas ... Provide them with better educated and well-rounded employees ... And will also almost always result in return support for the products and higher productivity.

It also fosters a sense of community that gives members of that community a reason to stay where they are ... And further grow the resource base.
When a business is profitable and creates these benefits ... those same benefits flow over into exculpatory businesses that support other functions within the community.

Business is what produces wealth ... And it allows for those who are responsible to actually support charity and increase government revenues that will handle bigger projects.

Number 3

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes - your author can certainly make a case against private charity.

While you're off deciding how this guy with the extra pile of cash should best use his wealth (a question haunting rich folks everywhere, I'm sure), perhaps there should be a thread addressing another issue:

How to best design and adequately fund our social safety net

OK, cool. Can you post a link for your OP? Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

The option, however, was investing the $100 million in a new business or to expand or grow an existing one. What does it matter if the owner is 'greedy'? He is subject to the same laws and restrictions as all other businesses. We are not focused on the character of the business owner but rather on the net benefit to society as a whole. And we are not focused on anecdotal situations but rather on the the big picture and the 'in general' scenarios.

Which of the three choices would mostly likely produce the most benefit to society overall?

Well ... I tried to keep it as general as the original question in your OP ... But since you asked ... And Number three is the only choice that rightfully can provide for both the others when absent corruption.

How someone invests their money and manages their business does have an effect on the community and has the opportunity to touch more lives in a positive manner.
A healthy work environment promotes healthy relationships between the employer, employees and exculpatory businesses.
Quality production practices produce better products, market development, healthy fiscal growth and an awareness of sustainability on the environmental level.

Good Businesses spend capital on developing resources at the community level.
They can do this by supporting academic achievement, athletic programs, community awareness and local charities.
The efforts they put forth in these areas ... Provide them with better educated and well-rounded employees ... And will also almost always result in return support for the products and higher productivity.

It also fosters a sense of community that gives members of that community a reason to stay where they are ... And further grow the resource base.
When a business is profitable and creates these benefits ... those same benefits flow over into exculpatory businesses that support other functions within the community.

Business is what produces wealth ... And it allows for those who are responsible to actually support charity and increase government revenues that will handle bigger projects.

Number 3

.

This is the point I have been trying to make. A $100 million invested in a business will create jobs and increase the economy will result in more taxes paid and more people with more money to fund charities as well as reduce the need for charity. This regardless of the motives of the business owner. To me it is a no brainer.

Unfortunately, there are too many of our fellow members here who seem to be unable to see that truth. Who think the businessman should be relieved of that $100 million that he doesn't need and let the government use it for the 'common good'.

 

[BlackSand]

This is the point I have been trying to make. A $100 million invested in a business will create jobs and increase the economy will result in more taxes paid and more people with more money to fund charities as well as reduce the need for charity. This regardless of the motives of the business owner. To me it is a no brainer.

Unfortunately, there are too many of our fellow members here who seem to be unable to see that truth. Who think the businessman should be relieved of that $100 million that he doesn't need and let the government use it for the 'common good'.

Well ... Many people don't understand that what they think doesn't make a difference ... Only what you do and the end result ever makes a difference.

.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yes - your author can certainly make a case against private charity.

While you're off deciding how this guy with the extra pile of cash should best use his wealth (a question haunting rich folks everywhere, I'm sure), perhaps there should be a thread addressing another issue:

How to best design and adequately fund our social safety net

OK, cool. Can you post a link for your OP? Thanks.

Sorry, I'm busy tuning my portfolio and planning my next year's travel plans.

But, it's a great relief to know that it would be stupid of me to consider helping anyone.

After all, the government can do that while I work on the critical and patriotic task of growing my personal wealth.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the point I have been trying to make. A $100 million invested in a business will create jobs and increase the economy will result in more taxes paid and more people with more money to fund charities as well as reduce the need for charity. This regardless of the motives of the business owner. To me it is a no brainer.

Unfortunately, there are too many of our fellow members here who seem to be unable to see that truth. Who think the businessman should be relieved of that $100 million that he doesn't need and let the government use it for the 'common good'.

Well ... Many people don't understand that what they think doesn't make a difference ... Only what you do and the end result ever makes a difference.

.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how well intentioned is the businessman, how altruistic minded he might be, how noble his intentions are to better his fellow man, if he does not make a success of his business, the money will evaporate, and all that good will and honorable intent won't produce the same overall and continuing good benefits for society as will the selfish, greedy bastard who does make a success of his business.

It doesn't matter how noble sounding the title of a government program is or how well intended it is, if it doesn't deliver what is promised or if the negative consequences outweigh any good that is done, it is mostly money wasted. Not only will the initial investment be wasted but also the benefit to society that would have existed if that money had been left in the private sector.

A good charity is noble and well intended when it addresses real needs of the people, and nobody with any kind of good heart thinks that such charitable effort is a bad thing or should not exist. But to think that the charitable efforts, no matter how much compasssion they deliver and/or hands on help they provide to their beneficiaries, will have the overall net benefit to society that successful private enterprise can provide is to miss the mark on fundamental economic realities.

The businessman running, growing, expanding his business and personal wealth, pays taxes to the government and provides jobs and opportunities that allows many others to earn part or all of a living, pay taxes, and give to charity and, in fact, reduces the need for government programs and reduces the need for charity.

It's a no brainer which concept a good government should be most focused on and promoting.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Totally depends on the investment and the charity and what the money is used on if paid in taxes. Hand-ups could create thousands of Industrious people. Same goes for the investment, sort of depends on how the money is spent. If the hundred million were spent to successfully stop a world war... well that would be well spent too.

Thus the problem with your questions is generalizing. Making the implication that one is always better than the other, or at least best, is no different than saying that person is the smartest person on USMB, without even discussing what it is that you are even talking about.

 

[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?

Totally depends on the investment and the charity and what the money is used on if paid in taxes. Hand-ups could create thousands of Industrious people. Same goes for the investment, sort of depends on how the money is spent. If the hundred million were spent to successfully stop a world war... well that would be well spent too.

Thus the problem with your questions is generalizing. Making the implication that one is always better than the other, or at least best, is no different than saying that person is the smartest person on USMB, without even discussing what it is that you are even talking about.

The question did not generalize at all. And it has encouraged some pretty decent discussion. The one error I made in the OP is not using the phrase "more likely to benefit, which I did do in subsequent discussion, but most of the more intelligent members have been able to consider the question objectively and without ideological prejudice. So we can quarrel over the question. Or we can use our intelligence, experience, and intuition and appreciate the concept behnd it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes - your author can certainly make a case against private charity.

While you're off deciding how this guy with the extra pile of cash should best use his wealth (a question haunting rich folks everywhere, I'm sure), perhaps there should be a thread addressing another issue:

How to best design and adequately fund our social safety net

There are many threads on USMB addressing the concept of social safety net, and I'm sure folks aren't out of opinions about that if another thread was started.

But this thread is focused on a specific principle of realized or diminishing returns or - more specifically - getting the most bang from the bucks spent when we look at how government uses the money, how charitable organization use the money, or how a successful businessman uses the money.

A successful business pays taxes and creates jobs for people who then themselves become tax payers. It helps provide a base for additional commerce and industry who in turn pays taxes and creates jobs for people who become taxpayers. And at least some of those folks in turn will give and give and give again to good charities even as more jobs and prosperity reduces the need for charity.

To me it is a no brainer that the successful businessman, even if he intends nothing more than increasing his own wealth, will contribute more to society overall than either of the other two options. That is not saying there is no place at all for government or that charitable organizations are not important for the social good. But it is an excellent argument for allowing the businessman to keep and use that $100 million as much as is reasonably possible to do so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

None of them. The right invests the money in the Swiss or Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, money which said foreign banks loan to foreign business and industry to undercut American commerce.

On the other hand we might look to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their practices of sharing the wealth.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Uummmmm....... Decisions, decisions...... I'll get back to you on that one..........

 

[Againsheila]

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

That is true ... But there is no less corruption in government than venture capitalism.
Charity would be a better option if it was more of a fix than a Band-Aid.
The onus is on the provider ... And development comes with greater ease and less waste at the local level when business is successful.

.

Considering how badly our society is messed up right now. No jobs for the low skilled and lax control of our borders leading to even more low skilled workers which reduces the wages and the demand, at this point, we need those welfare programs. Until things change, I almost think there should be a minimum income for people because there just aren't the jobs out there for them to do, and the jobs that are out there don't pay enough. When companies as rich as Walmart ask for donations for their own employees for the holidays, there is something really wrong.

 

[Againsheila]

Ah, but you put in the word greed. You can invest the money in private sector business without being greedy. The greedy ones are ruining the world.

That is true ... But there is no less corruption in government than venture capitalism.
Charity would be a better option if it was more of a fix than a Band-Aid.
The onus is on the provider ... And development comes with greater ease and less waste at the local level when business is successful.

.

The option, however, was investing the $100 million in a new business or to expand or grow an existing one. What does it matter if the owner is 'greedy'? He is subject to the same laws and restrictions as all other businesses. We are not focused on the character of the business owner but rather on the net benefit to society as a whole. And we are not focused on anecdotal situations but rather on the the big picture and the 'in general' scenarios.

Which of the three choices would mostly likely produce the most benefit to society overall?

What does it matter? Look at Walmart, CEOs and family make $billions but the workers are on welfare. That matters! That's our tax dollars supporting a $billion business. That's wrong.

greed has led to our jobs (mine included) going overseas. Leaving the people her underemployed or unemployed. Obama's ACA isn't helping.