Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'd rather she be a vain person who gets taxed through the nose, and has a more appropriate amount of personal wealth
How is her wealth innappropriate?
In my opinion, magnificent wealth is almost never earned or deserved, and given the current disparity of wealth and the depressing future of employment for most people, especially in developed nations, I think allowing such huge amounts of wealth to be concentrated into the hands of such a tiny proportion of people is inappropriate.
Eh, you'd probably feel differently if you had magnificent wealth and it was someone else who wanted to take most of it away and give it to other people.
As to the OP, I am not wealthy like that woman is, and probably never will be, but if I was, I would not feel guilty at all about spending lavish amounts of money on nice things. And when it came time to donate money to worthy causes, I would laugh at people like you who raged about my lifestyle and then give it to someone else.
rubiksnoob wrote: Eh, you'd probably feel differently if you had magnificent wealth and it was someone else who wanted to take most of it away and give it to other people.
Absolutely. But that wouldn't make it right.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?
Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.
It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.
I get a little annoyed by rich people who use money to help people. I do think it's a really nice thin, but I would rather the solution to social problems not require spontaneous niceness. Take the hospital bill. It is very nice that that he offered to help out, but the most idea solution would be for the company to have better insurance insurance.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?
Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.
It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.
I get a little annoyed by rich people who use money to help people. I do think it's a really nice thin, but I would rather the solution to social problems not require spontaneous niceness. Take the hospital bill. It is very nice that that he offered to help out, but the most idea solution would be for the company to have better insurance insurance.
He actually took that as a signal to increase the company insurance to the point where visits to the hospital didn't cost much more than a few dollars for any employee. I spent 3 days once hooked up to an IV in a private room and paid maybe $30 for the visit. Obamacare has messed that up for my company, though.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?
Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.
It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.
I get a little annoyed by rich people who use money to help people. I do think it's a really nice thin, but I would rather the solution to social problems not require spontaneous niceness. Take the hospital bill. It is very nice that that he offered to help out, but the most idea solution would be for the company to have better insurance insurance.
He actually took that as a signal to increase the company insurance to the point where visits to the hospital didn't cost much more than a few dollars for any employee. I spent 3 days once hooked up to an IV in a private room and paid maybe $30 for the visit. Obamacare has messed that up for my company, though.
Well now I like him more. Though I wonder how the healthcare law messed things up.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?
Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.
It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.
I get a little annoyed by rich people who use money to help people. I do think it's a really nice thin, but I would rather the solution to social problems not require spontaneous niceness. Take the hospital bill. It is very nice that that he offered to help out, but the most idea solution would be for the company to have better insurance insurance.
He actually took that as a signal to increase the company insurance to the point where visits to the hospital didn't cost much more than a few dollars for any employee. I spent 3 days once hooked up to an IV in a private room and paid maybe $30 for the visit. Obamacare has messed that up for my company, though.
Well now I like him more. Though I wonder how the healthcare law messed things up.
Depends on the situation... if his business is small-to-medium, then the cost of insurance would rise faster than historically due to mandates. Or, if a business is fighting for survival, they may just drop the company healthcare package and just may the tax (fine) as currently it's much lower than the new premium rates would be...
But, there's a whole slew of issues with it...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/22 03:42:11
Why is having money immoral? Is it immoral for your wife's company to charge her $9000 for the shoot that helped pay your wife's salary?
There are a limited amount of resources in this world. We can force a redistribution of wealth but that has never worked. Ineveitably some people accumulate wealth and others don't - and rightfully so. I'm sorry some people work harder than others, some people are smarter and some people take risks in business and it works for them. Why shouldn't they be rewarded? Yes some people fall into wealth some luck out and don't deserve it but that happens. Life isn't fair.
You can whine about it, earn your own or be content with what you have.
Personally I worked hard in school, I think I am a little smarter than the average bear and I have worked hard in this world. After many years I finally have a really nice income which if everything else goes according to plan I will have my own business soon. I started off dirt poor and now I am upper middle class and I hope to do even better. If I succeed why shouldn't I pass that money on to my kids. My greatest goal is that my kids should not have to struggle in life like I did. And sorry but I damn well feel I should have more money than those who goofed off in school so they got crappy jobs as adults. The same people who refuse to go to college as an adult and improve their situation but whine that my taxes should be raised to pay for the dozens of kids running around.
I don't mind paying my fair share but I don't think there is anything wrong with making money.
There was a religious survey done years ago in the US that asked (among other things) how much a person made and how certain they were they were going to Heaven. The richest were almost always 100% certain whereas the poor were the least certain. In the US, for many, there is a correlation between material wealth and godliness; it isn't just they there is nothing wrong with making money, it also is a metric for how good a person you are.
This makes sense of course, since it says in the Bible that "he who is chosen will make phat stacks of loot, and the lord will double them up".
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
spiralingcadaver wrote: I don't know his line of work, but (not to work too much off of conjecture) his cheating on his wife for a decade with a prostitute and her family doesn't speak much to his character :/
How is that not slut bashing? How is the fact that the guy likes hookers any relevant toward his income, or how his wife spends her part of his?
I'd actually argue that liking hookers is very different than cheating on your wife for a decade with one, specifically as the difference between sex drive, etc. (i.e. cheating physically) vs. a prolonged relationship (i.e. cheating systematically, physically and emotionally).
You're absolutely right, though, that it doesn't directly speak of his work. However, having a prolonged secret relationship that involves throwing a lot of wealth around does speak a fair amount about his character and financial/social choices, as the aforementioned conspicuous speaks to his wife's. It doesn't speak of the other side, but it's the only empirical material I've got...
We wrote: Is it immoral for your wife's company to charge her $9000 for the shoot that helped pay your wife's salary?
Nope, the majority of that cash would have gone to production companies, not my wife's company. And, no, I don't believe that it's immoral for a company to charge money for work, unless it harms others.
(bootstraps argument)
It's be great if material success were directly (or even vaguely) proportional to effort, but it isn't, and that was kind of my point. Of course things aren't fair, and I never said they should be, I was commenting on my offense at the degree of inequity.
Also, you should look up "whine"-- it's a small word that makes you feel big, but it actually has a fairly specific definition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/22 21:16:11
It's be great if success were directly (or even vaguely) proportional to wealth, but it isn't, and that was kind of my point.
Really?
Hmm, you're right-- that wasn't phrased very well.
I was initially talking about the disparity of wealth through example, though I didn't originally express that part of my offense came from not only the choice of expenditure but also from how said wealth was acquired. Material success being disproportionate to effort (edited above) was not my point, but part of it.
Actually achievement, as in something genuinely worthwhile, isn't very well related to 'success'. Scientists working on really worthy projects are highly qualified but often medium-low paid and receive little recognition for their work outside academic circles. Some Doctors do okay, but look at the hours they work and the years it takes to get there. The people who further us as a society and as a race don't get anything like the reward that the parasites upon it do, and I'm not talking about benefits scroungers. Who are those people who earn the most? Some are those that play with electronic money, playing and speculating on markets, they do nothing to benefit society other than create wealth for themselves and companies they work for. You've got to wonder what makes the highly paid footballers worth the wages they get. Obviously what they do is skilful, but worth so many, many millions? What do they contribute, what have they achieved? The artist, academic and scientist get very little reward. Those feeding on other people's money and the markets, and the cult of the celebrity get all the money/recognition. If you want to be rich and/or famous, you don't typically bother doing things that actually help people other than yourself.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Is anyone else just offended by that mode of existence?
Offended? No, not really. Irritated? Yes, on a Tyler-Durden-esque level. If I had that kind of cash to throw around, I'd be spending half the year digging wells in Africa.
It's funny you mention that since I have a boss that does just that very thing. He's made a lot of money over the years and figures the best thing he can do with his excess cash is to help people. Once we had a guy at work who had a kid with hosoital bills totaling in the neighborhood of $100,000. My boss went to him and told him whatever insurance didn't cover, he would.
He spends a lot of time in Africa and set up a deal at work for anyone wanting college to have two thirds of their tuition covered by the company as long as they hold a fair grade average.
It goes beyond him just donating his own money, though. By his example, people where I work spend a lot of their own money and time helping others. He's developed a culture of caring over the years I've worked there, and by association, it's changed my life and attitude for the better.
Where do you work and how do I get hired? This is EXACTLY the type of boss I'd love to work for.
Even if it didn't involve a raise (he legally can't pay me less than I make now), even if I never got part of the money being handed out (I'd rather have the kid stay healthy in the first place), I want to work for him. THIS MAN DESERVES HIS GOOD EMPLOYEES.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Money that just sits in the bank is still in the economy. Thats where the bank gets its loan money from. The money is then lent out to businesses and individuals.
Banks stopped lending serious money a while back to invest it in the market instead. In fact, some European banks were recently caught manipulating interest rates to FAVOR their market investments at the expense of the profitability of their commerical loan departments!
The reason they do it is because a) deregulation means they can, and b) they can make more money more quickly with good investments than they can with good loans.
The exceptionally low capitol gains tax rate doesn't help, either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 02:21:30
We can look at people with more than us and point out the staggering amounts they spend on stupid crap. But we can also look at the people with less than us, and think about how they must look at our spending, and the thousands we spend on stupid crap that must seem so incredibly wasteful to them.
We don't seem to do the latter as much as the former, for some reason.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The people who further us as a society and as a race don't get anything like the reward that the parasites upon it do, and I'm not talking about benefits scroungers. Who are those people who earn the most? Some are those that play with electronic money, playing and speculating on markets, they do nothing to benefit society other than create wealth for themselves and companies they work for.
Well, I'm hardly the kind to go about defending cultures and structures in modern financial markets, but painting them as parasites is a bit much. Determining which investment go ahead, and which don't is really important to a functioning economy.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
This is EXACTLY the type of boss I'd love to work for.
Even if it didn't involve a raise (he legally can't pay me less than I make now), even if I never got part of the money being handed out (I'd rather have the kid stay healthy in the first place), I want to work for him. THIS MAN DESERVES HIS GOOD EMPLOYEES.
Agreed, regardless of how they express it, good employers deserve good employees (and the reverse , too)
Grey Templar wrote: Money that just sits in the bank is still in the economy. Thats where the bank gets its loan money from. The money is then lent out to businesses and individuals.
Banks stopped lending serious money a while back to invest it in the market instead. In fact, some European banks were recently caught manipulating interest rates to FAVOR their market investments at the expense of the profitability of their commerical loan departments!
The reason they do it is because a) deregulation means they can, and b) they can make more money more quickly with good investments than they can with good loans.
The exceptionally low capitol gains tax rate doesn't help, either.
There are a few smaller banks that do actually invest in smaller enterprises and use their resources to invest/help other companies/do all that great stuff, but they're the exception, not the norm.
From my POV very few wealthy individuals and companies give money to charity because they Actually Care about the charity or the people/animals/environment it might help. They do it because it will gain them something. Not a warm glowing feeling for doing something good either. They do it get a Tax break, their name on a plaque, the prestige, and marketing. I'm sure there a few that actually do care and maybe give anonymously without claiming it on taxes. But that amount I'm guessing is very few. There's also a few who give or work for charity AFTER themselves or some family member is affected by something the charity is working to help. Before then they couldn't care less.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/23 18:18:30
CDK wrote: From my POV very few wealthy individuals and companies give money to charity because they Actually Care about the charity or the people/animals/environment it might help. They do it because it will gain them something. Not a warm glowing feeling for doing something good either. They do it get a Tax break, their name on a plaque, the prestige, and marketing. I'm sure there a few that actually do care and maybe give anonymously without claiming it on taxes. But that amount I'm guessing is very few. There's also a few who give or work for charity AFTER themselves or some family member is affected by something the charity is working to help. Before then they couldn't care less.
I'd say that's ALL people for the most part.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
I would have to agree with you too. Even I have claimed charity on taxes so I could get into a better tax bracket. But I've also done charity just for the the fact that it was a good thing to do. Not because I wanted to save money, not because my name would be on a list of people that did something. I did it because people needed help.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Doesn't matter how much money they have, people contribute to charity for the same reasons. Tax write offs, and because they want to. The former more then the latter.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Because I generally agree with a smaller part of people actually caring, and some doing so in reaction to a personal experience.
However-- tax breaks for donation along with material gains (publicity, etc.) are all based on value, not proportion of wealth/earnings, meaning people with less to give also have little to gain.
Also, where, in your model, does small charity come in to play? (i.e. the street, donation boxes in grocery stores, etc.)
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Thats obviously the latter of course.
its also a pretty small amount of money for everyone. Normally people will just give whatever change is in their pocket, along with the occasional bill.
Anything larger is almost certaintly going to be a fluke.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
its also a pretty small amount of money for everyone. Normally people will just give whatever change is in their pocket, along with the occasional bill.
Anything larger is almost certaintly going to be a fluke.
Sorry, that was directed towards KalashnikovMarine's comment about "ALL people," didn't notice that people had posted after that post and before mine.
Because I generally agree with a smaller part of people actually caring, and some doing so in reaction to a personal experience.
However-- tax breaks for donation along with material gains (publicity, etc.) are all based on value, not proportion of wealth/earnings, meaning people with less to give also have little to gain.
Also, where, in your model, does small charity come in to play? (i.e. the street, donation boxes in grocery stores, etc.)
Charity is primarily self interest driven, tax breaks or even just the ability to feel good/morally superior because you did a good thing, throw in the good works doctrines various religions have in one form or another and it's easy to see where the interest in the act itself actually is.
Small charity I've always seen as an act of convenience, especially if you happen to have change on hand for those grocery store counters.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Everything is self interest driven. The term means the stuff you think is important. Whether it is selfish or unselfish is the real question.
tax breaks
That's never made sense as a reason. Thing is, you get a deduction equal to the amount you give. As the tax rate is always below 100%, you will always end up with less money overall than if you hadn't given.
It might be the bonus that adds to other things, but it is never the reason by itself.
or even just the ability to feel good/morally superior because you did a good thing, throw in the good works doctrines various religions have in one form or another and it's easy to see where the interest in the act itself actually is.
Feeling good because you've done a good thing is doing a good thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 03:02:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Everything is self interest driven. The term means the stuff you think is important. Whether it is selfish or unselfish is the real question.
tax breaks
That's never made sense as a reason. Thing is, you get a deduction equal to the amount you give. As the tax rate is always below 100%, you will always end up with net money overall than if you hadn't given.
It might be the bonus that adds to other things, but it is never the reason by itself.
Think you're missing a word there, and I mostly agree with you, but, you'd be surprised how you can game the tax system, with both business losses and donations.
or even just the ability to feel good/morally superior because you did a good thing, throw in the good works doctrines various religions have in one form or another and it's easy to see where the interest in the act itself actually is.
Feeling good because you've done a good thing is doing a good thing.
There are groups that think everyone's evil and selfish, but I agree, in that I also think it's pretty absurd to call feeling good (not talking about moral superiority, here) about doing good to be evidence of people being selfish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 17:41:05
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yeah, if you really would end up with more money by not giving the charity then donations would drop.
There is a very good reason rich people donate vast sums of money to charity. They do come out ahead.
The only charity you don't come out ahead with are things you can't prove. Like the salvation army bell ringer donations or giving a homeless guy on the street corner some money.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I know of a few business people who donate to charity only for the tax brake and so they can look like nice people, but when you look at how they treat their customers and their employees they are quite slummy.
It kind of goes back to the first post. A business that plays fair, pays their employes closes to what they are worth then uses the profits to have some kind of greek orgy is way more tolerable then a business that abuses their position to make unfair amounts of money that they then donate for a tax brake.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 18:17:43
, too)
New Shangri-La Peace Force
Combined Army Shasvastii painting Blog
