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

[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?

 

[Meathead]

Investing money and giving the proceeds to some sort of responsible charitable organization based on performance while keeping control of the $100 million.

 

[Foxfyre]

Investing money and giving the proceeds to some sort of responsible charitable organization based on performance while keeping control of the $100 million.

So you would opt for option #3 in the poll choices? The concept the author put forth was that the increased economic activity would in itself result in more taxes paid to the government as well as generate prosperity making more money available to charity, but, more importantly, making charity less necessary.

 

[Big Black Dog]

So, what would I do with 100 million dollars to dispense of? I think I would go the charity route BUT I would do it in my own way. I know a good many people who could use a hand up so I would personally opt to help them out. You can do a lot of good things with 100 million dollars. Can help a lot of people out that could use some help. However, I would manage it all myself to ensure that it was used in a way that I thought best and not squandered on worthless things.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The idiot gallery gives its two cents.

 

[peach174]

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.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Just don't tell all those far left rich people (like Pelosi) who have made their fortune though insider trading.

 

[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?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

#3.

It makes #2 possible.

 

[Clementine]

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.

 

[peach174]

Expanding business and jobs benefits all including the government.

 

[g5000]

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 matters is what the gazillionaire actually DOES with his money. If he sits on it, is that worse than giving it to the government, vis a vis "benefit to the public"?

If he buy's hookers and blow with it, is that better than giving it to the government?

What do people with "extra" cash actually do with that money? That's the critical key.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding business and jobs benefits all including the government.

That is certainly the position that author was taking, i.e. that $100 million would multiply itself many times over providing opportunity for others to prosper. The businessman would pay more in taxes. Those who prospered would dutifully pay their taxes owed. And the increased prosperity would lessen the need for charity.

 

[Spiderman]

Why is investing money considered greed?

 

[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 matters is what the gazillionaire actually DOES with his money. If he sits on it, is that worse than giving it to the government, vis a vis "benefit to the public"?

If he buy's hookers and blow with it, is that better than giving it to the government?

What do people with "extra" cash actually do with that money? That's the critical key.

Wasting or spending the money on personal pleasures was not one of the options offered. Let's try to focus on the concept that IS offered:

Starting or growing or investing in a business or businesses?
Giving the money away to worthy charities?
Or paying the money to government to use?

Which benefits the general public more?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is investing money considered greed?

Doesn't matter. There are some who truly believe that the very wealthy are greedy when they intentionally earn more money. Whether that is true or not is immaterial to the question asked:

Whether or not the businessman is greedy, does he benefit society more when he:

1. Invests the money to grow his or somebody else's business?
2. Gives the money away to a worthy charity?
3. Pays the money to the government to use?

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

Tough question to answer indeed, primarily because it's totally dependent on the quality of the gov't. I believe a well-structured, non-corrupt gov't, that is a true representation of the wants and needs of the general population could do some good things with that $100 million.

If we're talking the US gov't, then give it to private sector immediately!

Charities are great, but unfortunately they generally only return $1 to $1 benefits (ie food to feed poor, coats for kids, etc) whereas investments in the private market could yield $1 to $1+ benefits.

 

[BlackSand]

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?

It is only a question for someone who doesn't have $100 million ... Those that do know the answer.

.