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

[Derideo_Te]

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 the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You put a lot of effort into this post, Clementine, and covered a lot of territory. I take it as an argument for why the $100 million going to government is not the best use of that money.

It is true that conservatives more often look to the private sector as the private distributor of charity and, as a group, do give more generously of their blood, their time, talents, and personal resources for the benefit of the less fortunate. But to say that liberals never do would be incorrect because some do. Liberals also look to government as the necessary distributor of charity which most conservatives do not. But that does not change whether the $100 million given privately to charity benefits more people than would the same money invested in commerce and industry or distributed by the government.

As to who is greedier, that is too subjective a subject to deal with here, and anyway, it is really immaterial as I intend us to be focused on results rather than motive.

The person who benefits from benevolence through a private charity or from government distribution or from opportunity offered in a private sector job will benefit in the same way regardless of the motives of the person authorizing the benefit. The charity may be completely self serving - the private boss may be a complete asshole - the government may just be buying the vote - but none of those motives changes the value of the immediate benefit to the person receiving it. Whether he/she will benefit more in the long term could be a valid consideration in this thread, however.

So we need to look beyond the motive and beyond the individual beneficiary, to see which use of the $100 million produces the most overall benefit to society.

 

[kwc57]

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.

You need to hustle back to your tent in the park. I saw someone taking a dump in it.

 

[kwc57]

Voted #3. #2 is a good option as well. Nothing good will come of #1.

 

[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?

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.

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.

 

[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?

None of the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

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?

 

[Pop23]

Give $100 million to a charitable organization to start business to employee and train workers while putting a share of the profits toward the needy that can't work

 

[Foxfyre]

Give $100 million to a charitable organization to start business to employee and train workers while putting a share of the profits toward the needy that can't work

How do you see that as benefitting society more than using the whole $100 million to expand a business that hires and trains people to work for it?

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

However, one can argue that there are "needs" a gov't or public sector can provide that a private sector cannot or will not.

What if a country had 30 cities but crappy roads, and no single private entity wanted to finance new roads because other people would be able to reap the benefit without paying? The gov't in this case could use that $100 million to build a super highway system that would promote $500 million in economic activity (numbers are arbitrary). Get my point?

When and if we should give the gov't or the private sector the money is dependent on the situation at hand; if the economy already has roads and a solid infrastructure, perhaps it should be passed to the private. But if some of the infrastructure is lacking, perhaps the gov't is the best choice.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

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.

 

[BlackSand]

However, one can argue that there are "needs" a gov't or public sector can provide that a private sector cannot or will not.

What if a country had 30 cities but crappy roads, and no single private entity wanted to finance new roads because other people would be able to reap the benefit without paying? The gov't in this case could use that $100 million to build a super highway system that would promote $500 million in economic activity (numbers are arbitrary). Get my point?

When and if we should give the gov't or the private sector the money is dependent on the situation at hand; if the economy already has roads and a solid infrastructure, perhaps it should be passed to the private. But if some of the infrastructure is lacking, perhaps the gov't is the best choice.

.

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.

.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

And that is good. Anyone who claims to be doing something for the sake of altruism instead of his own self-interest is generally a Lying Liar Who Lies. Altruism is a con to dupe people into sacrificing their own self-interests to profit grifters.

 

[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 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.

I probably should have specified which society I was talking about though I was thinking here in the USA. But whichever society we are talking about, the net benefit would be the same to that society would it not?

For instance, what would help the people of the slums in Calcutta more? $100 million as

1. Government assistance from the USA?
2. Charitable contributions through Catholic Charities or World Vision or Church World Service?
3. Building a factory that would provide a lot of permanent jobs for a lot of jobless people?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And that is good. Anyone who claims to be doing something for the sake of altruism instead of his own self-interest is generally a Lying Liar Who Lies. Altruism is a con to dupe people into sacrificing their own self-interests to profit grifters.

This is true. As Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Whether the activity is altruistic or not has no affect on the ultimate benefit to the beneficiary. The question included nothing of the motives of the person writing or authorizing the money. The question is which of the three choices produces the greater benefit to society.

 

[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 chose the second option, but only because I couldn't pick two.

I would invest some and give the rest (unsure of the proportion) to charities whose goals I supported and who had low overhead.

I would be helping the economy, which helps people, and I would be helping people directly.

But giving it to the government would be insanity. Government is crazily wasteful and inefficient.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

I probably should have specified which society I was talking about though I was thinking here in the USA. But whichever society we are talking about, the net benefit would be the same to that society would it not?

For instance, what would help the people of the slums in Calcutta more? $100 million as

1. Government assistance from the USA?
2. Charitable contributions through Catholic Charities or World Vision or Church World Service?
3. Building a factory that would provide a lot of permanent jobs for a lot of jobless people?

Have you seen those factories in China? 5 or 6 women living in a one room apartment working 80 or more hours a week. Not allowed to date or even leave the grounds without special permission. No that's not a benefit to their society or ours.

 

[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.

I'd believe that, too, if all I knew about economics was what I'd read on protest signs.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

I probably should have specified which society I was talking about though I was thinking here in the USA. But whichever society we are talking about, the net benefit would be the same to that society would it not?

For instance, what would help the people of the slums in Calcutta more? $100 million as

1. Government assistance from the USA?
2. Charitable contributions through Catholic Charities or World Vision or Church World Service?
3. Building a factory that would provide a lot of permanent jobs for a lot of jobless people?

Have you seen those factories in China? 5 or 6 women living in a one room apartment working 80 or more hours a week. Not allowed to date or even leave the grounds without special permission. No that's not a benefit to their society or ours.

So would you choose ...

1. Government assistance from the USA?
2. Charitable contributions through Catholic Charities or World Vision or Church World Service?


.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above in my opinion.

The funds should be used for micro loans instead!

Kiva - Loans that change lives

Helping people to better themselves, especially those who can't obtain help from the regular channels, is by far the best use of this money. Just read the stories on that website and you will see the kind of vast difference even a small loan can make to people's lives.

This is not government. This is not charity and it is not commerce in the generally accepted sense. But it is real and it does work.

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.