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

[Foxfyre]

Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy is not Capitalism. But trying to equate Capitalism with philanthropy is another in a series of ham handed gestures on behalf of the greedy to justify their actions.

It is true that capitalism and philanthrophy and taxes are three separate things. But what if philanthrophy is provided by a corrupt, selfish, greedy, bastard just trying to justify an action or salvage his reputation? Are the recipients of that philanthrophy benefitted any less when the character or morals of the donor are questionable? But the money taken is removed from the economy and there will be a net loss on one end despite whatever benefit is achieved on the other.

When the government takes money in taxes, a huge percentage of that money is immediately consumed by the government itself. But even when the money is not wasted by unnecessary or self serving or careless or incompetent or corrupt expenditures by corrupt politicians and/or bureaucrats--when it is used jurisprudently and effectively--it still removes the money from the economy before the government can use it. And because the government itself is so large and so expensive, a significant percentage of the $100 million will be be swallowed up by the bureaucracy charged with distributing it.

So that brings us to that greedy, selfish, bastard who cares about nothing or nobody other than himself investing that $100 million to start a business or grow or expand one. A business that will buy stuff from the community, will pay taxes, will likely contribute to charity to promote its image, and will provide a lot of jobs for people who need them. People who will then themselves buy what they need from the money they earn, pay taxes, and some will contribute to charity even as they no longer need charity themselves.

To me it is a no brainer.

My husband and I give of our blood, our time and talent as volunteers, and contribute what we reasonably can from our limited financial resources, and I pray that does others some good. But I have no illusions that we are benefitting society or promoting the general welfare as effectively as the guy running a business, hiring, training, and paying people to work in it, and increasing the net prosperity of the community.

And neither whatever money a rich guy retains nor the motives or morals of whoever is providing the money in whatever has any significant bearing on the benefit to those who are on the receiving end.

Sure it's a "no brainer" if at first you cast doubt and suspicion on charitable organizations! Then laud praise on Capitalism that has a proven track record of exploitation, greed and selfishness.

No, you're missing the point that those who do benefit from whatever activity benefit no differently regardless of the motives, morality, or ethics of the person making the benefit possible. But the overall effect, the longer term effect, IS different for society as a whole depending on how money is used.

It still boils down to a simple concept - at least simple to me.

Is society overall more likely to benefit when:

1. $100 million is paid to the government in taxes
2. $100 million is given to a good charity.
3. $100 million is invested to create, grow, or expand a business in the private sector.

 

[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.

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.

I think benefits provided by a private charity are less likely to be taken for granted and abused than "free" money handed out by government. Private charities are not necessarily viewed as a lifestyle choice, but rather a hand up instead of a government hand out.

Exactly!!!!

People turn to charities, and often charities find people in need, and they help get families through rough spots. It's not a program that invites people to stop trying and wait for someone else to pull them up.

Here is a great example of a private company proving that they do care. And they've done more willingly than government would have done after confiscating the money.

Things really do go better with Coke.

Successful company showing what charity is all about. Here's a huge, super wealthy company and the owners are being generous to help people. The liberals would have you believe that such people are a myth. Coca Cola company is skipping ads this season and the money they would have spent on increasing sales is instead going to help people in need.

Since November 18, Coca-Cola has donated over $2.5 million in cash, almost $600,000 in bottled water and an additional $1 million through the American National Red Cross:

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/975...ted-ad-campaign-reason-will-make-heart-smile/

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I think benefits provided by a private charity are less likely to be taken for granted and abused than "free" money handed out by government. Private charities are not necessarily viewed as a lifestyle choice, but rather a hand up instead of a government hand out.

Exactly!!!!

People turn to charities, and often charities find people in need, and they help get families through rough spots. It's not a program that invites people to stop trying and wait for someone else to pull them up.

Here is a great example of a private company proving that they do care. And they've done more willingly than government would have done after confiscating the money.

Things really do go better with Coke.

Successful company showing what charity is all about. Here's a huge, super wealthy company and the owners are being generous to help people. The liberals would have you believe that such people are a myth. Coca Cola company is skipping ads this season and the money they would have spent on increasing sales is instead going to help people in need.

Since November 18, Coca-Cola has donated over $2.5 million in cash, almost $600,000 in bottled water and an additional $1 million through the American National Red Cross:

This Major Beverage Company Has Halted Its Advertising. The Reason Why Will Make Your Heart Smile. | Independent Journal Review

And probably, if we took the time to do the research, it is some of the most hated and resented and reviled and criticized companies who are giving the most.

But had Coca Cola not spent gazillions on increasing its holdings, expanding its market base and market share to become the world's most valuable brand in soft drink companies, it wouldn't be paying mega millions in taxes to local, state, and the federal government. It wouldn't have been able to hire the thousands of people that it employs; the same people who are contributing to the economy themselves, paying taxes, and giving to charity. And Coca Cola would not have those millions to give away to help others.

So going back to the original question.

Would that gazillionaire do more service to society by:

1. Paying $100 million in taxes to the government?
2. Giving $100 million to charity?
3. Or opening or expanding a Coca Cola plant (or some other private enterprise)?

But some don't want to answer the question. Some would prefer to resent and accuse and hate the Coca Cola CEO because he pulls in $20 million a year in salary and benefits. And believe that Coca Cola itself is nefarious and/or evil.

 

[G.T.]

No, you actually totally made up what you asserted of MY VIEW in the post i quoted. That is either lying or bad reading comprehension.

You asserted that GT thinks that most of the rich are greedy. I NEVER came near even asserting that.

Weirdo.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, you actually totally made up what you asserted of MY VIEW in the post i quoted. That is either lying or bad reading comprehension.

You asserted that GT thinks that most of the rich are greedy. I NEVER came near even asserting that.

Weirdo.

Well it isn't important enough to me to go back and reconstruct all the posts exchanged, so if I misjudged you, I apologize. If you don't think all the rich are greedy, then we don't have a problem at all. And, though I don't remember the discussion going that way, if you don't think being greedy is an issue on whether the $100 million dollar investment is a benefit to society, then we're on the same page.

And at this point you should be able to easily answer the question:

If a gazillionaire, whether he is greedy or not, has a $100 million dollars to use, will society as a whole more likely benefit if the money is:

1. Paid to the government as taxes? - or -
2. Given to a good charity? - or -
3. Invested in a new or to expand an existing private sector business?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

If you wanted to, you could define one dollar as one life. That's been my approach for over a decade. Money means lives.

 

[rdean]

How about "teaching" and "helping"?

Right wingers have nothing of value to "teach".

And they only want to help people over a cliff.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

I didn't say it wasn't greed. I said it didn't matter whether it was or not. So if you're going with #3, what difference does it make to the overall benefit to society in general if the investor is in fact greedy?

It does matter.

Greed being a motivator is a nefarious intention, and likely means you're nefarious in other ways.

Self betterment is not greed though, so like daveman said, greed doesn't really compute in this discussion.

John Stossel said in a segment on "greed" that greed is a good thing. It is like self-motivation.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=581B735BC5C674B1778C581B735BC5C674B1778C

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't say it wasn't greed. I said it didn't matter whether it was or not. So if you're going with #3, what difference does it make to the overall benefit to society in general if the investor is in fact greedy?

It does matter.

Greed being a motivator is a nefarious intention, and likely means you're nefarious in other ways.

Self betterment is not greed though, so like daveman said, greed doesn't really compute in this discussion.

John Stossel said in a segment on "greed" that greed is a good thing. It is like self-motivation.

john stossel greed is good - Bing Videos

Great clip Quick! Thanks for posting that.

That's pretty much where Walter Williams comes from when he describes calling ambition "Greed" is "silly talk." It is the profit motive that inspires commerce and industry to strive for a better, more efficient, more desirable product that people will buy and buy again. It is the profit motive that provides the impetus for somebody to search for a way to meet an unmet need for a particular service or product out there.

There is a huge difference between ambition and covetousness and/or jealousy. Ambition doesn't seek to deny somebody else something while covetousness seeks to take what somebody else has so that somebody won't have it any more. Jealousy resents what others have and and can prompt a desire to punish them for it or deny it to them.

But it really doesn't matter if the person investing that $100 million to start or grow a business is doing it out of greed--I prefer to characterize it as ambition--and it doesn't matter how much success or prosperity he already enjoys. That $100 million will benefit others just the same regardless of the person's motives.

 

[daveman]

How about "teaching" and "helping"?

Right wingers have nothing of value to "teach".

And they only want to help people over a cliff.

Oh, DO shut up, you stupid, stupid little man.

 

[rdean]

How about "teaching" and "helping"?

Right wingers have nothing of value to "teach".

And they only want to help people over a cliff.

Oh, DO shut up, you stupid, stupid little man.

Well, didn't you notice the OP didn't even mention "teaching" and "helping"? Because it didn't occur to them. Since so many Republicans have lost the capacity to learn anything except "talking point propaganda" and think helping is "socialism", of course they don't want to discuss them. But those are the two things that are actually the most important.

 

[daveman]

How about "teaching" and "helping"?

Right wingers have nothing of value to "teach".

And they only want to help people over a cliff.

Oh, DO shut up, you stupid, stupid little man.

Well, didn't you notice the OP didn't even mention "teaching" and "helping"? Because it didn't occur to them. Since so many Republicans have lost the capacity to learn anything except "talking point propaganda" and think helping is "socialism", of course they don't want to discuss them. But those are the two things that are actually the most important.

The OP didn't mention helping?

What do you think charity is, you stupid, stupid little man?

 

[Care4all]

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.

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!

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[Care4all]

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.

then my answer is I simply don't know what would actually produce the best benefit to society...there's not enough info to be certain one way or another...I Could say 3....or could say 2....but no way of knowing without other details

 

[rdean]

Oh, DO shut up, you stupid, stupid little man.

Well, didn't you notice the OP didn't even mention "teaching" and "helping"? Because it didn't occur to them. Since so many Republicans have lost the capacity to learn anything except "talking point propaganda" and think helping is "socialism", of course they don't want to discuss them. But those are the two things that are actually the most important.

The OP didn't mention helping?

What do you think charity is, you stupid, stupid little man?

Charity isn't "helping" shit for brains, it's "giving". This is the difference between "teaching" and "giving".

"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

I just "gave" you a "teaching" moment. Did it "take"?

 

[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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[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.

then my answer is I simply don't know what would actually produce the best benefit to society...there's not enough info to be certain one way or another...I Could say 3....or could say 2....but no way of knowing without other details

An honest answer. I should have phrased it as it was originally phrased "what is MOST LIKELY to produce the most benefit to society. . . . ."

I think #3 is the only logical answer as it is the answer that makes #1 and #2 possible.

 

[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?

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.