Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

[stinkcat_14]

Greed** is** equal across all segments of society. But we don’t envy the poor, so we have this thread to argue that the “filthy rich” are greedier than the rest of us.

Is sloth equally distributed across all segements of society.

Second, what do the “filthy rich” have that I am envious of? It is clearly not money, so what is it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would say that if in becoming filthy rich that person was able to employ countless others in a corporation thus providing for their families that individual would be on his/her way to doing the right thing.

And that, of course is what the rich do – they create the jobs the rest of us depend on.

If that person however decided to buy 3 mansions and 5 luxury cars they have gone overboard. I think that person would have to try to live as modest a life as possible while still be able to advance his/her company. It would probably be a difficult task to live in a trailer park and run a multi million dollar enterprise. The individual would undoubtablely have to uphold an image with clients etc… They would also have to give an extraordinary amount to charity. I know Christ said we must give up our belongings and follow him but it is also said the laborer deserves a fair wage. So which is it? I think the 2 go hand in hand. Everyone has a calling. Don’t know what the official church teaching is on this question but would love to find out.

I suggest we must each pull our share of the load. As I have said many times, I have read posts saying someone else should be taxed to pay for this and that. But I have never read a post where the poster says, “I should work harder so I can pull my share of the load.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is sloth equally distributed across all segements of society.

Certainly – look at the wealthy “celebrities” who cannot be said to be other than sybaritic.

Second, what do the “filthy rich” have that I am envious of? It is clearly not money, so what is it?

You say so, but I beg to doubt it. The evidence is your insistance that they are somehow lacking.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I suggest we must each pull our share of the load. As I have said many times, I have read posts saying someone else should be taxed to pay for this and that. But I have never read a post where the poster says, “I should work harder so I can pull my share of the load.”

I don’t think anyone has ever determined what their fair share of the load is. And of course, the problem is that as your income and wealth go up, your fair share increases as well because as your income goes up, you benefit more from government. For example, I benefit more today from things like our legal system and defense spending that protects private property than I did 20 years ago. So my fair share would be higher today would it not?

 

[Gittles]

I think it’s quite clear that rich people have contributed greatly throughout history. Consider the churches and great monasteries and castles and artcollections and whatnots. I’m not saying that proves anything, but it is some sort of clue, isn’t it?
I think there is one form of filthy rich that hasn’t been considered in this discussion - old money. Do you have to undress in the market square like st Francis if you are to inherit a lot of money? In Brideshead revisited Lady Marchmain says something about old money and guilt. I don’t remember it very well - but i don’t doubt someone on this forum ought to be able to help me out there. As an answer to the camel and the eye of the needle she says “nothing is impossible to God”. Brideshead revisited was, as far as i know, written before the eyeneedle-gate in the old Jerusalem wall was discovered. She says that it is possible for the rich to sin by wanting the graces of the poor. The poor, she says, has always been favourites of God’s.
Now, I’m not at all certain she had a good point there - but i think it is at least arguable that not all rich people ought to do as St Francis did. I don’t think God minds riches as long as it is unselfishly spent. Not just on bare necessities for the poor of the world. But on art and architecture and culture as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think anyone has ever determined what their fair share of the load is.

Then how can anyone say we should raise taxes on the “rich?”

And of course, the problem is that as your income and wealth go up, your fair share increases as well because as your income goes up, you benefit more from government.

Oh, come on! As an economist, you must know that the “rich” pay most of the taxes.

Now, how can a man who pays a lot of tax benefit more than a man who pays none – unless you have invented an economic perpetual motion machine!!

For example, I benefit more today from things like our legal system and defense spending that protects private property than I did 20 years ago. So my fair share would be higher today would it not?

Aren’t you the guy who said, “I don’t think anyone has ever determined what their fair share of the load is?”

I might agree that your share of the load might be higher – based on your ability to make more.

But I do not agree that you benefit more. An indigent accused of a crime, for example, benefits more from a free lawyer than someone who has to pay his lawyer.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then how can anyone say we should raise taxes on the “rich?”

Good question, I never said that though.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Oh, come on! As an economist, you must know that the “rich” pay most of the taxes.

Now, how can a man who pays a lot of tax benefit more than a man who pays none – unless you have invented an economic perpetual motion machine!!

Aren’t you the guy who said, “I don’t think anyone has ever determined what their fair share of the load is?”

I do know that the top 1% pay about 39% of total personal income taxes collected. Now whether that is fair or not, I have no clue. All I meant was that the top 1% owns a lot of property in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, patents, copyrights etc. Now the US is a good place to own property, because property rights are protected at least for the most part. Certainly you don’t see people moving assets to Somalia where property rights are not protected. So having property rights protected is valuable, and more valuable to the person who has $1 billion than the person who has $5.

So we can say that the wealthy benefit more from government in a number of ways. On the other hand, we have never determined what someone’s fair share is.

I might agree that your share of the load might be higher – based on your ability to make more.

But I do not agree that you benefit more. An indigent accused of a crime, for example, benefits more from a free lawyer than someone who has to pay his lawyer

But in the aggregate, who benefits more? Who benefits more from farm subsidies, from pork barrel spending etc. Even programs designed to help lower income individuals end up benefiting the middle class. For example, my salary is much higher as a college professor because the government decides to subsidize higher education. If we lost the subsidy, I would be having my pay cut.

 

[rlg94086]

The reason I argue that greed is not necessarily equal across all segments of society is that we don’t have exactly the same prediliction to all sins. Some are more predisposed to greed, others to sloth, etc. Now, our prediliction to sin may have different effects in our lives. Someone who has a problem with sloth is not likely to attain extreme levels of wealth. On the other hand, if greed and envy are big issues for a person it is possible that those sins may show themselves in behaviors such as the quest to get rich.

Such a quest is not reserved for those who have the desire or ability to become “filthy rich” by your definition. The desire to get rich is equally prevalent among the poor, even if they don’t have the wherewithal to accomplish their desire. This is especially true, regardless of strata, of those who struggle with sloth, envy and greed - bad combo.

stinkcat_14:

Poverty is not necessarily virtuous, although to give up material possessions for the sake of the kingdom of God is desirable.

Agreed. And, wealth does not necessarily lead to damnation.

stinkcat_14:

I didn’t say that having wealth is evil. But, certainly if you want material gain, there can certainly be gains to sinning. In business, there are situations where by sinning you can make more profits. Think of Google capitulating on the Chinese censorship issue. Was it virtuous? No. Was it profitable? Yes.

Indeed. There are also gains to be made by a university professor by sinning. He could cheat in his academic work and publish something that would advance him, for example. Does that mean that anyone who is seeking to be a tenured professor at a top university is likely to lose their soul?

stinkcat_14:

Once again, you are reading things that just aren’t there. I never said that the rich were evil, nor that the poor were good. I also addressed the issue of envy. As I have said previously in this thread, I don’t spend what I earn now, so my becomming extremely wealthy would not be of much benefit to me. I know plenty of wealthy people, and they have lots of nice things. My attitude is: God bless them. But, when I look at what it has cost many of them to acquire their wealth, I see people who are very good at making money, but **who are pretty clueless as to many other things. **Now of course, that is just my particular experience, and I don’t want to generalize based on my experience, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

You started out so well, by saying “God bless them,” and then had to follow it up with an uncharitable generalization. I’m not sure how many wealthy people you have met, but most of the ones I have met are no more “clueless as to many other things” than university professors…or salesmen…or mechanics.

"Everyone has such big “buts.” - Pee Wee Herman

 

[stinkcat_14]

Indeed. There are also gains to be made by a university professor by sinning. He could cheat in his academic work and publish something that would advance him, for example. Does that mean that anyone who is seeking to be a tenured professor at a top university is likely to lose their soul?

If one seeks to be a top university professor, there are many dangers than one can be warned about. Like I have said before, there is a positive correlation between having a Ph.d and being an atheist. Also, the good ones are often married to their jobs, coming into the office 7 days a week. When I started out my career as a visiting professor at an Ivy league school, Sundays were one of the busier days at the office.

You started out so well, by saying “God bless them,” and then had to follow it up with an uncharitable generalization. I’m not sure how many wealthy people you have met, but most of the ones I have met are no more “clueless as to many other things” than university professors…or salesmen…or mechanics.

I was not making a generalization about all rich people, just the ones I know, which are several. I run into them all the time in my profession. Now, if what I say is true, how can it be uncharitable. For example, I have a good friend who is worth several million. He is a nice guy, and fun to be around, but when I look into the fruit of his life, the only thing he does well is make money. He is an agnostic, so obviously there is a moral hazard there. In addition, while he makes lots of money, his kids are living off the parental dole, even after graduating several years ago from an expensive private university. Finally, he at times just drips with envy.

Now it may be that you have met a different set of rich people than I have. Your experience may be different than mine, but I have seen enough that I feel that it is reasonable to ask the question that I have.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do know that the top 1% pay about 39% of total personal income taxes collected. Now whether that is fair or not, I have no clue. All I meant was that the top 1% owns a lot of property in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, patents, copyrights etc. Now the US is a good place to own property, because property rights are protected at least for the most part. Certainly you don’t see people moving assets to Somalia where property rights are not protected. So having property rights protected is valuable, and more valuable to the person who has $1 billion than the person who has $5.

So we can say that the wealthy benefit more from government in a number of ways. On the other hand, we have never determined what someone’s fair share is.

You cannot take more dollars out of the system than are put into it. If the rich pay $100 in taxes, they cannot get $101 in services and leave anything for anyone else – and yet a lot of tax money is spent on social programs. So unless you have invented an economic perpetual motion machine, the rich pay most of the taxes, but get back less in government services than they pay in.

But in the aggregate, who benefits more? Who benefits more from farm subsidies, from pork barrel spending etc. Even programs designed to help lower income individuals end up benefiting the middle class. For example, my salary is much higher as a college professor because the government decides to subsidize higher education. If we lost the subsidy, I would be having my pay cut.

The simple answer is to measure it in dollars. Overall, those who pay nothing get a lot of benefits measured in dollars. Hence those above them must get less than they put in.

 

[rlg94086]

If one seeks to be a top university professor, there are many dangers than one can be warned about. Like I have said before, there is a positive correlation between having a Ph.d and being an atheist. Also, the good ones are often married to their jobs, coming into the office 7 days a week. When I started out my career as a visiting professor at an Ivy league school, Sundays were one of the busier days at the office.

Exactly. Therefore, I guess we have to ask…is it possible to become a top university professor without losing your soul?

stinkcat_14:

I was not making a generalization about all rich people, just the ones I know, which are several. I run into them all the time in my profession. Now, if what I say is true, how can it be uncharitable. For example, I have a good friend who is worth several million. He is a nice guy, and fun to be around, but when I look into the fruit of his life, the only thing he does well is make money. He is an agnostic, so obviously there is a moral hazard there. In addition, while he makes lots of money, his kids are living off the parental dole, even after graduating several years ago from an expensive private university. Finally, he at times just drips with envy.

Now it may be that you have met a different set of rich people than I have. Your experience may be different than mine, but I have seen enough that I feel that it is reasonable to ask the question that I have.

Fair enough. We have different experiences, so I can see why you are suspicious of the “filthy rich.” I have only met three that meet the criteria you set out in the original post (1 billionaire, 2 that are only in the 100s of millions) and only one of them would fit the description you gave of the several that you know (and it wasn’t the billionaire, btw). Of the people I know that are your standard millionaires (in the $10M to $100M range), I also don’t see a pattern, certainly among the ones I’ve known through Church who give a lot of their time and money to worthy causes.

This is why I have given the answer to your query of “yes.” BTW…I also agree with Vern. Of the non-millionaires I know, and there are a lot more of them, I could easily provide plenty of examples of greed and envy leading to ruinous results. Percentage-wise, I don’t see a big difference by strata, as I have commented several times. You apparently do. However, since your question just asks “is it possible,” I think it has been answered very clearly. After all, “possible” is answered by just one example, and I know two of the “filthy rich” who IMHO love God more than their money.

Now, what do we do with this information exactly? Hmm…I know…how about we all do our best to love Our Lord with all of our soul, mind and strength; love our neighbors as ourselves; teach our children accordingly; and, be good witnesses to the faith?

 

[stinkcat_14]

You cannot take more dollars out of the system than are put into it. If the rich pay $100 in taxes, they cannot get $101 in services and leave anything for anyone else – and yet a lot of tax money is spent on social programs. So unless you have invented an economic perpetual motion machine, the rich pay most of the taxes, but get back less in government services than they pay in.

Actually, yes the rich can benefit from government by more than they pay. How much is it worth to Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that we protect their property rights? Probably quite a bit. The value they receive is not in the form of cash, but they still benefit, otherwise they would move their money offshore. If the government started debating whether to repeal the 5th amendment, at the first sign of any hint that it would pass people who have assets would be hiding their assets away in better locations. The fact that they don’t means that our legal system protects their property rights. So the fact that we protect property rights has value, primarily to those who have property. If the government is doing something of value for them, why shouldn’t they pay for it?

 

[estesbob]

Actually, yes the rich can benefit from government by more than they pay. How much is it worth to Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that we protect their property rights? Probably quite a bit. The value they receive is not in the form of cash, but they still benefit, otherwise they would move their money offshore. If the government started debating whether to repeal the 5th amendment, at the first sign of any hint that it would pass people who have assets would be hidinng their assets away in better locations. The fact that they don’t means that our legal system protects their property rights. So the fact that we protect property rights has value, primarily to those who have property. If the government is doing something of value for them, why shouldn’t they pay for it?

For those who own property that a spotted owl decides to roost on a snail darter swim on the 5th amendment has already been repealed.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Now, what do we do with this information exactly? Hmm…I know…how about we all do our best to love Our Lord with all of our soul, mind and strength; love our neighbors as ourselves; teach our children accordingly; and, be good witnesses to the faith?

This is an excellent question, and of course, as Christians we have to be different from the rest of society. Our culture worships wealth. While it is reasonable to make money, even become “filthy rich”, we need to remember that in the end, what we make is not worth much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[stinkcat_14]

For those who own property that a spotted owl decides to roost on a snail darter swim on the 5th amendment has already been repealed.

When it comes to the fifth amendment, I like the work of Richard Epstein,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Epstein

Although, I must warn you, he is not able to concisely express his opinions. I once read a book review of his that was 18 pages long .

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, yes the rich can benefit from government by more than they pay. How much is it worth to Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that we protect their property rights? Probably quite a bit. The value they receive is not in the form of cash, but they still benefit, otherwise they would move their money offshore. If the government started debating whether to repeal the 5th amendment, at the first sign of any hint that it would pass people who have assets would be hiding their assets away in better locations. The fact that they don’t means that our legal system protects their property rights. So the fact that we protect property rights has value, primarily to those who have property. If the government is doing something of value for them, why shouldn’t they pay for it?

So prove to me that the top 1% gets more services, dollar-for-dollar than they pay in.

And when you do that, add in the services the lower, non-taxpaying people get – dollar-for-dollar.

Then add what the middle class gets – dollar-for-dollar.

Then take me in the back room and show me your economic perpetual motion machine.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So prove to me that the top 1% gets more services, dollar-for-dollar than they pay in.

Where did I say tha the top 1% gets more in services than they pay in? I never made that claim.

Now, do you deny that protecting property rights is valuable?

 

[Lui]

The Problem isn’t the money, it’s the methods of attainment, and the/or the Greed that tempts one who has too much.

Thanks. I wanted to write the same

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where did I say tha the top 1% gets more in services than they pay in? I never made that claim.

If they don’t get more in services, who does?

The fact is, the lowest income levels get more than they pay in. Everyone else gets less.

Now, do you deny that protecting property rights is valuable?

Put a dollar value on it.