The elite super wealthy and social justice

[TimeEntrance]

In my mind there is not anything wrong about the inquiry in the original post in so far intellectual curiosity might be concerned. Not suggesting Catholics have never made great accomplishments intellectually or academically but sometimes we probably “let” (for lack of a better expression) Protestants drive innovation more often than they would have if we didn’t tie our hands behind our backs so often.

That’s just my opinion and not meant to cause or stir a fight.

It’s probably immoral to be nosy just for the sake of being nosy, though.

But I think in my view there are probably many different layers to the issues of wealth distribution. I’m not an economist or philosopher so I’ll try to restrain from making too many rigid opinions. I would say though… that to me abject poverty needs to be distinguished from relative poverty. I think abject poverty is the think humanity needs to try and wipe out.

Abject poverty will probably only be wiped out through economic development though, and not through charities per se. The super rich will probably always exist like super rich nations might always exist - at least relative to others. And depending on how much we extrapolate from or infer from the theory of evolution inequality is something essential to this life. Competition, struggle, winners and losers just being part of this world.

I guess it’s up to the individual - rich or poor - how much energy and sacrifice they want to put into pursuing sainthood or “perfection” as Jesus might say. Most of us don’t commit to becoming Jesuits, monks, hermits, or nuns for example.

 

[austenbosten]

Now all you have to do is prove that the billionaires do business with charitible people and not selfish people or your post is worthless hypotheticals.

If you didn’t want a discussion but rather just spout off your Marxist “tax the rich” views then why start a thread?

As for proving billionaires giving money to charitable people, billionaires place most of their money in the stock market and that money is used to fund businesses and corporations which pay people who work.

But what’s the point, judging from your snappy response I’m sure I’ll just get another one.

 

[SamH]

My general experience: the generosity of someone has absolutly nothing to do with their net worth. I know people who are poor who are exceeding stingy and who are poor and are exceeding generous. I can say the same about middle class and the same about rich people.

Encourage generosity, but mind your own business and don’t be jealous.

Amen.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I think I should have used the word refrain instead of restrain in my 4th paragraph of post #61. But I don’t see an edit option.

 

[hannajomar]

I think I should have used the word refrain instead of restrain in my 4th paragraph of post #61. But I don’t see an edit option.

You have a short time to edit after you post, may be 15 minutes?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know that there is a good answer to this. Certainly not one that fits all.

I think of one of my grandfathers. I know he donated to the Church regularly. But I was never under the impression that he did it on a grand scale. He wasn’t "wealthy’ exactly in the way people normally think of it. But he could borrow $100,000 on his signature alone back in the late 1930s and the 1940s. He could do that because he raised a very large number of strawberries that were shipped all over the U.S. for cash, and bankers believed in him. And he made a lot of money doing that, which he constantly reinvested. He also had a sawmill and raised cattle. He would buy raw forested land, saw the timber, raise strawberries then plant to grass. He lived like anybody else in the Ozarks, though he did send his children to college. He, himself, never made it out of the third grade.

He had a number of men, families really, hired during an extraordinarily hard time for hill people in the Ozarks. He used lumber from the sawmill to build rough houses for those people on his own land, and provided work. I know for a fact that he saved some people from literal starvation. But always, it was in the context of producing food or lumber.

Always, it was in the context of producing. To my knowledge, he never just handed somebody a wad of money. In fact, he told me a man shouldn’t do that. He ought to always have the recipient do something for it…to save his pride, and it had to be something useful, not something obviously pointless.

When he got old, he sold what he owned. It wasn’t really all that much even though his land and his cattle and the hullabaloo in his heyday made it seem grand to some.

So, was my grandfather a charitable “rich” man?

 

[Bill_7154]

whatever anyone else does or does not donate is not my concern. No one should be made to donate any amount.

Why is there still more talk of people being ‘made’ to donate anything? Where in the OP did I say anyone should be made to donate anything? I simply asked people’s opinion on what they felt billionaires should donate (assuming they may have an opinion on the matter).

Yet people keep perverting the purpose of the thread.

 

[Bill_7154]

You seem to be making assumptions the super wealthy do not give to charitable causes:.

No I did not.

I am sorry, but captical gains is always consider income for many of us non super wealthy. Both for taxes and for determining charitable giving. It might not be for you, but it is for many of us who care about sharing our blessings with others.

This thead is to talk about charitible giving by the super wealthy. That is different than any type of taxed ‘forced’ giving. You understand the difference, yes?

But in an effort to satisfy you, I will give you a real life anedoct. I am blessed enough to have been good friends with 3 different individuals who you would qualify as “elite super wealthy”. I say blessed because all three of them are some of the best people I have ever known in my life. They are honest to a fault. They treat employees very fairly. And they are very generous. For example, one of them, who is worth at least 100 million dollars, committed to give over 20% of his money to a third world country in order to build an engineering and science research center (in the hope they could keep talent at home and build their economy) years before he had access to liquid funds even approaching the amount he pledged. Another one of them made a large donation to a large Catholic project, but refused the Bishops direct request to put his name on the project because he wanted to be anonymous. I could give you other anedoctal stories.

Great! Finally someone is actually speaking of the topic of the OP, charitible giving by the super wealthy. Thank you for paying enough attn to the OP to make some on topic response.

I am also fortunate enough to know several other people who would not qualify as your “elite super rich” but are quite well off, none-the-less. These people also tend to fall along the generous side of the spectrum.

My general experience: the generosity of someone has absolutly nothing to do with their net worth. I know people who are poor who are exceeding stingy and who are poor and are exceeding generous. I can say the same about middle class and the same about rich people.

Encourage generosity, but mind your own business and don’t be jealous.

I would agree that charitible giving and net worth don’t necessarilly have any correlation whatsoever.

I am not jealous. And I don’t believe it’s agains the rules to ask people’s opinions about charitible giving of the super wealthy.

I have also read countless threads where poeple speak of other groups of people, essentially not minding their own business. So I would ask that in the future you hold me to no higher standard than any other poster, posters who get in the business or ask about the business of the poor, the homeless, etc.

Again, What’s good for the goose…

 

[Bill_7154]

Amen.

This is spending money, and tax money. It is different than charity. And I think a lot of you might be surprised to know what my positions are relative to the current US tax policies. Instead of making assumptions, if you don’t want to contribute to the thread on topic I suggest you go start your own threads on topics that come to mind when you read this one. That might be useful for you, for me, and for others.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

If you didn’t want a discussion but rather just spout off your Marxist “tax the rich” views then why start a thread? :

I challenge you to back up that assertion, retract it, or be considered an outright liar! I’m getting quite tired of people not only making false assumptions about my postions and beliefs, but now making outright assertions that are 100% FALSE.

But what’s the point, judging from your snappy response I’m sure I’ll just get another one.

Well my point of this post is to say your speading lies about me. Are you adult enough, do you have it in your heart, to apologize for such a thing?

I don’t know if that’s snappy or not, but your comment about being assured of getting a snappy response from me after stating an outright lie about me calls into question your purpose in participating in this thread and your integrity.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

I don’t know that there is a good answer to this. Certainly not one that fits all.

I think of one of my grandfathers. I know he donated to the Church regularly. But I was never under the impression that he did it on a grand scale. He wasn’t "wealthy’ exactly in the way people normally think of it. But he could borrow $100,000 on his signature alone back in the late 1930s and the 1940s. He could do that because he raised a very large number of strawberries that were shipped all over the U.S. for cash, and bankers believed in him. And he made a lot of money doing that, which he constantly reinvested. He also had a sawmill and raised cattle. He would buy raw forested land, saw the timber, raise strawberries then plant to grass. He lived like anybody else in the Ozarks, though he did send his children to college. He, himself, never made it out of the third grade.

He had a number of men, families really, hired during an extraordinarily hard time for hill people in the Ozarks. He used lumber from the sawmill to build rough houses for those people on his own land, and provided work. I know for a fact that he saved some people from literal starvation. But always, it was in the context of producing food or lumber.

Always, it was in the context of producing. To my knowledge, he never just handed somebody a wad of money. In fact, he told me a man shouldn’t do that. He ought to always have the recipient do something for it…to save his pride, and it had to be something useful, not something obviously pointless.

When he got old, he sold what he owned. It wasn’t really all that much even though his land and his cattle and the hullabaloo in his heyday made it seem grand to some.

So, was my grandfather a charitable “rich” man?

He sounds quite charitible. Without knowing his worth in today’s dollars back then I would have no way of knowing whether or not he qualified as part of the uber elite wealthy I speak of.

Nonetheless, thanks for a non hostile contribution to this thread. It is always appreciated when people contribute without hostility or other emotions that I personally seek to rid myself of and keep out of me through prayer.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Ridgerunner]

He sounds quite charitible. Without knowing his worth in today’s dollars back then I would have no way of knowing whether or not he qualified as part of the uber elite wealthy I speak of.

Nonetheless, thanks for a non hostile contribution to this thread. It is always appreciated when people contribute without hostility or other emotions that I personally seek to rid myself of and keep out of me through prayer.

God Bless,
Bill

Possibly I didn’t pose it correctly. I’m not sure what “uber-wealthy” is. Wealth is relative. But let’s say a man has sufficient wealth that he could live off it alone. If that man constantly reinvests it in productive ways; sometimes with immediate income and sometimes with income that’s deferred for some while, is that man uncharitable or not?

A man could easily live comfortably with wealth of $10 million if it’s invested at all well. Let’s say he can invest it in some sort of bond fund and earn half million a year. If it pays 5% and he basically just travels around and has fun, his obligation to donate would be quite strong, at least from his income. His taxes will eat it down to about $325,000. Nice, but not princely. So, could we think of him as needing to donate 1/4, perhaps, assuming he has no children or that they’re grown and prosperous?

But let’s say that instead of buying bonds and living a life of leisure, he plows his whole $10 million into, let’s say, a factory that manufactures storm windows. His income from the factory at present is the same as the first guy’s, but he puts a good part of it back in the factory because he’s building up the business. Is this man obligated to donate some of the $10 million before investing in his factory, or obligated to donate 1/4 of his salary the same as the first man? Understand that this guy’s factory will employ 20 workers at good wages and, since the workers have families, support 80 people.

What are the respective obligations? I realize $10 million isn’t “uber wealthy” on the Gates or Buffett scale, though it would put either man into the top 1% wealth-wise.

 

[tafan]

Does anyone know if there is a way to determine if any of those-with-forum-names-ending-7154 are in fact Catholic and if what they do with their money is made available to the public? I’m curious to know what % of those-with-forum-names-ending-7154 give to the church or to other charities in proportion to what Catholics are told to give to their Church based on their incomes.

 

[Bill_7154]

Possibly I didn’t pose it correctly. I’m not sure what “uber-wealthy” is. Wealth is relative. But let’s say a man has sufficient wealth that he could live off it alone. If that man constantly reinvests it in productive ways; sometimes with immediate income and sometimes with income that’s deferred for some while, is that man uncharitable or not?

Reasonable question based on the nature of the OP. I think that it is relative. I don’t think there is a way to specifically and concretely determine if such a man were ‘uncharitible’ or not (unless one wanted to play semantics and presume that ‘being charitible’ meant giving away at least one penny in one’s lifetime or offering at least one kind word to someone in their lifetime, or some similar definition- because, obviously such a man would have to ‘technically’ be considered charitible).

A man could easily live comfortably with wealth of $10 million if it’s invested at all well. Let’s say he can invest it in some sort of bond fund and earn half million a year. If it pays 5% and he basically just travels around and has fun, his obligation to donate would be quite strong,.

Again, I think this is a matter of opinion. That’s my opinion at least.

at least from his income. His taxes will eat it down to about $325,000. Nice, but not princely. So, could we think of him as needing to donate 1/4, perhaps, assuming he has no children or that they’re grown and prosperous?.

I believe we could. Although I do not see this as a cut and dry issue. Again, I think it’s a matter of opinion and don’t think that it is reasonably possible to say what another ‘needs’ to do, with respect to charity.

But let’s say that instead of buying bonds and living a life of leisure, he plows his whole $10 million into, let’s say, a factory that manufactures storm windows. His income from the factory at present is the same as the first guy’s, but he puts a good part of it back in the factory because he’s building up the business. Is this man obligated to donate some of the $10 million before investing in his factory,.

Again, IMO, no one is ‘obligated’ to donate to charity (other than me determining for myself that I am obligated to donate to charity.

or obligated to donate 1/4 of his salary the same as the first man?

Same answer.

Understand that this guy’s factory will employ 20 workers at good wages and, since the workers have families, support 80 people.

What are the respective obligations?

I do not, nor have I ever in this thread, stated that anyone is ‘obligated’ to donate to charity (other than stating that I obligate myself in this post).

Also, thank you again for engaging me in a polite and mature manner without negative emotion being thrown around (or at least not contained) as has been quite typical of the majority of those who have posted in response to my OP.

I was beginning to think that it would be impossible to have a polite discussion with anyone in this thread. So thank you for that, and thank you for changing my perspective of the forum. I was beginning to think that no one would be able or willing to have a mature discussion in this thread.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[april32010]

 

[Bill_7154]

april,

This is in response to your ‘whistle’.

There is a homeless man name Joe. He has applied for 14 jobs in the past month and has yet to be called into an interview. He has a psychiatric disorder, takes psychiatric medications, and his psychiatrist has recently recommended to him that he is not ready to work, in particular full time jobs, which he has been applying for.

What should he do?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Reasonable question based on the nature of the OP. I think that it is relative. I don’t think there is a way to specifically and concretely determine if such a man were ‘uncharitible’ or not Also, thank you again for engaging me in a polite and mature manner without negative emotion being thrown around (or at least not contained) as has been quite typical of the majority of those who have posted in response to my OP.

I was beginning to think that it would be impossible to have a polite discussion with anyone in this thread. So thank you for that, and thank you for changing my perspective of the forum. I was beginning to think that no one would be able or willing to have a mature discussion in this thread.

God Bless,
Bill

Thank you for the compliment. Sorry for shortening your post, but I had no choice.

I was serious in posing the question or questions. I will now say how I see it.

It seems to me if a man has great wealth and if that wealth is tied up in enterprises that produce needed goods or services, and if, in those enterprises he pays a decent wage and looks after his employees’ welfare (understanding there is always a gap between employer and employee; always a limit) then he is engaging in charitable works and his obligation would be to continue in those enterprises. And that’s particularly true if he lives modestly, not wastefully or for the sake of his vanity, works himself, and pours his suplus into such things as: rearing and educating his children; taking care of his spouse and those with familial claims on him, and maintaining his enterprises or starting new ones. Such a man, it seems to me, has an obligation to give (let’s say tithe here) of that amount which he, himself, consumes, both directly (his food, clothing, vehicle, leisure activities) and indirectly (house he shares with his family, vacations with family, family “toys”).

On the other hand, it seems to me that a man whose wealth is no different and puts it into entirely passive investments which may or may not lead to employment of others with whom he will never have contact and whose conditions of life he cannot control, who does not work at his investments, who has no one with familial claims on him, and whose life is 100% leisure, has a greater obligation to engage in charitable giving than the first man, and should probably tithe of his entire income, if not more. (and assuming that tithing is a mandated yardstick, which I do not claim)

Every person of wealth, it seems to me, is somewhere on the continuum of which the above two are the “bookends”.

It seems to me that in common parlance, (as opposed to the Popes’ use of the term, which seems to me less harsh) when people talk about “social justice”, they are really talking about compulsion. The very term “justice” implies “owed of right”, and if something is owed of right, then it’s hard to say the state has no business imposing it, notwithstanding the usual critique that proposing “imposition of morals” draws.

Quite frankly, when it comes to the state imposition of “social justice”, and without considering subsidiarity (assume the most proximate authority here, after family and church) it seems to me the state ought to be obliged to consider the differences in contribution of other sorts exemplified by the men abovementioned.

I will acknowledge that the state (talking here of the federal government in particular) actually does attempt to do that in a kind of imprecise manner. If, say, I put my income into uses that will produce wealth and jobs, the state often defers or waives taxation. If I simply bank my income or spend it on myself, it does not.

So we have to ask whether we can condemn “loopholes” without close discrimination among them.

But while the state frequently has some moral foundation for its actions, whether it acknowledges it or not, its particular discriminations are often based on political considerations, not moral considerations.

So, for example, when politicians talk about “taxing the rich”, as now, they are talking about equally taxing the income of idle wealth and the income of, say, a farmer who is paying down a huge mortgage for his land.

And since the state is so flawed in its ability to discriminate between one use of wealth or income and another, it seems to me we need to be much more careful than politicians generally are in proposing such things as “taxing the rich”. And we ought to be even more careful about declaring that taxing this much or that much is “moral” or “immoral”, “just” or “unjust”.

“The rich” are not always people who clip coupons in the morning and play polo in the afternoon. Sometimes “the rich” are farmers who are in the dusty, cold or rainy field at the crack of dawn and don’t even eat until dusk. Sometimes they are ranchers who risk life and limb in the corrals routinely, doing incredibly hard work and producing things people need and delight in. Sometimes they are the producers of aluminum windows that will really keep out the cold and underprice (say) Pella.

Perhaps the thing I find most alarming in the present “tax the rich” proposals are that they make no distinctions of consequence and, therefore, threaten much in this society that is good, and not only good, but “just”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I ran out of room, so I’m going to add one thing more.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is intriguing. The Samaritan was some kind of merchant, it appears. He had a donkey and a mission to accomplish. He had some amount of money that we don’t know.

He sees a man in immediate need, and he meets that need precisely. He does not divide his wealth with the injured man, let alone give him his donkey, his money and his goods. He does not go out and spread his wealth among the citizenry at large. He meets the most proximate need to him. He does it adequately, but does not take the injured man to raise.

He promises to return as his mission will allow, and see if he has accomplished what he set out to do with the injured man and perhaps supplement the effort. But we know he will do only that which is immediately needed. No more and no less. And he will not change his life purposes greatly in order to do it, notwithstanding that he has sacrificed some of his ease and the fruits of his labor to get it done. The need is in front of him and clear.

Being intrigued, as I am, with this parable, but seeing how unfocused and indiscriminate governmental efforts seem in attempting to achieve “social justice”, I guess I am inclined to be more than a bit suspicious of proclamations that this broad policy or that grand scheme will somehow be “just” or “charitable”.

 

[Bill_7154]

you have a lot of time on your hands.

If I’m not mistaken (which I very well could be, as I often am), this is the second time you have made such a comment). And since you have went through the trouble to point out this opinion of yours with respect to the time I have on my hands, it leaves me to wonder if there is some underlying issue you have on your mind with respect to me and how I spend my time.

Is this out of concern and love that you have for me as a fellow Catholic? A genuine attempt to reach out, out of the goodness of your heart, to assist me in some way? If so, please share as I certainly have not reached my full potential as a Catholic.

If there is some other motive that you have for making such statements, feel free to also share that. I find cryptic speaking to be suspect. I am leery of such behavior. Maybe that it a weakness in myself I have yet to rectify. The Lord knows that I have many defects of character, things I speak to him about and ask for his help with on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day. But since the statements are coming from you it might be helpful if you were more direct with me in what message you are trying to covey to me.

Unless you fairly routinely post in people’s threads that they have a lot of time on their hands when they make several posts in their own threads that are of interest to them, it leads me to believe that something more is going on below the surface here.

Please share with me what it is. Hopefully I can grow from it and become a better person, a better Catholic.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Thank you for the compliment. Sorry for shortening your post, but I had no choice.

I was serious in posing the question or questions. I will now say how I see it.

It seems to me if a man has great wealth and if that wealth is tied up in enterprises that produce needed goods or services, and if, in those enterprises he pays a decent wage and looks after his employees’ welfare (understanding there is always a gap between employer and employee; always a limit) then he is engaging in charitable works and his obligation would be to continue in those enterprises. And that’s particularly true if he lives modestly, not wastefully or for the sake of his vanity, works himself, and pours his suplus into such things as: rearing and educating his children; taking care of his spouse and those with familial claims on him, and maintaining his enterprises or starting new ones. Such a man, it seems to me, has an obligation to give (let’s say tithe here) of that amount which he, himself, consumes, both directly (his food, clothing, vehicle, leisure activities) and indirectly (house he shares with his family, vacations with family, family “toys”).

On the other hand, it seems to me that a man whose wealth is no different and puts it into entirely passive investments which may or may not lead to employment of others with whom he will never have contact and whose conditions of life he cannot control, who does not work at his investments, who has no one with familial claims on him, and whose life is 100% leisure, has a greater obligation to engage in charitable giving than the first man, and should probably tithe of his entire income, if not more. (and assuming that tithing is a mandated yardstick, which I do not claim)

Every person of wealth, it seems to me, is somewhere on the continuum of which the above two are the “bookends”.

Thanks for taking the time to share that.

It seems to me that in common parlance, (as opposed to the Popes’ use of the term, which seems to me less harsh) when people talk about “social justice”, they are really talking about compulsion. The very term “justice” implies “owed of right”, and if something is owed of right, then it’s hard to say the state has no business imposing it, notwithstanding the usual critique that proposing “imposition of morals” draws.

Quite frankly, when it comes to the state imposition of “social justice”, and without considering subsidiarity (assume the most proximate authority here, after family and church) it seems to me the state ought to be obliged to consider the differences in contribution of other sorts exemplified by the men abovementioned.

I will acknowledge that the state (talking here of the federal government in particular) actually does attempt to do that in a kind of imprecise manner. If, say, I put my income into uses that will produce wealth and jobs, the state often defers or waives taxation. If I simply bank my income or spend it on myself, it does not.

So we have to ask whether we can condemn “loopholes” without close discrimination among them.

But while the state frequently has some moral foundation for its actions, whether it acknowledges it or not, its particular discriminations are often based on political considerations, not moral considerations.

So, for example, when politicians talk about “taxing the rich”, as now, they are talking about equally taxing the income of idle wealth and the income of, say, a farmer who is paying down a huge mortgage for his land.

And since the state is so flawed in its ability to discriminate between one use of wealth or income and another, it seems to me we need to be much more careful than politicians generally are in proposing such things as “taxing the rich”. And we ought to be even more careful about declaring that taxing this much or that much is “moral” or “immoral”, “just” or “unjust”.

“The rich” are not always people who clip coupons in the morning and play polo in the afternoon. Sometimes “the rich” are farmers who are in the dusty, cold or rainy field at the crack of dawn and don’t even eat until dusk. Sometimes they are ranchers who risk life and limb in the corrals routinely, doing incredibly hard work and producing things people need and delight in. Sometimes they are the producers of aluminum windows that will really keep out the cold and underprice (say) Pella.

Perhaps the thing I find most alarming in the present “tax the rich” proposals are that they make no distinctions of consequence and, therefore, threaten much in this society that is good, and not only good, but “just”.

Again, thanks for sharing. I very much appreciate your contribution to this thread.

What I find suprising, is that not only have I never spoken of ‘social justice’ as forced taxation on the rich, or anyone else, I am against forced taxation, period.

Yet I have been called a Marxist in this thread and accused it seems several times as believing that ‘the rich’ should be ‘forced’ to contribute x ammt of $ through taxes to go to other people.

It is open minded people such as yourself, people who don’t jump to conclusions, that I seek to learn from as I continue on my path as learning and growing as a Catholic.

God Bless,
Bill