PDA

View Full Version : It it better for rich people to give their money to chairty or their kids?




Howard_Roark
12-11-2009, 01:20 PM
This is something I have been struggling with forming an opinon on. On one hand you have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, giving all there wealth and money to a charity thats purpose is to improve the health and education of poor people. Warren Buffett also said that dynastic wealth is the enemy of a meritocracy and he didn't think it was moral to pass the money on to his kids. On the other hand you have Fred Koch who gave all his money to his kids (who bankroll Cato) and the Walton family of Walmart who are all megabillionaires.

In terms of charity, I think its very admirable but I have mixed feelings on it. As Ayn Rand so adroitly described in Atlas Shrugged, people who run charities usually loathe businessman and guilt them while simulataneously taking their money. Chairty is also sort of a one time thing that consumes money usually, once they spend it poof the money is gone. It's also hard to be charitable in a society where the government takes up 35% of the economy and redistribute the income through entitlements.

On the other hand, people who inherit large amounts of money usually did nothing to deserve it. Oftentimes their fathers like Sam Walton will struggle for decades in obscurity with all kinds of financial problems ect, then they just get lucky and inherit it all. These people end up being overwhelmingly liberal and of the harshest kind, think of Nancy Pelosi but even worse they usually waste the hard earned money in a profilgate way on expensive cars and houses.

cpike
12-11-2009, 01:24 PM
I really don't care what they do with it. Best balance from a personal point-of-view is somewhere in between. Nothing says they can't start their own charities too, like many athletes do.

silverhandorder
12-11-2009, 01:28 PM
Charity is a good thing. There is no denying that. But I would always give the bulk of my wealth to my kids.

Elwar
12-11-2009, 01:30 PM
Charity begins at home.

krazy kaju
12-11-2009, 01:30 PM
I'd say it's better to pass the money on to your kids. If you don't want your children to waste your wealth, put it in some kind of income trust or something and only allow the kids to use the dividends for personal income. After all, if your kids inherit all of that wealth and keep it in banks and the stock market, they're helping the economy by providing funding to investment projects which create jobs and increase general welfare.

MelissaWV
12-11-2009, 01:31 PM
This is something I have been struggling with forming an opinon on. On one hand you have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, giving all there wealth and money to a charity thats purpose is to improve the health and education of poor people. On the other hand you have Fred Koch who gave all his money to his kids (who bankroll Cato) and the Walton family of Walmart who are all megabillionaires.

In terms of charity, I think its very admirable but I have mixed feelings on it. As Ayn Rand so adroitly described in Atlas Shrugged, people who run charities usually loathe businessman and guilt them while simulataneously taking their money. Chairty is also sort of a one time thing that consumes money usually, once they spend it poof the money is gone. It's also hard to be charitable in a society where the government takes up 35% of the economy and redistribute the income through entitlements.

On the other hand, people who inherit large amounts of money usually did nothing to deserve it. Oftentimes their fathers like Sam Walton will struggle for decades in obscurity with all kinds of financial problems ect, then they just get lucky and inherit it all. These people end up being overwhelmingly liberal and of the harshest kind, think of Nancy Pelosi but even worse they usually waste the hard earned money in a profilgate way on expensive cars and houses.

You'd have to define "better" for this to even be worth most of the responses you're going to get, but since you left it up to the responder...

I believe that sending money to a worthwhile charity is more beneficial than simply leaving a lump sum for someone when you die. First off, that lump sum is going to get taxed and whacked to start with, so it has lost some of its practical value off the bat. People are usually better served by making their own fortunes than taking over those of others. A worthwhile charity will help get people on their feet who really deserve it, etc., and may even being self-sustaining (a charity may start a garden, for instance, and have its wards work there... and then sell the produce).

The flipside of this is one that isn't usually argued. Perhaps it's better to give the money to one's child if one's child is a worthy businessperson. What if they are quite savvy and have an excellent idea, and your money gives them just enough to get started? That idea grows, and people get jobs because of this. People's lives are improved, because the product is so wonderful. Companies that are successful, in turn, have money (and time/resources) to share with their communities.

So, I guess the shortest answer is that money is "best" left to someone who knows how to manage it and grow it, and keep as much out of the Government's hands as possible.

LibertyEagle
12-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Define "rich people".

Kludge
12-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Why form an opinion on it? It seems dangerous to state any action is better than another these days -- it may be mandated, and then it will be realized that some people do not find it beneficial to them, and they will whine about the oppressive government. Are you considering launching an initiative to prohibit charity?

Howard_Roark
12-11-2009, 01:51 PM
I am talking about extremely rich people such as Sam Walton was and Warren Buffett.

This isn't a minor issue. The top 1% of people in this country control 50% of the financial assets and a significant portion of that 1% is from inherited wealth.

Buffett claims that dynastic wealth creates a plutocracy. Andrew Carneige gave all his money away, leaving his daughter with nothing.

"The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure"

dannno
12-11-2009, 01:53 PM
It probably depends mostly on your kids.

krazy kaju
12-11-2009, 01:54 PM
Perhaps it's better to give the money to one's child if one's child is a worthy businessperson. What if they are quite savvy and have an excellent idea, and your money gives them just enough to get started? That idea grows, and people get jobs because of this. People's lives are improved, because the product is so wonderful. Companies that are successful, in turn, have money (and time/resources) to share with their communities.

Or perhaps you can just leave your money to your kids. Even if all that your kids do is leave that money sitting around banks, then they would be taking part in funding valuable investment projects that would increase economic growth and living standards for everyone.

Revolution0918
12-11-2009, 03:16 PM
ur miussing the point....it doesnt matter what they do with there money, its their money, letthem do what they choose to do with it

tremendoustie
12-11-2009, 03:21 PM
I'd give most to charity, but leave some for the kids, especially if they're decent people, so that they have the freedom to do what they want with their lives.

If I had a billion, and two kids, I'd probably give 5 mil to each, and $990 million to charity.

BlackTerrel
12-11-2009, 04:46 PM
As a capitalist I fully support people earning what they deserve and have a bit of a "you eat what you kill attitude".

That said - I am sure Paris Hilton's great-grandfather was a smart guy who worked his ass off and built his empire and deserved whatever he had. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that that gives Paris a billion dollars when she never worked a day in her life. Similarly there are people who made money off the slave trade and now their descendants live in the lap of luxury and don't have to work, while others struggle to make an existence.

I don't like it... but I'm not sure there is a solution for it either.

Natalie
12-11-2009, 04:57 PM
I think it's good to give most to charity and just leave some of it to the kids. Paris Hilton was supposed to get an $100 million inheritance, but her grandfather decided to leave the majority of his wealth to charities leaving her with "only" $5 million.

Brian4Liberty
12-11-2009, 05:40 PM
Bill Gates? Maybe he could give his shareholders a dividend. Maybe give his employees a raise?

MelissaWV
12-11-2009, 06:14 PM
Or perhaps you can just leave your money to your kids. Even if all that your kids do is leave that money sitting around banks, then they would be taking part in funding valuable investment projects that would increase economic growth and living standards for everyone.

Okay...

That's why I said "better" needs to be defined. If you're giving that money to a GOOD charity, versus leaving it to the kids to leave in a savings account (or squander), there is a larger return. It's mostly because when you leave it to your kids, they don't get all of the money. I think the point about the kids, too, is that if they never really want for anything, they may very well lose their drive and sit around being a spoiled dumb brat. It does them a disservice.

It depends greatly on the situation, and the people involved. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing.

Met Income
12-11-2009, 06:22 PM
As a capitalist I fully support people earning what they deserve and have a bit of a "you eat what you kill attitude".

That said - I am sure Paris Hilton's great-grandfather was a smart guy who worked his ass off and built his empire and deserved whatever he had. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that that gives Paris a billion dollars when she never worked a day in her life. Similarly there are people who made money off the slave trade and now their descendants live in the lap of luxury and don't have to work, while others struggle to make an existence.

I don't like it... but I'm not sure there is a solution for it either.

Why would you need to be comfortable with other people's wealth? It's of no concern to you. Paris didn't earn it, but neither did you, so don't even worry about it.

phill4paul
12-11-2009, 06:31 PM
It is not a matter of anyone of us, feeling superior or supportive, to give a good Gods' damn. Someone made their money and they should be able to do with it what they want w/o excoriation or accord. It's none of our business.

MelissaWV
12-11-2009, 06:35 PM
It is not a matter of anyone of us, feeling superior or supportive, to give a good Gods' damn. Someone made their money and they should be able to do with it what they want w/o excoriation or accord. It's none of our business.

This assumes none of us will be "rich people."

nayjevin
12-11-2009, 06:36 PM
Invest in the future - sometimes the best investment will be with your kids, sometimes with charities, sometimes elsewhere.

Brian4Liberty
12-11-2009, 06:43 PM
Let's look at the US economy and jobs. Couldn't Gates or Buffet buy (very cheaply) a GM company (Saturn maybe?). Re-open (in the US), create jobs, maybe innovate some electric or compressed air vehicles. Make it profitable?

Sitting around with a bunch of globalists and celebrities (Bono for instance) talking about how they are just going to screw us taxpayers out of even more money for the good of the planet is crazy. They see "charity" as creating a foundation that will lead and direct the world for the rest of us poor morons (using our money for the most part).

phill4paul
12-11-2009, 06:54 PM
This assumes none of us will be "rich people."

I'm sorry mustn't have gotten the OPs intentions. Well If I were rich I'd have ta say it ain't none of anyones business. I made it. I will spend it how I choose (after Military establishment,socialist deductions and the bureaucracy to run 'em of course). Ya all got enough money out of me. My choice now (unfortunately not so, because of the inheritance tax).

But, yes, unless I win a lottery or find a wealthy benefactor that will give me the bank then I would be excluded.

ChaosControl
12-11-2009, 08:09 PM
If you have megamillions, then give your kids enough so they can be financial secure all their lives and give the rest to charity.

Or maybe something like start a charity and have the money pay them a salary to run it.

Of course one could be rich in income but not rich in assets, if you make 250k/yr,but only have 35k on you when you die then pass that onto the kids.

Liberty Star
12-11-2009, 08:11 PM
To a well run charity cause after some reasonable distribution to kids. Why would this even be a question??

Giving everything to blood relatives regardless of moral considerations and fairness considerations is kinda like nepotism imo.

haaaylee
12-11-2009, 08:12 PM
this is the number one issue my socialist/anarchist (yeah, how she is both i still can't figure out) brings up. her brother wants to outlaw inheritance, and she hates it because it makes for lazy child who contribute nothing to society. i see jealously in a lot of her argument, but my response is something like this:


to have earned all of that money, a product was made. at a price someone was willing to purchase it for. unless fraud, or theft, was involved this person legitimately became rich. he has the right to keep his profits, however large or small they are, and to decide where he should place them. she wants to make rich people to give to charity, but that is anti-liberty for reasons just mentioned.

now, most really really rich people have large staffs. corporations employee hundreds of people. putting out thousands of products. in stores that also have employees. where people come and purchase the process.

can one even imagine how many jobs rich people supply? so one lazy rich kid who sits on their ass benefiting from all those jobs is nothing in comparison.

and keeping that lazy rich kid out of the job market means one more person can get a job, a person who actually needs it.


if an entrepreneur can't figure out a way to make their child work equally hard, i'd call that a family issue. and none of my business.

crushingstep7
12-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Howard, wealth has nothing to do with how many pieces of paper a person has... and besides, how do you define "rich"?

Lots of resources and goods that he/she can defend with a small rifle squad? That's wealth, if you ask me.

mczerone
12-11-2009, 09:33 PM
(C) - fund their own cryogenic or bio-mechanic preservation.

Andrew-Austin
12-11-2009, 09:51 PM
This is something I have been struggling with forming an opinon on. On one hand you have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, giving all there wealth and money to a charity thats purpose is to improve the health and education of poor people. Warren Buffett also said that dynastic wealth is the enemy of a meritocracy and he didn't think it was moral to pass the money on to his kids. On the other hand you have Fred Koch who gave all his money to his kids (who bankroll Cato) and the Walton family of Walmart who are all megabillionaires.

In terms of charity, I think its very admirable but I have mixed feelings on it. As Ayn Rand so adroitly described in Atlas Shrugged, people who run charities usually loathe businessman and guilt them while simulataneously taking their money. Chairty is also sort of a one time thing that consumes money usually, once they spend it poof the money is gone. It's also hard to be charitable in a society where the government takes up 35% of the economy and redistribute the income through entitlements.

On the other hand, people who inherit large amounts of money usually did nothing to deserve it. Oftentimes their fathers like Sam Walton will struggle for decades in obscurity with all kinds of financial problems ect, then they just get lucky and inherit it all. These people end up being overwhelmingly liberal and of the harshest kind, think of Nancy Pelosi but even worse they usually waste the hard earned money in a profilgate way on expensive cars and houses.

First of all, super rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have enough money to give TONS to charity, and still leave enough money to the children so they can live very comfortably.

This applies to a lesser degree to the plain rich, they can give to both.

BlackTerrel
12-12-2009, 12:48 AM
Why would you need to be comfortable with other people's wealth? It's of no concern to you. Paris didn't earn it, but neither did you, so don't even worry about it.

Capitalism works because you profit off of your work. You make something valuable, you earn money. When people just inherit shit that no longer works, and those people do not have to produce and basically become leeches off the system. The "money" that they inherited, only has value because other people in the economy are producing - otherwise it's just paper.

Why should someone whose great great grandfather got rich off the slave trade be able to live a life of luxury while never having to produce a single thing of value?

I'm half playing devil's advocate because I don't think there's a perfect solution, but it's an interesting dilemma.

haaaylee
12-12-2009, 06:15 AM
Capitalism works because you profit off of your work. You make something valuable, you earn money. When people just inherit shit that no longer works, and those people do not have to produce and basically become leeches off the system. The "money" that they inherited, only has value because other people in the economy are producing - otherwise it's just paper.

Why should someone whose great great grandfather got rich off the slave trade be able to live a life of luxury while never having to produce a single thing of value?

I'm half playing devil's advocate because I don't think there's a perfect solution, but it's an interesting dilemma.



This is assuming they are in inheriting a company versus just inheriting money.

The money was already earned, all voluntary transactions to earn that money have happened. If no fraud/theft was involved it is the bread-winner that decides where it goes.


Giving to charity might be a better place to put money, but there really is ultimately no economic difference. It goes to people who are also not producing anything (at least at the moment), just as the spoiled children would most likely not produce anything.

fatjohn
12-12-2009, 06:23 AM
It depends on your kids. If you leave them 20 billion dollars. And if they have the capacity to make 200 billion of it then they can short Goldman sachs and JP morgan to oblivion. The biggest act of charity that I can think of. Then your kid could buy up a series of hitman to whack the rockefellers and the rothshilds. And then he/she can also donate a billion to the ron paul 2012 campaign. And peace and prosperity will reign the earth for ever after. So give it to your kids until someone down the line has enough to do this.

Met Income
12-12-2009, 01:18 PM
Capitalism works because you profit off of your work. You make something valuable, you earn money. When people just inherit shit that no longer works, and those people do not have to produce and basically become leeches off the system. The "money" that they inherited, only has value because other people in the economy are producing - otherwise it's just paper.

Why should someone whose great great grandfather got rich off the slave trade be able to live a life of luxury while never having to produce a single thing of value?

I'm half playing devil's advocate because I don't think there's a perfect solution, but it's an interesting dilemma.

Your logic is inconsistent. Family members may not have earned the money, but neither has anyone else.

Gifts are voluntary exchanges, too. It's really of no concern to anyone else but those involved.

MelissaWV
12-12-2009, 01:39 PM
Your logic is inconsistent. Family members may not have earned the money, but neither has anyone else.

Gifts are voluntary exchanges, too. It's really of no concern to anyone else but those involved.

I can't speak for BT, but in theory, giving to a good charity doesn't mean they will simply hand a portion over to the poor. Instead, good charities involve programs that help people piece together resumes, develop basic skills, and regain a foothold to work their way back up the ladder (if they're willing). So while the beneficiary of leaving money to the kids would be getting a bunch of money with no user manual (or strings attached, in most cases), the end beneficiary of a good charity would be getting the tools they need to get back into society and be productive.

Perhaps a way of saying it would be to point out that a charity has need, and a plan for the money, which one can view ahead of time (and approve of, or disapprove of). One's children may or may not have a plan for the money, and you may or may not get a chance to approve of it. In addition, your children may not have a track record to look at, where they've gotten a windfall before and spent it wiseley (or unwisely). The charity hopefully does, and there's a reasonable expectation that they will continue to do the same kind of work they have in the past, plus there are legal strings attached.

* * *

I still don't think it's a one-size-fits all answer (charity is better); it depends too much on the organizations/people involved.

RevolutionSD
12-12-2009, 01:53 PM
Charity is a good thing. There is no denying that. But I would always give the bulk of my wealth to my kids.

There IS denying that charity is a good thing. Most of it does people no good at all, and most of the money you donate ends up in the hands of bureaucrats or corrupt governments. Think of Africa, and all the money that is pouring into various charitable organizations there from around the world, yet, decades go by and they remain living in squalor.