The Morality of Wealth

[staccato]

I don't think its practical to set my household needs at X amount and give the rest away. If we hadn't set aside a significant amount of money aside for a "rainy day" instead of getting some decent countertops in my kitchen that I wanted, we wouldn't have survived this economic downturn. We pay a FULL tithe without fudging and try to be generous with donations wherever we can and I feel pretty good about things. I don't live in a shack but I don't live in a mansion either. I think our lifestyle is acceptable to the Lord. If I didn't, I would change it.

And yet, I did just that this past year. We moved into a much smaller, more economically/ecologically responsible home at the beginning of the year. We reduced our annual budget by 33%, and we used the difference to give to those in need. I do not buy this hoarding mentality of saving the money for a rainy day when our economy is so harsh and so many people are in need of help. I confess to being particularly critical about this because I have watched my own father hoard his entire life and now he has half a million dollars in the bank and will not part with a bit of it without extreme objection, even when there is family in need. He pays his tithing and owns his own home. I don't know what the "Lord" sees of it, but he looks like a scrooge to me.

[ttribe]

I think $120,000 a year is plenty for any household, unless maybe they can't get health insurance for some reason and they need a LOT of medical treatment and they don't know anyone who will give them that treatment for free.

No, it isn't "plenty" universally and it's inappropriate to sit in judgment of others when we have an incomplete picture of their household needs.

[Deborah]

I do not buy this hoarding mentality of saving the money for a rainy day when our economy is so harsh and so many people are in need of help.

And what happens when the person gives everything away and doesn't have that rainy day fund and when bad times come they are the ones in need of help but because everyone gave away their rainy day funds there's no one left to help.

The story of Joseph in Egypt is a good example of setting aside the rainy day fund so that when bad times came they could actually survive and in the process help others.

[Deborah]

Because we live in a world that has more people than land....

Your examples are way over the top. Furthermore because you know one bad person doesn't mean the whole group is like that. I know very many well-to-do people who do much good in the world. It isn't a zero sum game no matter how much you would like to think it is. The man in the mansion can live his life without affecting one tiny bit how I live mine. We can both prosper and no one loses, or one can prosper and one can fail without one having to do with the other.

[Ahab]

No, it isn't "plenty" universally and it's inappropriate to sit in judgment of others when we have an incomplete picture of their household needs.

I accept the idea that there are usually some exceptions to a general rule, but as a general rule every household could get by just fine with $120,000 a year for their own household.

The only exception I can think of would be from very high medical expenses, because most doctors don't work for free, but there may be some other reasons a family would need more than that amount in one year.

[ttribe]

I accept the idea that there are usually some exceptions to a general rule, but as a general rule every household could get by just fine with $120,000 a year for their own household.

The only exception I can think of would be from very high medical expenses, because most doctors don't work for free, but there may be some other reasons a family would need more than that amount in one year.

Well, I suspect your establishment of this "general rule" is based on very little information. Having seen the inside of MANY people's personal finances, my experience as a CPA tells me otherwise.

[Deborah]

I confess to being particularly critical about this because I have watched my own father hoard his entire life and now he has half a million dollars in the bank and will not part with a bit of it without extreme objection, even when there is family in need.

That says a lot. I wonder how many others here are so avidly in favor of taking from someone else's wealth because of a family member they feel didn't treat them fairly. Interesting you use the word "hoard" instead of save. Funny how the whole intent changes with a word.

[katherine the great]

And yet, I did just that this past year. We moved into a much smaller, more economically/ecologically responsible home at the beginning of the year. We reduced our annual budget by 33%, and we used the difference to give to those in need. I do not buy this hoarding mentality of saving the money for a rainy day when our economy is so harsh and so many people are in need of help. I confess to being particularly critical about this because I have watched my own father hoard his entire life and now he has half a million dollars in the bank and will not part with a bit of it without extreme objection, even when there is family in need. He pays his tithing and owns his own home. I don't know what the "Lord" sees of it, but he looks like a scrooge to me.

I think its quite rude of you to imply that I'm "hoarding" money when I was simply doing what the prophets have advised us to do. We work very hard for what we have and have never been given or inherited anything. I'm glad you were able to move in to a smaller house. I would like to do that at the appropriate time. For us to attempt to sell our house right now would be a financially irresponsible thing to do and would not put us in a financial position to help anyone--least of all our own children who are our primary stewardship. I think some of you guys are being unfairly harsh to those of us who are doing everything that our leaders ask of us but don't share your particular vision of "redistributing the wealth".

[Ahab]

Well, I suspect your establishment of this "general rule" is based on very little information. Having seen the inside of MANY people's personal finances, my experience as a CPA tells me otherwise.

Heh, I'm aware of the fact that many families SPEND more than $120,000 a year on those in their own household, but considering the fact that MOST families DO get by just fine with that amount, or even less, it is a FACT that most families can and do and would do just fine on $120,000 a year.

And btw, by "household" I'm talking about people who live in the same "house" or "apartment" or "condo" or "shack" or "hut" or whatever you want to call their "shelter" where those in that household reside.

[ttribe]

Heh, I'm aware of the fact that many families SPEND more than $120,000 a year on those in their own household, but considering the fact that MOST families DO get by just fine with that amount, or even less, it is a FACT that most families can and do and would do just fine on $120,000 a year.

And btw, by "household" I'm talking about people who live in the same "house" or "apartment" or "condo" or "shack" or "hut" or whatever you want to call their "shelter" where those in that household reside.

You're not following me; let me reiterate what I've already stated - "...it's inappropriate to sit in judgment of others when we have an incomplete picture of their household needs."

It is quite clear that you have NO idea whether this nebulous group of "people" to whom you keep referring is spending their dollars on wants or needs. Arguing for policy based on naivete is a very bad idea.

[Ahab]

You're not following me; let me reiterate what I've already stated - "...it's inappropriate to sit in judgment of others when we have an incomplete picture of their household needs."

Then let's talk about what each household really needs, rather than talking about all of the things it's possible for a household to do with a certain amount of money.

First, every household needs food, and clothing, and shelter, and general heathcare and hygiene products, and someone else to take care of them and their needs if they can't do everything to take care of themselves, all by themselves... such as doctors and nurses and farmers and other people who work in this world to provide services and products which each household relies on when they don't do everything all by themselves... and since most people won't do things for other people without being paid with some money, we need to come up with a certain amount of money that it would take to pay all of those people for their services.

This is where the $120,000 a year comes in, which could be used to pay people who provide services and products when they won't work for free.

So, how about you tell me how much money some household would need before you would do something to try to help provide for that household ?

How much would you charge for your services, if they decided they "needed" a CPA and they decided to hire you for your services ?

It is quite clear that you have NO idea whether this nebulous group of "people" to whom you keep referring is spending their dollars on wants or needs. Arguing for policy based on naivete is a very bad idea.

I'm talking about "needs", rather than thinking they'll go out and buy everything they could possibly "want".

I'd kinda like to have a Lear jet, and in fact I could say I really "want" one and that I could use one to do a LOT of good in this world, but, considering the fact that there are a lot of really poor people who get by on as little as $500 a year, I think I could quite comfortably forego that "want" and just settle for borrowing someone else's whenever I want to fly somewhere.

[ttribe]

Then let's talk about what each household really needs, rather than talking about all of the things it's possible for a household to do with a certain amount of money.

First, every household needs food, and clothing, and shelter, and general heathcare and hygiene products, and someone else to take care of them and their needs if they can't do everything to take care of themselves, all by themselves... such as doctors and nurses and farmers and other people who work in this world to provide services and products which each household relies on when they don't do everything all by themselves... and since most people won't do things for other people without being paid with some money, we need to come up with a certain amount of money that it would take to pay all of those people for their services.

This is where the $120,000 a year comes in, which could be used to pay people who provide services and products when they won't work for free.

So, how about you tell me how much money some household would need before you would do something to try to help provide for that household ?

I don't set arbitrary amounts for the determination of assistance.

How much would you charge for your services, if they decided they "needed" a CPA and they decided to hire you for your services ?

Since everyone would be "nice" in your Utopia, I suspect there'd be very little need for my services given that I am a forensic CPA.

I'm talking about "needs", rather than thinking they'll go out and buy everything they could possibly "want".

I'd kinda like to have a Lear jet, and in fact I could say I really "want" one and that I could use one to do a LOT of good in this world, but, considering the fact that there are a lot of really poor people who get by on as little as $500 a year, I think I could quite comfortably forego that "want" and just settle for borrowing someone else's whenever I want to fly somewhere.

I know you're talking about "needs"; I already expressed that distinction along with the statement that it's clear you have no idea what "needs" are to people other than you.

[mbh26]

And what happens when the person gives everything away and doesn't have that rainy day fund and when bad times come they are the ones in need of help but because everyone gave away their rainy day funds there's no one left to help.

I'm sure the rich young ruler was asking himself the same question when Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor.

In ways I miss the violent world. You either won the fight or you died, but one way or another you didn't put up with this garbage from other people on a daily basis. In the words of Conan the Barbarian, "Enough talk!"

[katherine the great]

Well Ahab, I must say that throwing out some random number and insisting that virtually all families must never use more than that and must give the rest away in order to be moral just sounds frankly immature or na

[mbh26]

Furthermore because you know one bad person doesn't mean the whole group is like that

I know more than one bad person. Yes there are nice rich people. But sadly most people are not very nice in the workplace. I've been around the block too many times.

Take my wife's boss with her $20k pearls she wears while berating her minimum wage employees, or the butthole doctor who walks over top patients under cardiac arrest to stay on his strict schedule of seeing a different patient every five minutes. They're real nice people at parties and social events.

[mbh26]

We can both prosper and no one loses, or one can prosper and one can fail without one having to do with the other.

It is possible. But that is not what is happening. We don't live in isolated colonies anymore nor do we have that option. We have a lot to do with each other.

[katherine the great]

I think a person who is genuinely nice will still be genuinely nice if they work hard and become rich. They will probably still be nice if they encounter misfortune and become poor. The same applies to genuine jerks.

[Nathair/|\]

Then let's talk about what each household really needs, rather than talking about all of the things it's possible for a household to do with a certain amount of money.

First, every household needs food, and clothing, and shelter, and general heathcare and hygiene products, and someone else to take care of them and their needs if they can't do everything to take care of themselves, all by themselves... such as doctors and nurses and farmers and other people who work in this world to provide services and products which each household relies on when they don't do everything all by themselves... and since most people won't do things for other people without being paid with some money, we need to come up with a certain amount of money that it would take to pay all of those people for their services.

This is where the $120,000 a year comes in, which could be used to pay people who provide services and products when they won't work for free.

So, how about you tell me how much money some household would need before you would do something to try to help provide for that household ?

How much would you charge for your services, if they decided they "needed" a CPA and they decided to hire you for your services ?

I'm talking about "needs", rather than thinking they'll go out and buy everything they could possibly "want".

I'd kinda like to have a Lear jet, and in fact I could say I really "want" one and that I could use one to do a LOT of good in this world, but, considering the fact that there are a lot of really poor people who get by on as little as $500 a year, I think I could quite comfortably forego that "want" and just settle for borrowing someone else's whenever I want to fly somewhere.

Tell ya what.. Let's test your commitment. I might need a scholarship this semester. $3000 ought to do it.

Of course I wouldn't really accept it from you. But your first thought when you read that sentence should tell you something.

[mbh26]

As an LDS you can't really discount the fact that Joseph Smith felt so strongly about the problems of capitalism that he was willing to try an entirely new economic system. I didn't see where he was coming from until I got older and I had to enter the workplace and see what was really going on with my own eyes.

[ttribe]

As an LDS you can't really discount the fact that Joseph Smith felt so strongly about the problems of capitalism that he was willing to try an entirely new economic system. I didn't see where he was coming from until I got older and I had to enter the workplace and see what was really going on with my own eyes.

An economic system directed by God is far different than one that is operating under "natural" economic principles. Until Christ returns, what we've got is likely as good as it's going to get.

[mbh26]

An economic system directed by God is far different than one that is operating under "natural" economic principles. Until Christ returns, what we've got is likely as good as it's going to get.

I can agree with that. But then again, where would America be without George Washington? Where would we be without violence? Probably still living to serve the British. I can see where some might think that Christianity is used to placate the masses and keep them serving the lucky few. If I took $100 from you now and said, I'll pay you $1 billion when Christ comes would you think it was a good deal?

[Jeff K.]

Before people begin talking about capitalism, I would suggest they learn about it. It seems Ahab et al don't really have a strong grasp of what capitalims is. Nor do they understand how it has provided more in materialistic well being for the common man than any other system in history. Nope, theirs is a dogmatic system without any real foundation is knowledge.

Take the contention some have made that the stock market is a zero sum game, in other word, when you buy or sell a stock you have either taken money from someone else or given it to someone else. It overlooks the investment variable since a zero sum game only takes from one pot, there is no real growth. However if we look to a company like Walmart, their growth in part came from an innovative inventory and logistics system which allowed them to sell more to more people for less money. In a zero sum game, this would be impossible, but in a system of investmetns it tends to be the norm. I like Walmart because it makes a profit, and it drives down prices, and it does more to help the poor, than any government agency I know of (food prices for the poor literally drop 10% when Walmart opens a food store in the area. All of this belies the ideal of a zero sum game.

Getting back ot Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations", I will point out (and this is where Ayn Rand whom I admire but disagree with on some portions or ideals on objectivism diverge) that Smith spoke of the need for morality to exist within the system for it to work properly. And this is true.

Those who demand a "taking" or stealing if you will, of property rights obtained properly and legally, are really following the same amoral ideal of Ayn Rand, they are simply the other end of the amoral coin on property rights. They don't believe anyone has a right (by right, I speak of the Declaration of Independence view of "unalienable" rights given to us by our Creator), borrowed from Locke they also include or imply property rights. Now those who want to "take" property for no reason other than they believe someone else deserves it more (in their judgement) then necessarily reject both our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In their view, you are only allowed the property they think you should have, and nothing more. It doesn't matter what benefit you may derive from your property to help humanity (or not help) one frankly has too much of it and they don't like that. In my view such self righteous judgement regaridng people they don't know is a sin and has been thoroughly condemned by Christ. They are the Sadducees and Pharisees in their phalacteries of poverty. But why be obvious.

Now in regard to Joseph Smith being "so concerned" he felt he had to create a new system. This is false in that entering into the system was voluntary. The taking, if you will, was in reality, a "giving" because as such it was done voluntarily by members. Not required under force or duress. So I would reject the limited view of Joesph Smith's system as an answer to capitalism which had already been undermined by a government through competing government run ideologies (a national bank and tariffs on the Hamiltonian side, and an artificial property bubble on the Jacksonian side - which by the way would cause the worst depression in US history until the great depression). Joseph Smith saw an economy being run by competing government ideologies and reacted as the need arose, or rather like so many things, inquired as to what the best system could be and then attempted to create that system.

It seems to me, that those who deem a certain level of income or assets as being too much and demand to take those assets from others regardless of how they were attained also reject Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration and seek instead the demand of force in order to do so, by threat if you will. I find I would have to reject that also.

The worst trap is how they decide arbitrarily what amount is satisfactory, as far as they are concerned. They do not realize that the amount they have set, which conveniently lets them off the hook (isn't it amazing how people can do that ) is of course much too high when we compare true wants versus needs. A prosperous country will have a much higher level of income for a poverty rate and middle class than a poor country. So when they make this arbitrary number which gets them off the hook, they in turn expose themselves to the question of relativism. What about the middle class in many South American countries? They make less and really, who are we in this rich land to make so much more than their middle class? It exposes a deep grain of hypocrisy that they refuse to acknowledge.

So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with a group of angry snarling people who claim that wealth by its mere presence makes one evil. They seem angry at anyone that has more and consider those with more to somehow be mean. Such stereotyping overlooks much. I know Prophets who have been rich, Stake Presidents who are wealthy, Apostles who have been very successful financially in their lives. I have also known less affluent people who have robbed, not because they needed the money, but because they enjoyed doing it, stealing from other poor people who needed what they took even more.

This does not absolve the rich from responsibility to use their assets to the best of their abilities to help everyone. At the same time, it doesn't give the right of those who detest the rich for some reason to stand in judgement of them or what they do with their wealth. That is covetousness, which in its basic level is being angry at someone else for what they have rather than searching yourself for what you can give.

[Jeff K.]

I can agree with that. But then again, where would America be without George Washington? Where would we be without violence? Probably still living to serve the British. I can see where some might think that Christianity is used to placate the masses and keep them serving the lucky few. If I took $100 from you now and said, I'll pay you $1 billion when Christ comes would you think it was a good deal?

If you took it, or attempted to, I would not let you since it isn't yours to take.

If I gave it to you, I would do so with an open heart and I would not care when or if you gave it back (my approach to tithing).

If you were to ask with a promise of someting greater, I would ask you how you would achieve it, and then using my free will on the matter either help you or not.

Christ's coming, whether it be tomorrow, or in another millenium would be irrelevant to me.

[mbh26]

If you took it, or attempted to, I would not let you since it isn't yours to take.

For some of us, we didn't have the option of not letting others take things from us that were not theirs. We either weren't strong enough to hold onto it or we feared being condemned as murderers for protecting what was ours. To keep us from killing those that took it, we were told that we would be compensated again when Christ came.

Let me get back to the way I originally intended to ask the question. If I offered you a deal where you would give me $100 now and I would give you $1 billion when Christ came, would you accept the deal and be happy about it?

[Jeff K.]

For some of us, we didn't have the option of not letting others take things from us that were not theirs. We either weren't strong enough to hold onto it or we feared being condemned as murderers for protecting what was ours. To keep us from killing those that took it, we were told that we would be compensated again when Christ came.

Let me get back to the way I originally intended to ask the question. If I offered you a deal where you would give me $100 now and I would give you $1 billion when Christ came, would you accept the deal and be happy about it?

If other people rape, it does not mean you have the right to rape.