Is it bad to be rich?

[jkwilliams]

On 12/22/2021 at 5:34 PM, CA Steve said:

Money can't buy happiness, but poverty can't buy anything.

😝

I propose a test: give me, say, 1% of the Ensign Peak funds. I’ll let you know if it’s bad or not. 😂

[BlueDreams]

On 12/22/2021 at 12:19 PM, Fether said:

I saw this topic brought up on another thread, felt it would be a good topic on its own.

The typical premise is “No one needs a billion dollars, so why not donate it?”

I am under the impression that that is a fairly short sighted view. Should a billionaire give away their $1,000,000,000? Or would it be better to continue to grow their wealth and consistently donate 5% of their wealth every year for the rest of their life and then pass that wealth to their family and have them continue to donate that 5% every year?

I’m not a Billionaire, but I intended on amassing some amount of wealth in my life and I have an idea of how money is used, stored, and spent. From what I have gathered, Billionaires don’t have rooms full of gold and cash Scrooge McDuck style. Rather, the vast majority of it is invested in their own businesses, other businesses and other entities. That money is then used to grow other industries that provide jobs for others. People with insane wealth are also incentivized to donate to charity for tax write off purposes. I would imagine a single year of a billionaire’s donations would exceed that of anyone normal person’s life time donations.

Additional questions I would ask:

- How much money is too much money?

- Should rich people just give all their money away? Is that the best thing to do?

- Is this a problem about maximizing the good someone can do? Or is it about there being some moral limit on how much someone should have? Or perhaps is it just jealousy?

 

For the record, I'm currently pretty comfortable in life, our household income puts us somewhere in middle/upper-middle class depending how one breaks it up. and I have no real jealousy of the super wealthy nor much desire to be much wealthier than we currently are. We have enough for us and enough to give to those we care about or for causes we have concern for. Neither of us see the point in accruing excessively more. We've talked about the possibility and what we'd do is about the same. save some for retirement funds and other potential concerns, use what we need and be cautious to not confuse wants with needs too much, and give to those who need it more. From a gospel perspective, IMHO, any excess wealth is a responsibility/call to help others not a right or something I deserve.   

My issue with wealth, isn't the individual wealthy person per se. It's the amount of disparity in society and the culture around wealth attainment that's my big issue. The book of mormon talks about this culture extensively... with examples of the church of the devil, themes of oppression, prosperity = goodness, etc. Wealth disparities can easily slip into stratifying human value, creating negative reasons for why the poor are poor, and over valuing the wealthy or temporally successful as being more needed in a society. And in our culture of excess wealth disparity there are a lot of messages around the poor that I think would constitute as "despising the poor" or at the least excusing away the needs of the poor through messages that make us feel better about people faltering and struggling. they reduce communal responsibility towards the other. Meanwhile our overall society suffers as more and more resources disproportionately are in the hands of a few. Healthy communities can't be maintained this way, long-term. 

Most aren't living as scrooge mcduck (I hope?) but they're still living in a manner that is simply unimaginable for most people. Someone noted in the other thread that 600K is not a lot of money for Mr. Green. That's true....it's the equivalent of $17 on my household's gross income a year. Or if you include our total net worth, it would be around $42. I think there's a reason why Jesus pointed to the widow's mite as worth more than large sums from more influential community members, because the mindset of the widow was more zion-oriented than someone worth billions shelling out said widows total income for several years in one publicly recognized nod. It's more needed for a sustainable thriving society. In the present world, I will always be more astounded and humbled by a poor old retired pastor on m y mission who once receiving food from charity immediately gave a part of it to someone else in further need than any billionaire donation. One ties all that they are to the work of God, caring for others, and the act of consecration for the bettering of community. The other gives a public display of charity that are often set up in ways to re-enrich them, expand influence, and does not really consecrate the soul to a higher work. Charity in this form is oriented around their life work and personal interests which tend to focus on wealth attainment and building an economic empire.  Where as charity for the poor man I described was what he'd oriented his entire life around.

This isn't something that's impossible for people with more wealth, I don't know exactly what that would look like for them or if they'd have to give up all their wealth in order to get there. But I would assume a willingness to do so if needed likely is impotant...as well as a primary focus on creating a zion society (one heart, one mind, no poor among us). It's not impossible for the wealthy and it's not guaranteed that people without excessive wealth are focused on it. But the more one's focused on personal wealth attainment, I would assume it would become more difficult to maintain the needed focus on humble participation in community. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Stargazer]

On 12/22/2021 at 8:33 PM, The Nehor said:

Henry Ford: "The factories are not stopped for lack of money, but for lack of orders..."

Reminded me of a science fiction short story in which a great depression occurred. Government researchers, tracking money ebb and flow, traced the trigger of the depression back to a family whose father had been going to buy a new car, but at the last moment cancelled the order. This caused the dealership to get into financial trouble to the point that they had to cancel a block of orders from the manufacturer, which caused them in turn to have to lay off a number of workers, and cancel materials orders, which then cascaded outward to more manufacturers, service providers, and so on, until the entire country went into an economic tailspin. The country had been on the brink, and the lost sale pushed it over edge.

In the story, the government office which had commissioned the research decided that if that initial trigger had caused the depression, then possibly a reverse-trigger effect could be generated by giving that same family the money they needed to buy a new car. They did so, and it the cascade then happened in reverse until the country began coming out of it.

In real life things couldn't be so cut-and-dried. Too bad. To many economic cascades are per se non-reversible. 

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

I know this is what most people think (hence the rarity of one income families now), but this article seems so foreign to me. "$100,000 can't achieve the American Dream any more" . . .

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-far-does-six-figure-salary-go-house-college-kids-2021-12?fbclid=IwAR1akLes6GP6hH25FHU0lQ8c4WPO0Ar2joDQ4V5FZK6Cnm175K2AV6zhxCw

Points from the article:

1) Very hard to buy a home for less than $100,000. [True. Point conceded]

yup, and if you do, you'll likely need to buy a "fixer upper" in more remote locations, with worse school systems. And it would likely be helpful if you had a nest egg or basic skills in remodeling homes. https://www.cheapoldhouses.com/latestlistings/

Quote

2) $100,000 income not enough to pay for college. [Pure baloney. Your kids might need to attend where they can afford, but even then --- our two oldest haven't paid a cent for college (they work, but that's for savings. School, housing, etc. itself is paid for by scholarships and grants). Bootstrap mentality and excellence can provide education, even for the low income].

-There's still not a lot of space for something to go wrong in this outcome. One problem or difficulty can quickly add 1000s of dollars in bills that are unavoidable. A couple issues can make higher education near impossible. This ranges from amount of family support can be given, to mental health concerns, to knowledge of college systems and navigativing scholarship applications. If there's not enough of a safety net, many end up having to leave school or prolong schooling in order to afford it. I personally, couldn't make it out of college without some student loans (I'm very grateful it was about the amount of a car payment than a fixer upper house...and that it was only for my masters, not my bachelors). But my bachelor's was still a big hustle... between grants, family support, working to support my schooling, and I think 1 scholarship nearer the end. And my education was cheap compared to others. My slightly younger brother has not been as lucky and has constantly been balancing school with other needs to avoid debt. He's 31 and just barely finished his associates. All of his plans (baby, housing, career, etc) keep getting delayed while he works to finish school. Bootstrap mentality doesn't fix everything, and excellence is still reliant on a lot of other factors going right in a child's life. 

 

Quote

 

3) Childcare costs are through the roof [Which . . . can be offset by mom staying home with the kids. Yes, this limits the household income, but it has exponential benefits in testimony, child development, etc.].

This is again an option that's not available for a lot of people. And even if it were it's certainly not ideal for all families. My nascent family first started of as a single-parent household well below the 100K mark, by the time we were in the 100k mark and had a family situation where my mom could choose to stay home, it was healthier for all of us for personal reasons  that our parents worked full time. Personally, I never wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. My mental health and therefore mothering is better with me working at least part-time I would probably work more Because I do think there is value for community influences and experiences I can't give her. But in order for that to work I have to be willing to make a big jump in work hours for it to make financial sense. But i'm still well aware that the balance I'm trying to meet and worked to get to is still not easily reachable and many others won't have the work-life balance flexibility for my life to be a possibility. IN which case, it's probably more important not to ask if it's possible, but if it's accessible for most families to live comfortably/securely. If not then there's a problem IMHO.

 

Quote

4) American Dream defined as "not living paycheck to paycheck." [It's a great feeling to have security and savings, but I would define the American Dream in different terms from mere financial security]

 

this is the def from marriam-webster: a happy way of living that is thought of by many Americans as something that can be achieved by anyone in the U.S. especially by working hard and becoming successful

Seemed accurate to me in general use. But what's your specific definition?

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

 

[SkyRock]

The most miserable person I personally know is a self-made billionaire.   All the cars, houses, yachts, women, etc he has don't bring him happiness.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

My issue with wealth, isn't the individual wealthy person per se. It's the amount of disparity in society and the culture around wealth attainment that's my big issue. The book of mormon talks about this culture extensively... with examples of the church of the devil, themes of oppression, prosperity = goodness, etc. Wealth disparities can easily slip into stratifying human value, creating negative reasons for why the poor are poor, and over valuing the wealthy or temporally successful as being more needed in a society. And in our culture of excess wealth disparity there are a lot of messages around the poor that I think would constitute as "despising the poor" or at the least excusing away the needs of the poor through messages that make us feel better about people faltering and struggling. they reduce communal responsibility towards the other. Meanwhile our overall society suffers as more and more resources disproportionately are in the hands of a few. Healthy communities can't be maintained this way, long-term.

Too much is made in terms of wealth by people like Bernie Sanders who assume that having too much wealth is bad.  Not necessarily true.  It can be bad if a person hordes finite assets that everyone needs creating scarcity.  However much of the wealth concentration today really does not harm the poor. If a man owns 10 million shares of Microsoft stock, his paper wealth is over 3 billion dollars.  Are poor people negatively affected by him holding 10 million shares?  I don't see any case that can be made for it.  The stock is simply a financial asset that has to be sold for it to be converted to cash.  Not one penny is taken from a poor person if the man does not sell his stock.  Probably not one penny is taken if he does as the money transferred to the man when he sells does not come from taxpayers but investors.   

So it depends on the assets.  Owning stock is different than own a bunch of investment real estate homes where there actually is scarcity of land and homes which can drive up prices for the poor.  Stocks and other things, not at all.  Not all wealth is the same.

[Freedom]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Too much is made in terms of wealth by people like Bernie Sanders who assume that having too much wealth is bad.  Not necessarily true.  It can be bad if a person hordes finite assets that everyone needs creating scarcity.  However much of the wealth concentration today really does not harm the poor. If a man owns 10 million shares of Microsoft stock, his paper wealth is over 3 billion dollars.  Are poor people negatively affected by him holding 10 million shares?  I don't see any case that can be made for it.  The stock is simply a financial asset that has to be sold for it to be converted to cash.  Not one penny is taken from a poor person if the man does not sell his stock.  Probably not one penny is taken if he does as the money transferred to the man when he sells does not come from taxpayers but investors.   

So it depends on the assets.  Owning stock is different than own a bunch of investment real estate homes where there actually is scarcity of land and homes which can drive up prices for the poor.  Stocks and other things, not at all.  Not all wealth is the same.

and herein is the misunderstanding of a billionaire. When people say there should be no billionaires, or that billionaires should give away their money often do not understand why they are billionaires. They do not realize that they really mean that large successful corporations such as Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, or Dell Computers should not exist.  They are somehow of the illusion that these people are hording this money under a mattress. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Too much is made in terms of wealth by people like Bernie Sanders who assume that having too much wealth is bad.  Not necessarily true.  It can be bad if a person hordes finite assets that everyone needs creating scarcity.  However much of the wealth concentration today really does not harm the poor. If a man owns 10 million shares of Microsoft stock, his paper wealth is over 3 billion dollars.  Are poor people negatively affected by him holding 10 million shares?  I don't see any case that can be made for it.  The stock is simply a financial asset that has to be sold for it to be converted to cash.  Not one penny is taken from a poor person if the man does not sell his stock.  Probably not one penny is taken if he does as the money transferred to the man when he sells does not come from taxpayers but investors.   

So it depends on the assets.  Owning stock is different than own a bunch of investment real estate homes where there actually is scarcity of land and homes which can drive up prices for the poor.  Stocks and other things, not at all.  Not all wealth is the same.

Yes, they are. If there is a lot of hoarding of wealth than holding onto wealth becomes less lucrative. Investment opportunities become scarcer and less profitable the more money there is in the markets.

6 hours ago, Freedom said:

and herein is the misunderstanding of a billionaire. When people say there should be no billionaires, or that billionaires should give away their money often do not understand why they are billionaires. They do not realize that they really mean that large successful corporations such as Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, or Dell Computers should not exist.  They are somehow of the illusion that these people are hording this money under a mattress. 

Not true at all. You can have a mega corporation without one person owning such a large share of it. Whether these megacorporations are good for the economy as a whole is a separate question. I would argue that the stock system itself is a mistake. It is basically a way to create individual wealth without individual responsibility. It is like enshrining that the “idler shall eat the bread of the laborer” into the system.

[BlueDreams]

Edit: this was in response to@carbon dioxideMost recent post…I forgot to direct quote it

First to note, i’m going to try to not mention specific political figures or policies. This question doesn’t have to be innately political.

 

Second, I think our starting questions are different. You seem to be focusing on an underlying question of what’s the direct harm from someone being super rich on the poor? That’s not what my post or thought process goes to. Mine are: 

what do the scriptures say is the purpose to wealth? What are the warnings about it?

What is the ideal society supposed to focus on?

Where are we at as societies in meeting the basic descriptions of Zion? How much do we fall into the ideologies of the church of the devil? 

To me in scripture there is only one legitimate purpose for accruing wealth: caring and supporting for the poor, marginalized, or less fortunate…building up god’s kingdom. The BOM mentions that explicitly; the Bible notes that especially in symbology. Along with these are major themes of the pitfalls of excessive wealth that can come to a society. Namely turning their focus on material attainment and often unequal influence for determining what is important in a culture. Using individual prosperity as a sign that they are blessed and everything is fine in society/zion. Exploitation of others to attain and maintain wealth and influence (or worldly gain). Giving to be seen of others and to gain more influence. Despising the poor in varying ways (ex. Exclusion, discrimination, negative biases, etc). And overall excess pride and greater difficulty turning everything towards the lord and His purposes. 

 

The ideal society is zion. At it’s most basic description, it’s being of one heart one mind and having no poor among them. 

 

I have a hard time seeing how we’ve met zion standards even in the church let alone in the larger society. Our culture tends to have several signs of the church of the devil (or a focus on getting gain, status, etc). Wealth is not inherently the problem…as in if you are rich you MUST be subscribing to bad philosophies of men. But to amass a TON of money usually means putting an excessive focus on accruing and sustaining wealth. That needed focus is IMHO the reason it’s really hard to keep a god-centered focus while being super wealthy. It’s not imposible, it’s just harder and can easily lead to a slippery slope of practices and beliefs that do harm the poor. 
 

 And our culture shows several signs of struggling with a material-driven society.  For example, it puts a lot of emphasis on attaining or climbing up the social ladder…hustle culture, excessive extracurriculars and the best schools to make competitive children, respect and praise of gaining wealth and influence, getting the “good” jobs, having your work as your purpose in life, assuming that those who don’t make it, have “low” end jobs, or are poor must be doing something wrong or failed, etc. So even if we are not excessively wealthy, we can still fall into the cultural traps that following wealth can lead to. This builds a more divided, insecure, and fragile culture that tends to focus on what’s good for the individual as opposed to what helps and builds the whole community. 

 

To me the litmus test for if there’s something wrong with the culture we have around wealth is simple: are there poor among us?…if so there’s probably still something wrong in our community and culture that allows that. There is no excuse for a society that allows one to have several lifetimes worth of wealth while another (often kept far away from one’s home) struggles to feed their children. There’s something wrong when one can fly off into orbit in a  special shaped rocket while those your wealth is dependent on pee in bottles to meet work quotas and work excessively to cover basic needs. 

 

with luv,

bd 

Edited December 24, 2021 by BlueDreams

[CA Steve]

I am close to retirement. I have saved all my life and currently have more money saved than I ever thought possible. My financial advisor has told me I have enough to live comfortably for the rest of my life.

I know there are those in need out there.

Do I try and help those less fortunate than me and risk my future or?

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Not true at all. You can have a mega corporation without one person owning such a large share of it. Whether these megacorporations are good for the economy as a whole is a separate question. I would argue that the stock system itself is a mistake. It is basically a way to create individual wealth without individual responsibility. It is like enshrining that the “idler shall eat the bread of the laborer” into the system.

So you would force a person to sell their company because it is too big? How big is too big? Who decides when they must sell and who they are allowed to sell to? But you say the stock system is a mistake which is how they sell them off now. So how would I then be able to purchase shares of a successful company?

You would have to provide a model where your idea would work

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am close to retirement. I have saved all my life and currently have more money saved than I ever thought possible. My financial advisor has told me I have enough to live comfortably for the rest of my life.

I know there are those in need out there.

Do I try and help those less fortunate than me and risk my future or?

You’ve shared a lot of wisdom on this board, so I have confidence you’ll figure it out.  Godspeed in your retirement.

 I’m in the same situation, asking myself the same questions.  Current plan is to go to South America for 18 months in the Spring and try to be useful as we figure out our next chapter.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

So you would force a person to sell their company because it is too big? How big is too big? Who decides when they must sell and who they are allowed to sell to? But you say the stock system is a mistake which is how they sell them off now. So how would I then be able to purchase shares of a successful company?

You would have to provide a model where your idea would work

Congratulations on defending the billionaire class from their evil oppressors. I am sure they will be along any moment to pat you on the head and reward you for your loyalty.

Any second now………….

Very soon………..

[rodheadlee]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Congratulations on defending the billionaire class from their evil oppressors. I am sure they will be along any moment to pat you on the head and reward you for your loyalty.

Any second now………….

Very soon………..

Elon Musk lives in a tiny house on the property of his Starship base. He is putting all his money on an attempt to colonize Mars. If we left by your rules we'd be stuck on this rock forever.

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, they are. If there is a lot of hoarding of wealth than holding onto wealth becomes less lucrative. Investment opportunities become scarcer and less profitable the more money there is in the markets.

Not true at all. You can have a mega corporation without one person owning such a large share of it. Whether these megacorporations are good for the economy as a whole is a separate question. I would argue that the stock system itself is a mistake. It is basically a way to create individual wealth without individual responsibility. It is like enshrining that the “idler shall eat the bread of the laborer” into the system.

A person who starts a corporation is entitled to a percentage of the company they start.  That is the reward of starting a company.  Why would anyone take the risk and work of starting something if they can't own a certain percentage of what they started?  So Sergey Brin and Larry Page started Google.  There would be no Google without their actions.   They deserve to have owned a part of Google.  Google is so big that they are each worth over 100 billion but that is fair.  80% of Google they do not own. 

As to hording, it depends on the asset.  Stocks actually increase in value the less there is on the market.  Its a supply and demand thing.  However anyone can buy a stock.   The poor can buy stocks also.  There is no crime or anything wrong with Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk owning the stock they have.  The deserve it.  Investors determine the value of each share of stock on any given day.  Bezos and Musk don't make that decision but they do have a right to own the millions of shares they have. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Congratulations on defending the billionaire class from their evil oppressors. I am sure they will be along any moment to pat you on the head and reward you for your loyalty.

Any second now………….

Very soon………..

I will gladly take the evil billionaire class over the socialist class any day.  At least Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Chick-fil-A, In and out Burger, and a thousand other companies give me the products I need and want.  All of them are associated with billionaires. Not sure I need anything from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others who slam billionaires.  What have these people done for me.  Would my life be any different if these people were not born?  They do want to grow the size of government which usually is not a help to me.  Thank you Steve Jobs for the work and influence in your life.  Bernie Sanders?  Still waiting for something from you.   Nothing in my house can I credit you for. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Elon Musk lives in a tiny house on the property of his Starship base. He is putting all his money on an attempt to colonize Mars. If we left by your rules we'd be stuck on this rock forever.

If we didn’t have billionaires there would never be any space flight!

Fact Check: Dubious

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

I will gladly take the evil billionaire class over the socialist class any day.  At least Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Chick-fil-A, In and out Burger, and a thousand other companies give me the products I need and want.  All of them are associated with billionaires. Not sure I need anything from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others who slam billionaires.  What have these people done for me.  Would my life be any different if these people were not born?  They do want to grow the size of government which usually is not a help to me.  Thank you Steve Jobs for the work in your life.  Bernie Sanders?  Still waiting for something from you. 

Who needs fairness and equality? GIVE ME RAMPANT CONSUMERISM OR GIVE ME DEATH!

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Elon Musk lives in a tiny house on the property of his Starship base. He is putting all his money on an attempt to colonize Mars. If we left by your rules we'd be stuck on this rock forever.

Man is not traveling to Mars in any big numbers and who would really want to live on that rock anyways.  Even Death Valley would be more tolerable than living on Mars.  At least in death valley, you can go outside and take a breath of fresh air.  Elon perhaps thinks the movie Total Recall is an actual idea that might work.  No it will not.

Edited December 24, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Man is not traveling to Mars in any big numbers and who would really want to live on that rock anyways.  Even Death Valley would be more tolerable than living on Mars.  At least in death valley, you can go outside and take a breath of fresh air.  Elon perhaps thinks the movie Total Recall is an actual idea that might work.  No it will not.

It's the start of colonizing the solar system and then the stars. If we wait for the government China will beat us to all of those resources. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Freedom said:

you would force a person to sell their company because it is too big

I would rather see taking the risk of lowering profits by making useful and popular products cheaper so those with lower incomes could afford them as well or would not have to struggle to buy them or by raising the wages of those who make the lowest pay rate in the company.

 But I also think there is a major problem with monopolies and wish we had stronger, enforced laws at this point.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If we didn’t have billionaires there would never be any space flight!

Fact Check: Dubious 

Sure by the time the G gets around to it the earth will be overcrowded and the resources claimed by China. The government does nothing unless they're forced to in space flight. Unless it's a outstanding pork like the SLS rocket. Cost-plus contracts is not going to cut it.

Edited December 24, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Congratulations on defending the billionaire class from their evil oppressors. I am sure they will be along any moment to pat you on the head and reward you for your loyalty.

Any second now………….

Very soon………..

They have. My retirement porfolio has benefited from their success. My career exists because of their success. My access to medical equipment exists because of their success. Two hospitals in my region were built because of donations from a local billionair. I have supplemental income thanks to Amazon, youtube, Facebook and other services created by the super rich. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 12/22/2021 at 1:33 PM, The Nehor said:

The way to grow an economy is to put money into the hands of those who will spend it and circulate the money. This means you need a lot of it going to those on the lower end of the income scale.

The classical definition of inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods." Putting money in the hands of people who will spend and circulate it without increasing the amount of goods and services for those people to spend that money on will lead, not to a growing economy, but to a devalued dollar.

While SOME amount of redistributive justice may be morally required (I'm not opining one way or the other on this thread), it needs to be balanced out with money that goes towards creating, producing, and making the goods and services that the redistributed money can then chase without overheating the economy.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how an economy produces an abundance of goods and services without creating an upper-upper class.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am close to retirement. I have saved all my life and currently have more money saved than I ever thought possible. My financial advisor has told me I have enough to live comfortably for the rest of my life.

I know there are those in need out there.

Do I try and help those less fortunate than me and risk my future or?

I think I mentioned earlier that I live comfortably and our household income is higher than most in the US, though most wouldn’t think us super wealthy in the US either. We likewise are saving towards retirement. We save for other things as well, like vacations. 
 

I don’t know the perfect answer to what society should be like in terms of monetary means. I think it needs to more focus on where our heart is. So basically if it became necessary or we were asked by god to give a substantial part of said nest egg away, would we? Are we serving god and living to the responsibility/privilege that being monetarily comfortable brings (IMHO)? Are we helping others with less also find comfort and stability?  

Like most commandments, I sincerely doubt I’m living it perfectly. Nor that I have a clear picture of what that should look like on the large scale. But it doesn’t make it less important to strive for in my life. 
 

with luv,

BD 

Edited December 24, 2021 by BlueDreams

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It's the start of colonizing the solar system and then the stars. If we wait for the government China will beat us to all of those resources. 

Star Trek is science fiction and nobody has the finances to support these adventures.  Unless we can find propulsion systems that can make space ships travel near the speed of light or above, we are not ever going to colonize the stars.  The distances are too great even for any space ship traveling a million miles per hour.