Why people may not help you!

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

If it wasn't for people with more cash to spend than I ever had, I'd have been unemployed all my life.
As it happens I've been employed over 50 years.

Some of the rich are absolute #@$$#@ but still have to employ people and pay VAT even if they avoid income tax. (The Pharoahs etc excepted.)
The "trickle down effect" is true - it just pisses people off that they have to work for it while some don't.

I have never resented the rich that provide jobs. Sometimes I wish I was as smart as them. I've provided some jobs but wish I could have provided more. I'm just not a genius. Labor is the biggest expense in any business.

I do resent those that run a businesses into the ground for personal gain.
Some times it seems it is boo hoo I don't make what he does. Guess you and I are not that smart or have the foresight or willing to take the risk?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

If it wasn't for people with more cash to spend than I ever had, I'd have been unemployed all my life.
As it happens I've been employed over 50 years.

Some of the rich are absolute #@$$#@ but still have to employ people and pay VAT even if they avoid income tax. (The Pharoahs etc excepted.)
The "trickle down effect" is true - it just pisses people off that they have to work for it while some don't.

This reminds me of when I was going through my MIG & TIG period.. was working piecework in this factory and I was pretty quick.. in fact the quickest welder there..
Anyway.. I decided on how much I was happy with per week and calculated how many pieces would be necessary.. so I worked to that number and by Thursday lunchtime I was done.. so I clocked out and went home.. long weekend till Monday morning..
So.. after 3 weeks of this I get called into the office and told I owe them 4 and a half days pay.. no way could/would they see the logic.. or accept the fact.. they deducted the money and I gave 2 weeks notice..
I don't mind working.. but I do object to folk taking the pi$$

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

The "trickle down effect" is true - it just pisses people off that they have to work for it while some don't.

You guys missed the main point. It only trickles down through employment and VAT. Donations from the rich are insignificant compared to employment opportunities they offer. Look at Elton, he spends billions on dress makers and designers. Ellison spends it on yachties.

Maybe you missed it because you treat all work as play

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by rognvald

"After all, all the "great" men of the industrial era were know to be kind, right? You know Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc?" A64Pilot


Pilot,
The charitable trusts founded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations continue to give today(almost 100 years later) to fund advances/research in the Sciences, Arts and Humanities much as the wealthy Medici Bankers in Florence, Italy helped fund those same arenas which fueled Europe's Renaissance. Good luck and safe sailing.

I can't help but wonder if the tax deductibility of the trusts were the major motivation, a la Donald T.

[senormechanico]

I can't help but wonder if the tax deductibility of the trusts were the major motivation, a la Donald T. And The Clinton Foundation.

fixed it for you...

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

I can't help but wonder if the tax deductibility of the trusts were the major motivation, a la Donald T.

Those tax deductions were created by representatives of the people to help others. They felt the private sector could set up systems that would improve the lives of others. What's wrong with that? In fact, the average life span today is nearly twice what it was in the days of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Their charitable trusts have been a major factor in that achievement. So who cares whether they got a tax break or not? My 87 year old father sure doesn't.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Those tax deductions were created by representatives of the people to help others. They felt the private sector could set up systems that would improve the lives of others. What's wrong with that? In fact, the average life span today is nearly twice what it was in the days of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Their charitable trusts have been a major factor in that achievement. So who cares whether they got a tax break or not? My 87 year old father sure doesn't.

Understand completely and tend to agree, but don't confuse this with philanthropy, it's actually tax minimization.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sorry, but I keep going back to actual research. Anecdotes are useful, but really only shows than in human behaviour, nothing is 100%.

Here’s a TED talk from one of the leading researchers in this area. You can skip the first five minutes b/c it just cutsey anecdotal stuff. But at about 5:15 he actually addresses the growing mountain of research on this top, which shows a clear causal relationship between wealth and empathy towards the other.

Paul Piff: Does money make you mean? | TED Talk | TED.com

At around 10:00 he connects some of the dots, making it clear this is not some deterministic concept of humanity — we all exhibit the this tug of war between self interest and group interest. Wealth pushes us in a certain direction, just as being shown a video of poor people pushes us in another. This is not a conservative/liberal thing. Politics don’t seem to factor into it.

By 10:45 he goes on to discuss the broader social implications of this effect, which I know all you who are quick to toss the “class warfare” accusation will simply dismiss. That’s OK. You can stop the videos here. The simple thing I’m pointing out is there IS a large and growing body of research that shows this tendency of wealth leading to lower empathy levels. Not 100%. Not for everyone. Not all the time. But a real and quantifiably measurable effect. It seems to be part of who we are as social animals.

You can ignore it or dismiss it, but given how easily influenceable we are, and given that we are all (at least most of us) “wealthy” by national and certainly international standards, I think it’s at least something all of us should consider.

BTW, the effect of in-group empathy is well understood and known. In the extreme case it is how militaries can convince people (us) to kill other people (them). It easily explains why most boaters help other boaters, regardless of wealth or other factors. Boaters are our in-group. Reciprocity and group empathy is at work here.

Hi Mike
Thanks for the TED link which I normally really enjoy.... But I thought this one was seriously flawed.

A lot of self fulfilling prophecies and already biased conclusions based on the opinion of the speaker.....
Was the Bus driver wealthy?
Leaders in a variety of competition(sports, talent, engineering etc..) often exhibit the same bold, confident traits described in the monopoly game winners .
In other words....Generalised opinions of selected in-groups often creates 'Piffle'.

Whether Rich or Poor, INDIVIDUALS exhibit the same spectrum of ethics based on their own personal choice of what is morally acceptable.

Poor thieves or Poor saints have the same mindset as their Wealthy counterparts.

Who are the very Wealthy today?

The majority are self made, hard working who came from relatively poor communities.

I have worked and consulted closely with Billionaires and their families over the years and could never generalise

Except, as I said before, their charities will be more focused on empowering the recipient , rather than just unconditional gifts.

The Charity Foundations they sponsor are usually specific in benefiting people (scholarships) or international trades(FDI) that are of personal meaning and interest to them. They get very involved in making it a self sustaining success.

These Wealthy have the confidence to think outside the box and if their Foundations use legal tax incentives to help fund.... Why is that different from any other tax payer who claims charity contributions?

It is far too easy for some to wave that Socialist Sword around, cutting down the Good with the Bad, while the parasitic weeds of the 'entitled' clog up breathing room for our future talent.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

It is far too easy for some to wave that Socialist Sword around, cutting down the Good with the Bad, while the parasitic weeds of the 'entitled' clog up breathing room for our future talent.

Nice punch-line

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Nice punch-line

Thanks...it seemed to go well with my meatloaf sandwich!

[daletournier]

These conversations are always interesting and generally biased on both sides although unintentionally.

So when are you rich? When you have half a million, one million, 5million? When (wealth wise)do you start not being not as community minded or snobby or how ever you want to put it?

Im probably richer than quite a few that contribute here and certainly poorer than the other quite a few ,and my attitude has changed as ive accumulated more wealth, is this due to more money or more experience with people? Do people that have worked very hard and succeeded get tainted (or wise up) due the constant carrying of others, or complaints of employees etc etc?

Not all, but in my experience a large number of my friends that have become wealthy (relative term) have tried quite hard and taken advantage of their opportunities, others that were in the same place and time chose not to take action and passed up opportunities because of the effort and risk involved, some of the latter carry a chip on their shoulder.

When I started in business 20 years ago I had no car and cleaned the business toilets myself everyday. As my business grew I purchased a immaculate old Porsche, I soon realised some liked the toilet cleaner better than the porsche driver...lol.

My parents and friends have cautioned me over the years at times for being a little to generous and ive come to realize they were probably right,sometimes its hard to distinguish when your giving or being taken from! I certainly are more discerning in life regarding helping and generousity today.

Whether we like it or not there are "lifters and leaners" in this world and a leaner always finds a lifter. The trick is to distinguish between the two. There has been several occasions where ive almost seriously injured myself trying to help someone that has got themselves in that situation due to laziness, lack of forsight and sheer stupidity, I now avoid these people.
Helping and giving can be a joyous part of life BUT "no good deed goes unpunished "also has some truth to it at times.

Should we help, give and be generous? absolutely BUT my energy and resources are finite, im much more selective today rather than the guy that used to just jump straight in.

One other point I'd like to make, in my opinion the poorer part of society in Australia cannot be compared to the likes of people in villages in places such as the Philippines etc, its a totally different class as far as im concerned. The latter arent necessarily poor, they just have less money.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[tkeithlu]

And what do you think this forum is all about?------ helping each other. I've helped a few here and been helped a bunch. Thanks, guys and gals. Remember that the classic helping situation is when a small effort on the part of the helper makes a big difference to the helpee. You can change a tire in 7 minutes and be on your way; the helpee doesn't know how to do it and is big time stuck in nowhere without help. Sure it varies with the culture, but if you lived in a desert do you think you might have a cultural norm of hospitality to anyone who wanders in?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by daletournier

These conversations are always interesting and generally biased on both sides although unintentionally.

Good post Dale and as I first said in my Post 4....I help others for admittedly selfish reasons.

Living in the Philippines, I know exactly what you mean.

While we tend to generalize too much, in my philosophical discussions with the Billionaires I've worked for.... they are selective in whom they help in substantial ways.

For them, it is never about the money, but the stress if they got emotionally vested in a Charity that was a scam or mismanaged.

On a Corporate level, their CE officers know that they can budget Charitable contributions for PR and Marketing purposes.

However individually, just like the guy changing a tire, it is a personal gesture to someone (or something) they emotionally connect with.

Very personal and measured.

[tkeithlu]

Amen, Steve Bean and Ann Cate. I get the giggles from little anonymous assists.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Mike
Thanks for the TED link which I normally really enjoy.... But I thought this one was seriously flawed.

I encourage you to look at the actual research. The TED talk was ripe with factors you rightly criticize, and I hesitated to link to it b/c of that. It was a 15 minute summary of an extensive line of research which he references at the time marks I indicated. Since my efforts to provide written research seems to fall on deaf ears, I thought this was a different way to get people to look at the topic. The actual research tries to include and account for the issues you raise (and many, many more).

My socialist sword is safely sheathed. This is not about … well, I don’t really know what you mean by that statement . I’m trying to point out a factor of human behaviour which researchers have identified in repeated experiments. Like so much of this research, it is revealing things about human nature which appears to contradict the common wisdom, which is why I find it so interesting. The whole “predictably irrational” line of research is revealing plenty about who we actually are — as opposed to who we think we are.

From my rather extensive reading in this exploding area of human behavioural research, this relationship to wealth and compassion appears to be quite a robust experimental finding. I would be very interested to read credible research which shows different results of these kinds of human behavioural questions.