|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jul 2 2014, 3:08am
Post #76 of 89
(1004 views)
Shortcut
|
I freely admit that, even with that, politics since the mid 20th century bore me more than interest me 
Which is why it's nice to have an imaginary world such as Middle-earth to fall back on when the current one frustrates me 
(This post was edited by Cirashala on Jul 2 2014, 3:09am)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jul 2 2014, 4:21am
Post #78 of 89
(1013 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It really depends on how the person got rich, and how money is viewed by them
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Money is amoral- it is without morals. The issue in which money lies is not WHAT it is, but how it's used by those who have it in their hands.
For instance, some people who are wealthy give a great deal to others, and take delight in the giving. Others are very tight fisted, like the old adage "duck mcscrooge", or like our beloved resident dragon  , and refuse to part with a single coin once it's in their possession.
The difference between these two archetypes is how they view the money/wealth that they have. One does not let money rule them, nor do they fear the loss of it. The second not only fears it, but relishes it (one could even quite honestly say worships it if they truly are like Smaug in their heart).
It's not being wealthy that reduces compassion in and of itself- it's the heart behind it that rules that. Greed is sadly all too common, no matter how much money someone has. It only garners far more attention when someone happens to be greedy AND has a lot of it. And I know this from personal experience- my family was quite poor growing up, and yet my father was especially greedy and snobbish.
So the thing I would question about this research is the level of bias in the selection process. If one were to analyze ONLY rich people and their charity contribution, then yes undoubtedly the results would yield more greed than not- if someone were greedy and money wise, undoubtedly they'd have more of it.
But if someone were to pool a wide variety of people from all income sources, I bet we'd be surprised at just how greedy some people can be no matter their income.
For instance, if someone receives food stamps for their children, and sells them to obtain drugs, isn't that greedy? (I had a college classmate whose parents did this). If someone refuses to part with a single dollar because they want a new smartphone and that's the only way they can afford one, is that greedy? If someone stuffs a hundred bucks in a mattress because they don't want to part from it, yet gives nothing to anyone else who might need it, is that greedy? If someone gets a child support check meant to take care of their kid and goes "Yay I get to buy new shoes for me!" is that greedy (yes, only that person WAS my classmate, not the classmate's parents, sadly- and we are no longer friends). If someone throws away things a charity may be able to sell at the dump, rather than taking the time to take their used (sometimes twice used) things to the thrift store donation box- is that greedy? Though to be fair that last one may also speak of laziness too....
How is that any different from a billionaire who refuses to donate to charity? No matter if it's pennies or thousands of dollars, it's still very possible to be greedy and poor. Therefore studies like this are skewed, IMO, because they only focus on the rich, rather than the greed that happens every day across all social classes. 
At each circumstance, the issue lies with the heart of the person who has the money/stamps/child support check/billions, not the money (or used donatable things) that they possess.
Because of this, I have a hard time hearing when only the rich are accused of being heartless with their money, as though its a crime against humanity to be rich Having money isn't a crime- it's what you do with it that determines that.
(This post was edited by Cirashala on Jul 2 2014, 4:29am)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 2 2014, 7:59am
Post #79 of 89
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
According to this study, wealthy people who live in wealthy neighborhoods are far less likely to give than those who live where they're in contact with the poor.
But, overall, although wealthy people give more than the less affluent, middle class people give a higher percentage of their income, according to this study:
Middle-class Americans give a far bigger share of their discretionary income to charities than the rich. Households that earn $50,000 to $75,000 give an average of 7.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity, compared with an average of 4.2 percent for people who make $100,000 or more.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jul 2 2014, 5:10pm
Post #80 of 89
(993 views)
Shortcut
|
because it spans more than one social class and gauges by income percentage, as opposed to total amount 
I would agree- people who live in wealthy neighborhoods would likely give less, because luxurious houses can speak toward a more self centered attitude, whereas people who are wealthy but have their heart in the right place are more likely to live in only what they need, rather than excessively.
My uncle used to work in the public library before he retired, and every month, once a month he would get an elderly lady in and he would help her check her bank account online and pay her bills. So obviously he could see quite clearly how wealthy she was (very, very wealthy) and he asked her once why she didn't have a computer at home. She said very simplistically, "If this is all I use one for, why would I need a computer?"
I think how luxurious a person's home is can also be a testament of whether or not they're content with what they've been given, and if they're willing to give or think of "me first". I would be willing to bet the lady mentioned above also didn't have a ridiculously grand house if she was very practical regarding a computer- far less expensive than a house!
It's tough and tempting when you have money to keep it or give- no matter how much you have. Greed is an inherent human fault, and one that nearly everyone has experienced at some point or another in their lives. It's whether or not they choose to overcome it and try to give that makes a difference
I can only hope that more who are blessed with extra will choose to give to those who are less fortunate than themselves.
I can
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Jul 2 2014, 11:15pm
Post #81 of 89
(992 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People often misquote the Bible.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What it actually says is, "the love of money is the root of all evil." (emphasis added by me)
There's nothing wrong with having money, but does money have you?
I have no problem with anyone earning any amount of money. But when someone gets money by taking advantage of others, that's what I object to. And we see that all too often with CEO's collecting millions in "bonuses" while their companies go bankrupt and their employees can't pay the bills.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jul 3 2014, 3:06am
Post #82 of 89
(983 views)
Shortcut
|
That's my attitude as well- have you ever heard of Dave Ramsey by any chance? Because he puts the emphasis in the exact same spot you did in his financial peace university (which we did)
I don't like the people like that either. It's sad that it's all too common
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Jul 3 2014, 4:37am
Post #83 of 89
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
but I've heard lots of positive things about it. Every time it's been offered, I had a schedule conflict, and I am reasonably peaceful with my finances anyway.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Jul 3 2014, 4:43am
Post #84 of 89
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We couldn't make it to a class either due to Elciryamo's work schedule (my hubby)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so we took their online course Didn't make it to the end before time ran out, so we bought the Total Money Makeover book, which is like FPU but more condensed.
That's all good- I was just curious given your emphasis in that verse
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Jul 3 2014, 7:07pm
Post #85 of 89
(971 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the metaphor that money is like blood. You need it to survive, but it only works if it's kept flowing. it will kill you if it stagnates.
(This post was edited by Annael on Jul 3 2014, 7:09pm)
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Jul 4 2014, 4:43pm
Post #86 of 89
(964 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Pew Research center identifies 7 different political groups in the US
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Look it up for yourself if you're interested. Point is, our current parties represent only a small minority of Americans really.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jul 4 2014, 11:36pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jul 5 2014, 12:08am
Post #87 of 89
(966 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I found the link and took the quiz: I'm a Young Outsider
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Or, should I say, I'm an old, Young Outsider.  Link to article: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
Actually, I took the quiz twice and came out as a Young Outsider once and a Business Conservative once. They both fit me pretty well.
Very interesting, nonpartisan article. Thanks!
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 6 2014, 2:05pm
Post #88 of 89
(927 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That is one of the interesting points...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... the USA though having a higher variety of political views among its citizen has a system that leads to a two party system. While other countries such as Germany end up with 3-5 parties in parliament with coalitions often trying to demonstrate efficiency. A lot of fundamental American laws and also institutions imho suffer from being relics from the late 18th century.
There is an interesting article on Foreign Policy on that difference today.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jul 6 2014, 2:06pm)
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Jul 12 2014, 6:39pm
Post #89 of 89
(929 views)
Shortcut
|
There were several questions where I would have opted for something "in between."
|
|
|
|
|
