What's life like with 100K/year or more?

[Running_Man]

Quote:

But it's not the same as if you saved and invested that $60K/yr. It is not the same at all. That's the point here. It is as easy to squander (or at least spend inefficiently) your charity dollars as it is to squander money on yourself. You still have to think about short-term vs long-term impact and implications of your charity spending. And once money is given to charity cause, it is not available for the next important cause you find worthy. One option, for example, is to invest most of that $60K/yr but leave a large donation to one or more charity groups when you die. Is that more or less effective than handing out 6000 $10 bills to homeless people on the street each year?

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by theronware "a seeming need to take a swipe at the US" 3 years to go -- Of course your next move was going to be to suggest that I'm anti-American. That is the time-honored way to shut down anything that might turn into constructive criticism and lead to change. Sorry, but the U.S. hasn't gotten everything perfect and it does have things to learn from other societies. Other countries do things better than us (and vica versa, obviously)-- one of the things we do badly here is to distribute wealth in an equitable way. Other capitalist cultures have much fairer (and happier) systems worked out. The study, not that it'll make any dent in your knee-jerk chauvanism, is found at: www.leftbusinessobserver.com/income-news.html theronware

And once again "I never qualified "capitalism" to mean anything other than "capitalism"."

BTW . . .the link is broken.

[Gone4Good]

theronware,

I think I was able to find the article you linked to to by searching LBO's site. The article seems to be a brief summary of an analysis published somewhere else, and not the analysis itself . . . which makes it hard to come to any firm conclusions. I still have the following criticism originally expressed above:

The working definition of poverty for LIS seems to be some % below the median income level for each country. So the bottom % of every society is considered impoverished, regardless of how wealthy that bottom group is. Therefore, in one country where every citizen struggles to afford food "poverty" is considered "low" but in another country where everyone has plenty to eat "poverty" is measured "high" because some folks drive Mercedes while others drive Hyundais. :

[Patrick]

Hey, people, can we get any more off topic??

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Hey, people, can we get any more off topic??

Topic? Sounds a little bit like topping. Which reminds me of ice cream. Ice cream is cold like a mountain stream. Where I would love to be kayaking right now.

What was your question again?

[theronware]

"3 years to go" -- The study uses several means of measuring poverty.

The first simply measures poverty as being "an income below half a country's median." Yes, this means that they think poverty is relative. To be poor in the Sudan is obviously different than being poor in the U.S.

Second, they also measure what they call the "poverty gap." This is a way of measuring how many people in a country are truly immiserated -- how much *below* the poverty line are they earning. The most commonly cited studies in the U.S. define poverty as a family of 4 living on less than 20k. This study simply says that you also need to know how much *less* than 20k most poor people make. Obviously it makes a difference if most poor families in a country make closer to 19.5k rather than to, say, 10k. This is the "poverty gap".

Patrick -- yes, sorry about getting off topic.

theronware

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa But whether you give time, expertise, physical labor, or money it is clear to me that it will take more than the government is interested or able to do in the face of our collective unfathomable wealth. Make your choice.

Well put Rich.

I love this board, obviously since I invest so much time with it. But, we (I include myself) are obviously inclined as a group towards selfishness and materialism. Those aren't always bad traits.......unless carried to extremes.

Death is is a fabulous leveler of the playing field. At that moment, we'll all know whether our hoarding or sharing was the right thing to do.

[sgeeeee]

Making a difference by giving time and money to causes you care about can be very rewarding. I find volunteering my time especially rewarding. DW and I put in several hundred hours a year as volunteers. Giving blood is another way to give something of yourself that we do regularly. Sometimes the only way to contribute to a cause you care about is to put a check in an envelope and mail it off. I find that necessary sometimes, but far less rewarding. I also know far less about the organizations I support with money than those I am able to volunteer for.

Three years ago my brother and his wife had a child born very premature. He required over $2M worth of medical attention over a period of over a year before they lost their struggle to keep him alive. Even after insurance, the cost was more than they could manage. I was very happy that I had the financial resources to help them in that struggle.

Charity is good for your soul, but it requires thought and planning if you want to do the most good . . . and get the most personal reward.

[Spanky]

sgeeeee,
Keep up the good deed.
Spanky

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee DW and I put in several hundred hours a year as volunteers. Giving blood is another way to give something of yourself that we do regularly. Sometimes the only way to contribute to a cause you care about is to put a check in an envelope and mail it off. Charity is good for your soul, but it requires thought and planning if you want to do the most good . . . and get the most personal reward.

Agreed, and we do all those things too. Perhaps a little less concern abut mailing checks and with the personal reward part........

I wonder where you do your volunteer work, if you care to share. DW spends 20+ hours per week working with learning-challenged minority/low income kids. Our oldest grandson is afflicted with cerebral palsey and I have engaged with him and Easter Seals ( a super organization if your checkbook is handy!) two days a week.

[astromeria]

I'm glad I do most of my monetary giving late in the year these days--I was able to make a better contribution to my brother's election campaign. Community-driven development as opposed to developer-driven community seems worth supporting to me, and I was glad to help.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Yeah...yeah...yeah.... There are a zillion reasons why hoarding every penny to yourself, despite being financially blessed, is the thing to do.

Warren Buffett managed to do both-- he gets to continue to grow the shares that he's donating to charity. If the charity sells too soon, it's their fault!

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Warren Buffett managed to do both-- he gets to continue to grow the shares that he's donating to charity. If the charity sells too soon, it's their fault!

I'd look at it another way Nords.

Warren is contributing two things:
1. The money.
2. His, and his team's, money management skills.

But I think he really has given up ownership of the money. I suppose only his tax accountant will know for sure!

[Sam]

Don't forget my heroes, Bill and Melinda, and Dr. Wang.