|
|
 |
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
There Is No
Such Thing as Greed
By Jana Kolling
A lot of things separate our political parties, but the most noticeable
is economics. One side believes the government is the answer, the
other thinks businesses can do better. Public versus
private. And to prove their point, the left will always point to
corporate greed. This is how they try to persuade voters that
they care about them, and will protect them from evil executives.
Being called greedy is a serious accusation, but what exactly is it?
Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or
possess more than what one deserves or needs.
Sound simple enough to understand? No, because now I need
to define “deserve” and “need.”
Deserve: To have
earned because of some act or quality. To be worthy of.
Need: Something
a person must have or do in order to live, succeed or be happy.
Is this enough information to conclude what greed is? Wait, I
just mentioned “enough.”
Enough:
Occurring in such quantity/quality or scope to fully meet demands,
needs or expectations.
Clearly, these definitions have no quantitative specifics. What I
need and deserve is different than the Kardashians. And what is
enough for a bank teller is not enough for LeBron James. I didn’t
define “happy,” but obviously what makes you happy will differ from
someone living in war-torn Syria. And while some examples 95% of
us would agree there is greed, most are filled with subjectivity and
opinion.
An easy one would be Imelda Marcos’ 3000 pairs of shoes. 95% of
us would agree she doesn’t need or deserve them, especially with her
people in poverty. But what if LeBron James had 3000 pairs of
shoes? His talent allowed him to earn them, but the need is
questionable. And with so many in Cleveland being poor, couldn’t
he use that money to help them instead?
And what if someone with nothing decided to work two jobs, start a
business and become rich? Clearly he earned and deserves it, but
if he gives nothing to charity is he greedy? What if he helps build
homes for the needy instead of giving money?
I think you get my point, greed is determined by many factors, so let’s
keep going.
Koch Brothers are criticized by the left, being called “un-American” by
Harry Reid and “famously evil” by Tom Steyer. But the Koch’s have
given hundreds of millions of dollars to hospitals, museums and
theatres. Was it not enough? Chuck Collins said that it
might seem generous, but it reduces their taxable income. Hold
that thought.
The definition of greed didn’t mention charitable giving, but “need”
and “deserve” implies that fairness be considered. Since 1987,
the Walton family has given over $5 billion to charities. But
when compared to other billionaires, Walmart 1 Percent said they were
“far less generous.”
The definition of greed also didn’t mention intent, so should it
count? Good Will is an asset on balance sheets, so every time a
company does good they expect a return on investment. And to be
sure, when Hollywood activists are doing good in the Sudan the cameras
are usually rolling.
Politicians likewise know that generosity is good for votes, and we
usually see their charitable giving go up right before elections.
For example, Obama gave 1% to charity in 2000, .5% in 2001, .4% in
2002, 1.4% in 2003 and 1.2% in 2004. Then in 2005 it jumps to
4.7% and 6.1% in 2006. Of course he wanted to look better heading
into an election, as do other politicians. It’s the same as Good
Will on a corporate balance sheet or Brad Pitt being pictured with
starving children. They want something in return for their
generosity, but as long as they are giving does it matter? The
answer is maybe.
Let’s go back to “deserve” and discuss the left’s obsession with Donald
Trump’s money. In 1982, after running his dad’s business for
eight years, his net worth was $200 million. With his current net
worth being somewhere around $5 billion, liberals have debated whether
or not he did anything at all to grow this.
The National Journal looked at how much Trump had in 1982, and figured
a starting point of $40 million for 1974. Taking into account the
stock market, dividend reinvestment, and what they “think” he got from
his dad, they concluded he would be worth $4 billion today. In
other words, anyone would have been worth $4 billion today in his shoes
whether they did anything or not. Now we’re back to “earn.”
Should we assume that anyone with $200 million in 1982 would let it
invest properly, not spend it, sell the company and wait for it to
reach $5 billion in 2016? And if it were that easy, why go
through the hassle of stressful business dealings and work for 34
years? Many a lottery winner and retired athletes have gone
bankrupt after burning through their millions, just saying.
Now let’s discuss a man the left does not call greedy. He’s worth
$25 billion, and is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England"
because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, making him
a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency
crisis. He believes people should pay more taxes, but has made
millions by delaying them. Known as “deferrals,” George Soros
made $13.3 billion with this loophole. Keep reading……
Congress closed this loophole in 2008 and ordered hedge fund managers
to pay the taxes by 2017. This is a tax bill of $6.7 billion for
Soros to pay next year. However, just before the law went into
effect Soros transferred assets to Ireland. His lawyer said, “No
person has a constitutional obligation to pay any more taxes than he is
required to pay….if he couldn’t legally do it he wouldn’t.” Soros
gave $8 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and I’ve never heard her
or Reid call him greedy.
And so, what is greed? It depends doesn’t it, on a lot of
things, including:
How much do you have? How’d you get it? How much do you
donate? Who do you donate to? How much tax do you pay? Do you have good
intentions? How hard do you work? How much do you need? Do
you deserve that much? Who do you vote for?
Greed is in the eye of the beholder based on subjective and emotional
criteria. One person is dodging tax by giving to charity, while
another is cheap by not giving to charity. Biden says paying tax is
patriotic, while his party’s largest donor dodged them. Hillary
slams Wall Street, while making millions off of big bank speeches and
donations. And for some reason they support her over Trump; I
think Bernie mentioned that.
The election is coming, and we’re hearing about “greedy” people
again. But make no mistake, when a politician calls someone
greedy, it’s only because they’re on the wrong team. It’s class
warfare and situational ethics, plain and simple. Because my
friends, as you can see, greed cannot be defined and therefore does not
exist.
|
|
|
|
