"...not good for the man to be alone."

I have been thinking about the income inequality issues, both gender income differences and class warfare issues, and scouting around for some data.  Somebody did a study that suggested income inequality is much less extreme on an individual income basis than on a household income basis.  In other words, if all the historical data were adjusted to remove the effects on household incomes of multiple incomes per household, the inequality reported today would be less extreme.  That study included a chart, copied below, showing the rise in single person households from about 13% of total households in 1960 to about 27% of households in 2011, suggesting that low income single person households have worsened household income inequality.  Clearly two persons in a household, each earning a relatively low $20,000 per year, can live much more comfortably, assuming some basic compatibility, together than separately and are going to report a respectable household income based on two meager individual incomes.  Teamwork has its benefits.  I guess that rise in single person households indicates that we are getting lonelier and more selfish.  Thank goodness for Facebook and the “friends” it provides.

While searching the Census Bureau website for data to reproduce the above chart I found a nice spreadsheet that provides a breakdown in household types for various income categories for both men and women.  I thought that might provide some insight to the gender income inequality issue. An interesting pattern I observed in the data is that, for men, income is highly correlated with one of the household types, "Married, Spouse Present." The other household types included in the data are "Married Spouse Absent," "Widowed," "Divorced," "Separated," and "Never Married."  Men in the highest income category, more than $100k per year, are twice as likely to be Married with spouse present, 80%, than men with incomes of $15k per year or less.  And the percent Married, spouse present, increases steadily with rising income.  Click on the chart to read the fine print more easily.

It is interesting that the same relationship between marital status and income is not present for women.  At the low end of the income scale and at the high end, 60% to 70% of the women are Married with Spouse Present.  That percentage dips a bit to the mid fifties at the middle income range, but there is no overall trend in the data.

I suppose there are several possible explanations for these relationships:

1. Men with good incomes have a hard time staying single.
2. Men with good incomes have an easier time staying married…or a harder time getting divorced.
3. Married men, spouse present, spend more time on their professions and therefore earn more because of either
• Pressure to provide for their spouses and children, or
• Need to get out of the house more, or
• A more disciplined life style, or
• A supportive spouse who advances their careers.
4. And, perhaps women tend to be more independent and self sufficient and less subject to any of these influences. 

Recognizing there may be a bit of truth in all of items 1 – 4, I am going to suggest, based on personal experience that the primary reason may be found in Genesis 2:18 – It is not good for the man to be alone.  It is hard telling where I would be today without my lovely wife of 48 years to keep an eye on me and help me out.  I'd probably be living in a cabin in the Maine woods or in a South Carolina Low Country swamp.

I have not been able, yet, to solve the gender income inequality problem, but I think part of the answer to that may be found in Luke 12:15 – For a man's (or woman’s) life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he (or she) possesseth. ( I used the King James Version because this is kind of an old fashioned concept.) It just may be that women, on average, are slightly better than men at recognizing this truth and are therefore a bit less likely to dedicate themselves to pursuit of the almighty dollar and make the sacrifices required for income maximization.  I'm not saying anything here about any individual men or women but just commenting on possible differences in the means.  Just the same as in the case of Red States and Blue States, there is about as much variation within genders as between genders, so don't ever make the mistake of prejudging ones greed or ambition based on gender.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

"...not good for the man to be alone."

I have been thinking about the income inequality issues, both gender income differences and class warfare issues, and scouting around for some data.  Somebody did a study that suggested income inequality is much less extreme on an individual income basis than on a household income basis.  In other words, if all the historical data were adjusted to remove the effects on household incomes of multiple incomes per household, the inequality reported today would be less extreme.  That study included a chart, copied below, showing the rise in single person households from about 13% of total households in 1960 to about 27% of households in 2011, suggesting that low income single person households have worsened household income inequality.  Clearly two persons in a household, each earning a relatively low $20,000 per year, can live much more comfortably, assuming some basic compatibility, together than separately and are going to report a respectable household income based on two meager individual incomes.  Teamwork has its benefits.  I guess that rise in single person households indicates that we are getting lonelier and more selfish.  Thank goodness for Facebook and the “friends” it provides.

While searching the Census Bureau website for data to reproduce the above chart I found a nice spreadsheet that provides a breakdown in household types for various income categories for both men and women.  I thought that might provide some insight to the gender income inequality issue. An interesting pattern I observed in the data is that, for men, income is highly correlated with one of the household types, "Married, Spouse Present." The other household types included in the data are "Married Spouse Absent," "Widowed," "Divorced," "Separated," and "Never Married."  Men in the highest income category, more than $100k per year, are twice as likely to be Married with spouse present, 80%, than men with incomes of $15k per year or less.  And the percent Married, spouse present, increases steadily with rising income.  Click on the chart to read the fine print more easily.

It is interesting that the same relationship between marital status and income is not present for women.  At the low end of the income scale and at the high end, 60% to 70% of the women are Married with Spouse Present.  That percentage dips a bit to the mid fifties at the middle income range, but there is no overall trend in the data.

I suppose there are several possible explanations for these relationships:

1. Men with good incomes have a hard time staying single.
2. Men with good incomes have an easier time staying married…or a harder time getting divorced.
3. Married men, spouse present, spend more time on their professions and therefore earn more because of either
• Pressure to provide for their spouses and children, or
• Need to get out of the house more, or
• A more disciplined life style, or
• A supportive spouse who advances their careers.
4. And, perhaps women tend to be more independent and self sufficient and less subject to any of these influences. 

Recognizing there may be a bit of truth in all of items 1 – 4, I am going to suggest, based on personal experience that the primary reason may be found in Genesis 2:18 – It is not good for the man to be alone.  It is hard telling where I would be today without my lovely wife of 48 years to keep an eye on me and help me out.  I'd probably be living in a cabin in the Maine woods or in a South Carolina Low Country swamp.

I have not been able, yet, to solve the gender income inequality problem, but I think part of the answer to that may be found in Luke 12:15 – For a man's (or woman’s) life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he (or she) possesseth. ( I used the King James Version because this is kind of an old fashioned concept.) It just may be that women, on average, are slightly better than men at recognizing this truth and are therefore a bit less likely to dedicate themselves to pursuit of the almighty dollar and make the sacrifices required for income maximization.  I'm not saying anything here about any individual men or women but just commenting on possible differences in the means.  Just the same as in the case of Red States and Blue States, there is about as much variation within genders as between genders, so don't ever make the mistake of prejudging ones greed or ambition based on gender.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

The (Holy) Bible and (Christian) Theology

Listening to the Gospel reading this morning from Mark 10 about the young man who went away sad after Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor inspired some reflection on the difficulties we have understanding scripture and formulating a cohesive theology from it.  A couple of things I learned in three years of seminary training are that there is a difference between Bible study and Theology study and that either, carelessly done, can easily lead to questionable conclusions.

Study of the Bible, a compilation of writings of various genres produced over a period of a thousand years or so and covering a much longer time has to be done text by text.  In other words, if one desires to study a selection from the Gospel of John, one must focus on the earliest possible version of that text, and that text alone, in the original language, paying close attention to several factors:

1. Genre, form, and structure of the text.
2. Literary context: What comes before and after and why?
3. Historical and cultural context.
4. Key words and phrases and their meanings at the time of writing.
5. Translation difficulties and uncertainties.
6. Writer and audience identification, purpose of the writer and meaning to the audience.
7. And, for persons of faith, what the application today is.

(One who wants to undertake such a study shouldn't worry too much about that original language thing because there are excellent commentaries which thoroughly explore the translation issues and many versions of the Bible which lay out various translation options.)

It is failure to follow such a Bible study regimen that leads to theological errors such as applying Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Him…,” to personal and self serving accomplishment, seeing St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians 9 comparison of the spiritual life to that of an athlete as an endorsement of success for ones football team, or understanding the Leviticus sexual code as a good guide for behavior and punishment in the 21st century.  Sloppy Bible study tends to lead to emphasis on the Great Commission at the expense of The Greatest Commandments, or vice versa, focus on faith at the expense of works, or vice versa, and focus on the bye and bye at the expense of the here and how, or vice versa.  It almost always misses the big picture, the forest, due to excessive focus on the details, the trees, or weeds.

Theology, on the other hand, still uses but de-emphasizes the details of a particular text and, for Christians, seeks to identify broad themes running through the whole of Scripture.  What can we learn from The Holy Bible about God, creation, the universe, and humankind, about good and evil, about life and death and living and dying, about salvation and condemnation?  Are we to subscribe to a theology of prosperity or one of poverty, chastity and obedience, to a theology of just “me and Jesus,” or a theology of the Church as the Body of Christ, each of us members of it, to a theology of social justice and liberation or a theology of personal generosity and service?  Should our theology be one of “Focus on the Family,” or of focus on The Family of God?  Shall we depend on good works, or on our personal faith, or on the faithfulness of God?

Without informed guidance and prayerful study, even with a serious attempt to focus on the big picture, the forest, our theologies can easily be skewed in  wrong or overly simplistic directions by possibly well-meaning but misguided smooth talkers making logical or emotional appeals.  There are plenty of examples of that in recent history as outlined in Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion which I wrote about a few weeks ago.

Sometimes we mistakenly (Romans 12:2) look to societal trends to help us understand and tinker with our theologies.  But, with some scriptural support (1 Timothy 3:15) serious Christians often depend on the Church to interpret or help interpret the scriptures and keep us on a sound theological basis.

And, we sometimes find that the surprising answer from the Church to a difficult either-or theological issue is not one or the other but both-and.

Here is a definition that links Christian theology and Bible study and includes the role of The Church.

Tweet Follow @dkw2020

The (Holy) Bible and (Christian) Theology

Listening to the Gospel reading this morning from Mark 10 about the young man who went away sad after Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor inspired some reflection on the difficulties we have understanding scripture and formulating a cohesive theology from it.  A couple of things I learned in three years of seminary training are that there is a difference between Bible study and Theology study and that either, carelessly done, can easily lead to questionable conclusions.

Study of the Bible, a compilation of writings of various genres produced over a period of a thousand years or so and covering a much longer time has to be done text by text.  In other words, if one desires to study a selection from the Gospel of John, one must focus on the earliest possible version of that text, and that text alone, in the original language, paying close attention to several factors:

1. Genre, form, and structure of the text.
2. Literary context: What comes before and after and why?
3. Historical and cultural context.
4. Key words and phrases and their meanings at the time of writing.
5. Translation difficulties and uncertainties.
6. Writer and audience identification, purpose of the writer and meaning to the audience.
7. And, for persons of faith, what the application today is.

(One who wants to undertake such a study shouldn't worry too much about that original language thing because there are excellent commentaries which thoroughly explore the translation issues and many versions of the Bible which lay out various translation options.)

It is failure to follow such a Bible study regimen that leads to theological errors such as applying Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Him…,” to personal and self serving accomplishment, seeing St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians 9 comparison of the spiritual life to that of an athlete as an endorsement of success for ones football team, or understanding the Leviticus sexual code as a good guide for behavior and punishment in the 21st century.  Sloppy Bible study tends to lead to emphasis on the Great Commission at the expense of The Greatest Commandments, or vice versa, focus on faith at the expense of works, or vice versa, and focus on the bye and bye at the expense of the here and how, or vice versa.  It almost always misses the big picture, the forest, due to excessive focus on the details, the trees, or weeds.

Theology, on the other hand, still uses but de-emphasizes the details of a particular text and, for Christians, seeks to identify broad themes running through the whole of Scripture.  What can we learn from The Holy Bible about God, creation, the universe, and humankind, about good and evil, about life and death and living and dying, about salvation and condemnation?  Are we to subscribe to a theology of prosperity or one of poverty, chastity and obedience, to a theology of just “me and Jesus,” or a theology of the Church as the Body of Christ, each of us members of it, to a theology of social justice and liberation or a theology of personal generosity and service?  Should our theology be one of “Focus on the Family,” or of focus on The Family of God?  Shall we depend on good works, or on our personal faith, or on the faithfulness of God?

Without informed guidance and prayerful study, even with a serious attempt to focus on the big picture, the forest, our theologies can easily be skewed in  wrong or overly simplistic directions by possibly well-meaning but misguided smooth talkers making logical or emotional appeals.  There are plenty of examples of that in recent history as outlined in Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion which I wrote about a few weeks ago.

Sometimes we mistakenly (Romans 12:2) look to societal trends to help us understand and tinker with our theologies.  But, with some scriptural support (1 Timothy 3:15) serious Christians often depend on the Church to interpret or help interpret the scriptures and keep us on a sound theological basis.

And, we sometimes find that the surprising answer from the Church to a difficult either-or theological issue is not one or the other but both-and.

Here is a definition that links Christian theology and Bible study and includes the role of The Church.

Tweet Follow @dkw2020

The Sacred Tax Deduction

Note: This and the previous post were originally on permanentfixes.com, this one in December, 2011, but may be of interest also to all of us who give to our churches and claim deductions for the same on our tax returns.
__________________________________________

Since early 2009 the Obama administration has been proposing tinkering with the charitable giving deduction as a way to increase taxes on high income folks and increase government revenues, primarily for health care spending. Here is one of the earliest of a torrent of objections, all protesting any reductions in incentives for giving. Just Google “charitable deduction news” for other similar pleas from beneficiaries of the rule. I too am staunchly opposed to any such tinkering with our outrageously complex and unfair income tax code, but I would love to see this and all other deductions, exemptions, exclusions, and credits die as part of a comprehensive reform that would significantly reduce marginal rates, thereby providing economic stimulation, while increasing current tax revenues and giving our budget crisis some immediate relief.

I have always taken advantage of the income tax deduction for charitable contributions and just figured that the government was willingly helping fund my favorite charities, mostly the church I happened to be a member of at any given time. That was when our national budget was pretty close to balanced and our debt was not too burdensome. With the financial crisis we are facing now, I have realized that it is not the government that is helping fund my charities. It is you, my fellow citizens, and I suspect quite a few of you are doing it unwillingly. I know I am not too happy helping fund some of yours.

Entities which qualify for tax-deductible contributions are known as 501(c)(3) organizations, named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code in which regulations for them are found. These organizations must have one of several qualified purposes, and the lists of those purposes and of the qualifying organizations have grown over the years and, without fundamental reform, will continue to do so under continuous pressure of lobbyists and special interests. Below is the current list available at the IRS web site.

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are
     religious,
     educational,
     scientific,
     literary,
     testing for public safety,
     fostering national or international amateur sports competition,
     preventing cruelty to children or animals.
     charitable,
          relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged;
          advancement of religion;
          advancement of education or science;
          erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works;
          lessening the burdens of government;
          lessening neighborhood tensions;
          eliminating prejudice and discrimination;
          defending human and civil rights secured by law; and
          combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

You can probably tell right away why this list concerns me. The strangest idea is government funding of organizations with the purpose of “lessening the burdens of government.” Too many of these purposes sound like titles created to fit something somebody wanted to fund or raise money for. Did Consumer Reports have anything to do with lobbying for the special tax treatment of “testing for public safety?” And I wonder how the efficiency or effectiveness of an organization with the objective of “combating community deterioration” or “advancement of religion” or “lessening neighborhood tensions” will be measured. And while I have a great deal of interesting in promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which involves a lot of giving, not to the government, but to our neighbors, I have no interest at all in the “advancement of religion” which, as the late Christopher Hitchins so eloquently argued, can be quite counterproductive. “Advancement of religion” even seems to me to be a goal inconsistent with our constitution. I’m especially concerned now that global warming seems to have taken on some of the characteristics of a religion.

There are some non-profits which participate in politics or lobbying and therefore cannot accept tax deductible contributions. I’m thinking that a lot of “religious” and "educational" organizations should fall in that category because, while they may not endorse specific candidates, many take positions on political issues that pretty much rule out all the candidates but one. It happens on both the left and the right so this is a non-partisan complaint.

Only taxpayers who itemize deductions and whose contributions plus other deductions fall within certain guidelines established by the IRS benefit from the charitable contribution deduction. In 2009, the most recent year for which such data are available, there were only 34M returns with deductible cash contributions, and they claimed total contributions of $130B. That is 24 % of the returns filed and a little over 10% of total deductions claimed.

The Obama administration proposals leave me with the feeling that the president believes that the purpose of this and other tax deductions is to help tax payers and that these higher-income folks don’t need any help and should therefore have less deduction. It seems to me that the theoretical underpinning of the charitable contribution deduction is not to help taxpayers but to incentivize them to give more. Of course the higher the marginal tax rates the more encouragement such a deduction gives. So the idea of eliminating this and other deductions in conjunction with significant lowering of marginal rates which makes the deductions less valuable seems to me to be a workable strategy for helping solve our debt and unemployment crises. And then we can all take full credit for our giving without depending on our fellow taxpayers to help fund our favorite charities.

And I promise that if such a plan is put in place and begins a steady long-term decrease in our debt as a percent of gdp, I will give away just as much without the charitable tax deduction as I have been giving away with it. If we can get the economy going so I can get a little more income, I’ll give even more. I hope you will all join me in that, regardless of how convoluted our tax code becomes as the tinkering continues.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

The Sacred Tax Deduction

Note: This and the previous post were originally on permanentfixes.com, this one in December, 2011, but may be of interest also to all of us who give to our churches and claim deductions for the same on our tax returns.
__________________________________________

Since early 2009 the Obama administration has been proposing tinkering with the charitable giving deduction as a way to increase taxes on high income folks and increase government revenues, primarily for health care spending. Here is one of the earliest of a torrent of objections, all protesting any reductions in incentives for giving. Just Google “charitable deduction news” for other similar pleas from beneficiaries of the rule. I too am staunchly opposed to any such tinkering with our outrageously complex and unfair income tax code, but I would love to see this and all other deductions, exemptions, exclusions, and credits die as part of a comprehensive reform that would significantly reduce marginal rates, thereby providing economic stimulation, while increasing current tax revenues and giving our budget crisis some immediate relief.

I have always taken advantage of the income tax deduction for charitable contributions and just figured that the government was willingly helping fund my favorite charities, mostly the church I happened to be a member of at any given time. That was when our national budget was pretty close to balanced and our debt was not too burdensome. With the financial crisis we are facing now, I have realized that it is not the government that is helping fund my charities. It is you, my fellow citizens, and I suspect quite a few of you are doing it unwillingly. I know I am not too happy helping fund some of yours.

Entities which qualify for tax-deductible contributions are known as 501(c)(3) organizations, named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code in which regulations for them are found. These organizations must have one of several qualified purposes, and the lists of those purposes and of the qualifying organizations have grown over the years and, without fundamental reform, will continue to do so under continuous pressure of lobbyists and special interests. Below is the current list available at the IRS web site.

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are
     religious,
     educational,
     scientific,
     literary,
     testing for public safety,
     fostering national or international amateur sports competition,
     preventing cruelty to children or animals.
     charitable,
          relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged;
          advancement of religion;
          advancement of education or science;
          erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works;
          lessening the burdens of government;
          lessening neighborhood tensions;
          eliminating prejudice and discrimination;
          defending human and civil rights secured by law; and
          combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

You can probably tell right away why this list concerns me. The strangest idea is government funding of organizations with the purpose of “lessening the burdens of government.” Too many of these purposes sound like titles created to fit something somebody wanted to fund or raise money for. Did Consumer Reports have anything to do with lobbying for the special tax treatment of “testing for public safety?” And I wonder how the efficiency or effectiveness of an organization with the objective of “combating community deterioration” or “advancement of religion” or “lessening neighborhood tensions” will be measured. And while I have a great deal of interesting in promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which involves a lot of giving, not to the government, but to our neighbors, I have no interest at all in the “advancement of religion” which, as the late Christopher Hitchins so eloquently argued, can be quite counterproductive. “Advancement of religion” even seems to me to be a goal inconsistent with our constitution. I’m especially concerned now that global warming seems to have taken on some of the characteristics of a religion.

There are some non-profits which participate in politics or lobbying and therefore cannot accept tax deductible contributions. I’m thinking that a lot of “religious” and "educational" organizations should fall in that category because, while they may not endorse specific candidates, many take positions on political issues that pretty much rule out all the candidates but one. It happens on both the left and the right so this is a non-partisan complaint.

Only taxpayers who itemize deductions and whose contributions plus other deductions fall within certain guidelines established by the IRS benefit from the charitable contribution deduction. In 2009, the most recent year for which such data are available, there were only 34M returns with deductible cash contributions, and they claimed total contributions of $130B. That is 24 % of the returns filed and a little over 10% of total deductions claimed.

The Obama administration proposals leave me with the feeling that the president believes that the purpose of this and other tax deductions is to help tax payers and that these higher-income folks don’t need any help and should therefore have less deduction. It seems to me that the theoretical underpinning of the charitable contribution deduction is not to help taxpayers but to incentivize them to give more. Of course the higher the marginal tax rates the more encouragement such a deduction gives. So the idea of eliminating this and other deductions in conjunction with significant lowering of marginal rates which makes the deductions less valuable seems to me to be a workable strategy for helping solve our debt and unemployment crises. And then we can all take full credit for our giving without depending on our fellow taxpayers to help fund our favorite charities.

And I promise that if such a plan is put in place and begins a steady long-term decrease in our debt as a percent of gdp, I will give away just as much without the charitable tax deduction as I have been giving away with it. If we can get the economy going so I can get a little more income, I’ll give even more. I hope you will all join me in that, regardless of how convoluted our tax code becomes as the tinkering continues.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

Stinginess Not Only Alternative to Philanthropy

Note: The material below was posted originally on permanentfixes.com but seemed to be of interest also to all of us who give to and through our churches and take tax deductions for such gifts.  I have come to believe that is not a good thing and should be given up, along with other "sacred" tax benefits such as the home mortgage deduction in favor of lower marginal tax rates across the board on all  income, including inheritances, elimination of estate taxes, and much simpler tax returns.  Bottom line is that the federal government should  not be in the business of picking winners and losers, subsidizing some of us at the expense of others. More explanation of that here.
____________________________________________

In a September 19 WSJ article, Geoffrey A. Fowler reported that more billionaires are signing on to the idea, promoted by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, of giving away large portions, at least half, of their money.  Well, it is certainly more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), but whether such largess is a better idea than investing the funds in new GDP-generating, job-creating, and government funding enterprises depends, in my opinion, on what they give it to, how well the recipients manage it, and what other options the donors have for investing the money.

The article included a puzzling and blog-post-inspiring quote from Gordon Moore, 83 year old founder of Intel and author of the famous Moore’s Law:  "…it's a good idea and has shaken loose a lot of money that otherwise would have been tied up for a long time."  Well, only if somebody had it stuffed in a mattress somewhere or in a safety deposit box would it have been “tied up,” because otherwise the money was supporting some endeavor or enterprise already.  

I have no first-hand information about this, but it is very likely that donations of Messrs. Moore, Gates, Buffett, and other billionaires are in the form of shares of appreciated stock, donated unsold to avoid capital gains taxes and estate taxes, to a foundation, which might continue to hold the shares and use the dividends from them to support its work.  So, the money would still be “tied up” in those shares of stock.  Or the foundation might sell the stock and use the proceeds from the sale in some new or existing charitable effort which might even involve hiring a lot of people.  In that case, somebody else will have to come up with money to buy the stock so that equivalent amount of money would still be “tied up,” having previously been “tied up” in something else.  Only if the overall transaction were so large as to result in a decline in the value of the stock would less money end up being “tied up,” and that would be a bad thing.

Don’t get me wrong.  I believe we are stewards and not owners of our financial assets and responsible for using them wisely, voluntarily and systematically giving to worthy causes and people in need throughout our lives and, when possible, being personally involved in the work of the organizations and persons we give to and through.  These billionaires are generous to want to give the money away and spend time managing the gifts, and generosity always trumps stinginess.   

But, stinginess isn't the only option.  If a wealthy person has a good idea for a new product or service that will be of benefit to humankind, investing money and time, hiring people, and taking risks to make it a reality, earning more money in the process, would not be less moral than giving away the money and would be better than irresponsible giving.  Such business development is no less important to the future than, and is a prerequisite for, philanthropy…and for tax revenues too, by the way. 

As an example of the point I am trying to make, think of George Vanderbilt, wealthy grandson of Cornelius, whom I wrote about in a July14, 2012 posting on this blog.  Here is what I said: 

One bit of residue of the Vanderbilt fortune is Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC, built in the late 1800’s, the “gilded age,” by grandson George. To many it seems to have been an extravagant indulgence (Check out this recent column by Mona Charen.), but he built a town to support the project, pushed the limits on technology, and employed thousands in the design and construction of it, artists and craftsmen and laborers, thereby revolutionizing the Western North Carolina economy. One hundred and forty years later, Biltmore Estate, a working farm and resort, employs 1700 people and hosts a million visitors annually from all over the world. Now that was a real jobs program!

I’m not arguing that George was virtuous for building Biltmore but just that, while he didn't live long enough to enjoy it, it was a worthwhile endeavor that paid off big for other people.  Had he just freely distributed the money to the citizens of Western North Carolina, he would have been widely celebrated and admired at the time but any positive effect would probably have long since disappeared.

Summing up the life of the infamously ruthless Commodore who made his fortune personally networking the nation with railroads and connecting its ports with steamships while driving down the cost of freight, I said this: "The Commodore lived into his eighties, rare for the time, but it’s too bad he couldn't have had an additional productive hundred years. If he had, the United States rather than Japan would have been the leader in high speed trains and Amtrak would never have been created."

A modern day Vanderbilt, smaller scale of course, recently introduced to me by a David Brooks column, is Elon Musk, entrepreneur extraordinaire, founder of Zip2, SpaceX, Tesla Motors, and PayPal and a philanthropist who has signed on to the pledge to give away at least half his fortune.  I just hope he doesn't give it all away before he runs out of ideas because he is a serious job creator and GDP generator.

Bill and Melinda Gates are apparently doing great work around the world in the fields of health and education.  Mr. Buffett is apparently giving much of his money to the Gates foundation.  If they all bring along their personal management skills with their money, I have no doubt that much good will be accomplished, many problems solved, and countless lives improved.  I thank and congratulate them.  But I would also be happy and offering congratulations if they had come up with another economy building, paradigm changing, job creating, idea such as MSDOS which launched the personal computer business and lifted far more people out of poverty than will ever be possible with charitable giving from their personal fortunes.

And here is another option to stinginess.  One curmudgeon billionaire quoted in the Fowler article, German shipping magnate Peter Krämer, said that individuals should not have the right to determine use of such large sums of money, that it should instead be taxed away and its use determined by the government.  I don’t like that idea either, nor apparently does Mr. Buffett since, although he has publicly announced support for a trivial increase in his income taxes, he is responsibly doing whatever he can to keep his vast personal fortune out of government hands which would disperse it completely in just a tad over one day.

Tweet Follow @dkw2020