That’s why when Democrats tried to impose a yacht tax a while back to punish the rich, it ended up hurting the middle class. It didn’t hurt the rich–they just didn’t buy a yacht. Boo hoo. But since it greatly decreased the demand for yachts, that meant that the companies that made them had to lay off a lot of middle class workers in order to stay afloat. It’s similar to how corporate taxes, which are meant to punish big bad corporations, just end up being passed along in the form of higher prices and hurting consumers.

There’s a big difference between what something is targeted at and who it actually affects.

Dan, I agree with a previous commenter that you are taking an overly narrow view of these hypothetical people. Should our society be constructed in a way that people cannot feed their children while working 40+ hours a week?

I grew up middle-class in Canada, which has much cheaper university tuition fees than much of the USA. I was able to afford attendance to a top Canadian school and then landed a free ride to a graduate program at a private school in the USA, where the majority of my (American) colleagues come from much more affluent backgrounds than I do. I strongly believe that this difference is because I was born in a more equitable country where social mobility (at least in the form of higher education) is more attainable.

I give to charity often. But my student loans are paid off; they weren’t very large in the first place, due to the society structure I grew up in. I feel really lucky.

Granted all I have is anecdotal evidence, but from what I see living in Canada versus the USA, individual action only goes so far in determining people’s fortunes.

Edited to clarify, it’s not that I think Canada is the best country out there, that the USA is the worst, or anything like that, but they do have some differences in income distribution and societal structure which are very striking to me considering how similar culturally they are overall.

It works the same way on the spending side. If I gave you $5 a week, you’d probably just fritter it away, but if I gave you $250 all at once, you’d probably spend it on something you really wanted or needed.

Maybe Gates and Buffet were waiting until they could do something they thought was more meaningful.

Also, these 2 men are extremely wealthy so they probably didn’t have this concern, but some people may want to wait until they have accumulated enough wealth to be confident they and their family are well taken care of, before donating the rest. Not many people would want to give away so much that it made their own family worse off.

Even so, I find it more immoral due to dishonesty to ONLY give to charity for the tax deduction than to indulge in the conspicuous consumption of buying a 200M yacht. Seriously. I’m sure charities love their donations, no matter their donors’ motives. And I agree to an extent, but at least that 200M yacht is an honest expression of Spielberg’s desires. I don’t find anything inherently immoral in consumer consumption or indulging in our wants. It is my luck to have been born into a more developed country and I do not feel guilty for buying things or doing things that are not available to others in this country or others. If our places were reversed, they would do the same.

It comes down to knowing who you are and what you want out of life. If you’re not driven to be an ascetic, if you’re not driven to give away all of your and your family’s wordly possessions and dedicate your life to helping the poor, then why beat yourself up about your daily frou-frou coffee drink? or your Coach purse or your classic car or your comic books? Few people are so totally selfish that they don’t ever help the people around them either through direct action or charitable donation, so take the time to figure out where you want to be and commit to it. People on the outside can judge all they want, but the important thing is to know yourself and be comfortable with the decisions YOU make.

He has no moral obligation to anyone.

If anyone tried to guilt trip me on how I spent my hard-earned money, I’d have some very choice words.

That may not be true in certain other countries where religion is determined by the government.

I like the new comment format! It is more interactive and there is continuity. I like the color getting darker too. However, the darkest green is too bright for me…hurts my eyes. Maybe the gradation can be slowed down…

-Charlotte

And as for buying expensive goods – after years of buying items (shoes, purses, sunglasses etc.) that were supposed to be fairly good quality but fell apart quickly, I spent some money on some expensive shoes and a good quality purse. Both have held up very well – meaning I’m wasting less money and throwing fewer things into landfills. So yes, buying quality does matter.

I’m an artist. This recession has hit *me* very hard, because people are more frugal and don’t want to spend money on frivolous personal items such as pretty artwork. So now I’ve been living at well below poverty level for the past few years, and have ended up almost homeless, due to the rich not spending. Even getting a menial job at Home Depot didn’t work out, because the rich weren’t spending on their homes, so even Home Depot could not afford to keep me employed for more than 20 hours each week at near-minimum wage. That’s not enough to feed and house yourself.

When people have the attitude of “I can never enjoy anything expensive for myself” and only invest their dollars in faraway places like Africa, people like me suffer here in America, and end up becoming a burden on others, because we can no longer support ourselves with our own craft.

Do you see the problem?
There has to be balance. The rich must spend on items like a 200 million dollar yacht, as well as give away money to other countries as well. Just doing one, and not the other, will upset the delicate balance of the economy here in America, much like taking a key animal or plant out of the ecosystem will disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

I think this is a very personal choice. Spending on Wants in moderation is fine as most of us haven’t taken vows of poverty. Excess spending on Wants typically causes hardship or some degree of gluttony or vanity. This crosses the line into immorality.

As the article implied, some charitable organizations do not use your donations wisely. True giving, implies giving a portion of yourself. How can you use your gifts to better the cause you support? Cash alone doesn’t make that personal connection.

I do think morality is highly personal, so some people don’t feel morally obligated to help anybody less fortunate. However, I don’t think that’s most people here.