SHARING THE WEALTH

entry picture

My dad wasn’t a clever man but he told me when I was young that if you shared all the money in the country out equally, inside a fortnight half of it would be back where it started.  I couldn’t see it at the time but I’ve started to understand the kernel of truth it holds.

Consider if in the great divi-up you got the “Citizen’s Share” of £100,000, what would you do with it?

Well, there’s only two things you can do with money (three – if you count giving it away; but this only displaces by one the other two).  You can spend it or save it.

So you spend it.  A house, a new car, a holiday, flat screen TV.  You’ve already started to give it back to Sony, Thomas Cook, Ford, McAlpine, not to mention all their intermediaries, suppliers and partners – Ryanair, estate agents, solicitors, ASDA, motor dealership and so on.

“Bugger that” you say, “I’m not giving it back to them bastards.  I’ll save it”.

But where would you shove a hundred grand?  In the banks?

I’m sure my dad was wrong about the amount and timeframe but I’m sure he was right in the head.

◄ COOPEY'S GROUPIES

70m DASH ►

Comments

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 31st Jan 2016 19:32

Yvonne - but it spends once and once only (is that twice?)
MC - yes it would be good to see those who are fortunate putting something back in. Not necessarily money; time would be good too.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sun 31st Jan 2016 17:41

Money is not the root of all evil...it is the LOVE of money.
How many very wealthy folk pass through life without
the spiritual reward of sharing some of their money with
the less fortunate but deserving among us. As JC asks-
how many material things can be owned and used at
any one time? And how little their value compared with
the value of enabling others towards a better life.
We read of those in the worlds of sport & entertainment
possessing enormous wealth and their often excessive
purchases. A certain TV/radio personality apparently
hooked on hugely expensive classic cars comes to mind.
Charity, properly adopted, benefits the donor and the
recipient. To see well paid "stars" fronting ads. on TV
seeking the money of hard-pressed ordinary folk for
various causes only makes me wonder just how much
THEY contribute from their riches? Perhaps we should
be told so that we might make an informed decision
about any action we choose to take...or otherwise.


Profile image

Yvonne Brunton

Sat 30th Jan 2016 23:56

As they say
His money is twice tainted -
'taint yours and 'taint mine.

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 30th Jan 2016 23:22

So would that allow anyone poor to take from anyone richer, Pat? And if so, could a third person, even poorer still, take it from them? These are some of the inconsistencies contained in Proudhon.

Profile image

Patricio LG

Sat 30th Jan 2016 21:23

Well I can see your point however surely the rich have been grand masters of theft far too long, I call it balancing the wealth. (Just a little). :-)

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 30th Jan 2016 15:02

Where would you invest it, Tim? In the Stock Market? That's where it would be forwarded to the Corporations.

Profile image

Tim Ellis

Sat 30th Jan 2016 10:45

I think it's incorrect to say there's only 2 things to do with money, spend or save. The third option is to invest, which is slightly different to saving. £100 grand would be plenty to start up a small business and if you're smart (or ruthless!) you could turn it into millions eventually without enriching the banks unduly. Or just loan it at a good interest rate to somebody else that's running a business - that's much easier. You are right though, in that most people wouldn't think of that, and it would all end up in the hands of those that did.

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 30th Jan 2016 09:04

I think that's called theft, Patricio.

Profile image

Patricio LG

Sat 30th Jan 2016 07:21

Unless they can afford to have some taken that is :/)

Profile image

Patricio LG

Sat 30th Jan 2016 07:19

Unless they can afford to have some taken that is :/)

Profile image

John Coopey

Fri 29th Jan 2016 17:48

No, MC, I don't think there ever was a time when wealth was distributed evenly. I don't think there ever will be and , if my dad was right, if ever there was it would soon find its way back!
I am a strong believer in a society fairer than the one we have today but my politics is not rooted in envy. I don't begrudge someone richer than me their wealth. My politics is left of centre but I've never believed that the way for me to become wealthier is to take it off someone else.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Fri 29th Jan 2016 16:08

Has there ever been a period in history anywhere when
wealth was evenly distributed? It is the stuff of fantasy
and these lines remind us of that. The greatest gift
is the opportunity to make/obtain money in sufficient
quantity to provide peace of mind in accommodating the
day to day demands of life and the unknowns of the
future. If a talent enables real wealth - and we see
this every day in the realms of sport and entertainment,
(not to mention banking!), then that is the icing on the
cake. I don't often see reports of today's wealthy
being too quick to share their wealth - except in the
case of those "rich beyond the dreams of avarice" who
equate with the great philanthropists of yesteryear who
displayed a greater social conscience than those who
might be their modern counterparts.
Despite modern mankind having more of everything,
that seems to include envy and spite - the downside
of human nature and its natural quest to improve and
do better.
I'll never afford a Ferrari but I still appreciate the
quality that it represents and the fact that it is there
to be had if a talent or ablility provided me with the
cost price.

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message