How Rich Is Too Rich

“How rich, is too rich?” Mr. Trump posed this question to an interviewer when he was asked if he wasn’t already rich enough. Mr. Trump repeated the question again and again in a taunting manor, throwing out figures like one million, ten million, come on tell me, a hundred million, finally intimidating the interviewer into an uncomfortable chuckle; I too was uncomfortable watching him. Well, if you asked me, I would say that if you feel the need to defend your wealth, you’re already too rich Mr. Trump. Trump’s question raised a challenge; his sarcastic attitude spurred me on to find a satisfactory answer. To focus simply on the dollar amount, as Trump did, is inadequate to qualify an answer to this question. We must look for a more fundamental principle to flesh out a universal answer to this enigma. To discover a principal that satisfies this question, I focused on folks whose wealth is publicly evident and I asked if each were too rich. I’ve already proffered the notion, that if a person is concerned about the dollar amount of their wealth their values are mislaid and their already to rich; if this type of wealth is the measure of their self worth their personal worth is inflated (in other words, they’re too big for their britches). I’ve heard numerous financially wealthy people retort, when asked about the notion of distribution of wealth, “Why should I be compelled to give away any of my money? I’ve earned it by myself and I should be able to keep it all.” This claim would be fine if they earned it in a vacuum without the participation of anyone else, but we don’t operate in a vacuum we operate in a society. In society, especially one that has developed an overarching state, with layers of bureaucracy and regulations, citizens give up a measure of their personal sovereignty to create the state and provide the environment were wealth is accumulated (not just produced). Without this broad sacrifice of sovereignty, it would be impossible for anyone to legitimately accumulate vast wealth. In addition, a largess of ideas, methods and tools have accumulated over the ages that have contributed to the common wealth of society, also an advantage not individually earned. On the other side of the coin, you have people like Oprah, Magic Johnson, the Newman’s, Jimmy Carter, the Gates and Warren Buffett, along with countless other people who give freely of their time and money. People of this ilk can never be two rich, they will always give according to how blessed they feel about their wealth. Giving by the hand of the wealthy is not some bleeding heart liberal nonsense; it should be considered an obligation by those who have benefited from societies largess. It should also be regarded as a responsible business strategy. I’m sure Oprah, as a businessperson and philanthropist, can attest that the more she gives the greater her popularity and ratings are improved. Stinginess and amassing wealth is a zero sum game; it shifts the wealth to the wealthy, leaves the poor poorer. To share wealth abundantly is synergistic, releasing an actualizing power that is infectious and motivates others to contribute their efforts, wealth is actually amplified. This principal of benevolence applies to corporations as well; they are our “Super Citizens”. It’s particularly vital for corporations to develop a culture of giving, as their very existence has been made possible by a grant of society through a charter from the state. Due to their expanding symbiosis with government, along with their ability to exist in perpetuity, corporations now have more powers and freedoms than the average citizen. Originally corporations were chartered to perform specific public functions for a limited time and then expire, if their purposes were not fulfilled their charters could be revoked. Then in 1886 the courts ruled these legal fictions to be “Natural Persons” giving them the protection of the 14th amendment, which daclares that: 'no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property'. Given the privileged position corporations hold in our society, they earn the moniker “Super Citizen”. These corporate “Super Citizens” most be held to a higher standard than the average corporeal citizen, as well as to meet the standard, if they wish to continue to be tolerated or to gain the peoples support. One way for corporations to give back to society is to formulate a method for democratizing capital through a type of consumer stock exchange, whereby the customer earns stock over time for their purchases, encouraging loyalty. Giving doesn’t need to be a strictly charitable effort to be effective. There are financial opportunities that have charitable attributes; they can bestow similar benefits as charity while earning a pecuniary benefit. One idea is to provide low cost financing to micro businesses, or to become part of an investment group and invest in innovative local small businesses that fall outside the credit system. Join together with others in your church, mosque or synagogue to refinance individual members of the congregation’s credit card debt, with a personal loan in aggregation with others in order to spread the risk. Be creative, express your wealth; look around, find a need and fill it!