Are you a moral monster?

[BeauneCrusher]

When you buy a Rolex and not a Casio and donate the savings for mosquito nets?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...moral-monster/

[SohAIS]

Got to keep a balance.

[Armyguy03]

Duality is what keeps the world going round.

[GradyPhilpott]

I'm not sure that Neil Irwin is balanced.

How does he know that the person who bought the incredibly expensive wine didn't buy any given number of mosquito nets or didn't give an equal sum of money to some other equally deserving cause?

And how dare Mr. Irwin deign to call anyone who spends his money as he wishes a moral monster without some corroborating evidence?

I give of my time, money, and meager talents to good social causes and I buy Rolex watches and cheap ones, too.

Mr. Irwin sounds to me as if he has some kind of thought disorder, if he thinks that taking some random purchase however extravagant and then equating that to moral monsterhood makes any kind of sense.

Maybe Mr. Irwin doesn't know how much of my tax money has been sent to Africa in my working lifetime to feed and medicate millions there.

Maybe I think that's quite enough.

Mr. Irwin's cause may be valid, but his logic is absurd.

[77T]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'm not sure that Neil Irwin is balanced.

How does he know that the person who bought the incredibly expensive wine didn't buy any given number of mosquito nets or didn't give a equal sum of money to some other equally deserving cause?

And how dare Mr. Irwin deign to call anyone who spends his money as he wishes a moral monster without some corroborating evidence?

I give of my time, money, and meager talents to good social causes and I buy Rolex watches and cheap ones, too.

Mr. Irwin sounds to me as if he has some kind of thought disorder, if he thinks that taking some random purchase however extravagant and then equating that to moral monsterhood makes any kind of sense.

Maybe Mr. Irwin doesn't know how much of my tax money has been sent to Africa in my working lifetime to feed and medicate millions there.

Maybe I think that's quite enough.

Mr. Irwin's cause may be valid, but his logic is absurd.

Absurd is right +1...

[AzPaul]

Unfortunately, running down people you don't know has become the national pastime.

[Boothroyd]

Those that have been donated, generally have not been utilized to their full potential. Not that I accept the original premise of the OP's post to begin with.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...-shah-20100502

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'm not sure that Neil Irwin is balanced.

How does he know that the person who bought the incredibly expensive wine didn't buy any given number of mosquito nets or didn't give an equal sum of money to some other equally deserving cause?

And how dare Mr. Irwin deign to call anyone who spends his money as he wishes a moral monster without some corroborating evidence?

I give of my time, money, and meager talents to good social causes and I buy Rolex watches and cheap ones, too.

Mr. Irwin sounds to me as if he has some kind of thought disorder, if he thinks that taking some random purchase however extravagant and then equating that to moral monsterhood makes any kind of sense.

Maybe Mr. Irwin doesn't know how much of my tax money has been sent to Africa in my working lifetime to feed and medicate millions there.

Maybe I think that's quite enough.

Mr. Irwin's cause may be valid, but his logic is absurd.

Well said.

[Dr.Brian]

I gave at the office.

[68camaro]

The amount I pay in taxes is obscene, plus this year it's gone up. I pay MORE than my fair share and anyone wanting to judge how I spend my money will get find no excuses from me.

[East Bay Rider]

There's always room to give more but thankfully most are taught to give something. IMO the author is deliberately being controversial in order to entice people to read and recommend his article.

There's a lot of waste but in the end if everyone just does what they can it's all a bit better.

[Grumpy Badger]

What a load of drivel...!

Without the drive to want a nice life and possessions for yourself and your family no one would ever push themselves and be in a position to give some of the surplus to those in need.

Maybe the author should stop writing such nonsense and go back to knitting himself a hair shirt!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Badger

...hair shirt!

[mtrunner]

That article is absolutely absurd. Where do you draw the line. Instead of a 100 bottle of wine, why not a 10 dollar bottle of wine and donate the $90. Just plain stupid logic.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

The amount I pay in taxes is obscene, plus this year it's gone up. I pay MORE than my fair share and anyone wanting to judge how I spend my money will get find no excuses from me.

I only pay 40-50% in income tax, depending on how good the year was plus 20% on almost all purchases bar fuel (80%) not obscene but pretty chunky.

I pay my fair share and expect those who are fortunate/clever enough to do the same.

Out of interest, how much is "obscene". That's a rather strong adjective. Back in the 60s here, it was 95% income tax over a certain figure, not quite obscene but certainly pretty hefty.

[looking to buy]

The other part to this equation is that the money paid for the case of wine does do good. It pays for salaries at the vineyard, and even if most of it goes into the pockets of a few lucky individuals, they in turn then spend the money and keep it in circulation. This concept that it is "wrong" to spend too much money on something ignores the fact that those who make money are more likely to create new jobs and growth opportunities.

So the article is just more drivel.

[FeelingTheBlues]

I think such articles are just made to be controversial and generate a strong debate, obviously the author didn't care to make the proper research and see if that wine buyer gives money to charity as well, nor did he take the time to see if any LV bag, Tag Heuer watch or any luxury good enthusiast give money to the poor and sick people all around the globe.

I am by no means rich, I do spend a lot (much more than necessary according to many relatives and friends...) on watches (though they aren't nearly as expensive as what a lot think) and other things I have a passion for, however, I did and still do give money to others and to charity. I don't feel the need to brag about it to everybody as I don't give money for that reason, I do not need any excuse to justify my purchase of luxury items and if people want to see me as a moral monster then be it, I shall not argue though often enough I've been lectured by people who never gave money to anybody else (don't take my example for a fact though, I only speak from personal experience).

I don't think I brag about my luxurious purchases and I don't wish to as I buy things to enjoy them myself, if I talk about them I'll do it because I'm proud and not to place me in any rank of a social hierarchy. However, I will not feel the need to brag about what I give to charity either because, to me, it takes the good nature out of the action. I think it's good to have a good balance in your life and I like to give to others like I enjoy spoiling myself at times, others can think and act the way they want as long as they don't force me to think like they do. No one will force me to keep my money to myself and not give to anybody else, yet nobody will force me to give everything to everybody.

Again, I think this article lacks research and proofs that whoever buys luxury items never gives to charity (though I don't even think it would make any difference, at the very least the author could have dared to say that it proves something), before you judge people, perhaps you should try to see who they really are.

[eric23]

I don't like poeple telling me how to spend my money, my wife already takes care of that.

[Sixshooter]

Originally Posted by looking to buy

The other part to this equation is that the money paid for the case of wine does do good. It pays for salaries at the vineyard, and even if most of it goes into the pockets of a few lucky individuals, they in turn then spend the money and keep it in circulation. This concept that it is "wrong" to spend too much money on something ignores the fact that those who make money are more likely to create new jobs and growth opportunities.

So the article is just more drivel.

Nailed it.

[corkscrew]

Perhaps he should mind his own business? What makes him think he has the right to make those judgments? Perhaps he should tell us, and prove it with verifiable evidence, what he does with his money. These people piss me off to no end.

[Gagebuilder]

Why can't the people of Africa be taught skills to support themselves and get their own mosquito nets? Can't the dough go to training?

Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish, eh?

Skills learned and applied to benefit others, in return for pay. Ain't that the way it's supposed to work?

[Boothroyd]

Doug knows of what he speaks^^^^. And hey, look at his avatar. He IS a monster, so i believe him to be very well qualified to render the definitive opinion on this thread!

[77T]

Originally Posted by looking to buy

The other part to this equation is that the money paid for the case of wine does do good. It pays for salaries at the vineyard, and even if most of it goes into the pockets of a few lucky individuals, they in turn then spend the money and keep it in circulation.

I agree that there is a connection - and it even goes further...

The vineyard workers are tip of the value chain...

Local municipal taxes paid by vintner, plus payments to many suppliers - glass makers, cork makers, label makers, barrel coopers, machinery suppliers, fuel suppliers, wood/corrugated case suppliers....etc.

Foolish simpleminded authors often have no clue of how the world really works vs. altruistic alchemy...

[Pup]

Originally Posted by eric23

I don't like poeple telling me how to spend my money, my wife already takes care of that.

Welcome bit of levity in a highly charged quasi-political post.

[Frosty]

I would like to see an expose on the writer. Say, for example, if he bought a Bimmer, why did he not buy a Yugo, and then donate the difference to some charity. If he bought a Montblanc, why not get a Bic and do the same. A lot of people want to feel superior to others, while doing the same thing on a smaller scale. jmho

[rolio]

[Rock]

The article is of course a load of twaddle.
There is no logical end to the idea until we are all living on the edge of town in 'fridge boxes eating a can of dog food heated over a single candle whilst donating everything we own and earn to the 'underprivileged' which we have now become ourselves.
The real moral challenge is how to make our donations really change things for the better for the recipients rather than just create dependency.
This is something that has proved to be easier said than done.