Financial catch-22

[textualdeviance]

While the advantages are clear, I'm not sure I'd ever want to be really wealthy (as in top 1% type.)

For one, people assume you got your money by nefarious means (which is certainly true for many, but not all.) But even if people know yours isn't blood money, they often have dueling expectations for what you should do with it. If you spend "too much" on creature comforts, you're morally bankrupt. But if you spend "too much" on charity and other good works, you're just grandstanding.

Apparently, the only safe thing to do is stick it all in a mattress and live in a hut. Or--the more likely expectation--give it all to the people who whine about your choices.

(This post brought to you by people bitching that Bill & Melinda are just showing off with their charity because they have the audacity to also live well.)

Comments

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

It hardly accounts for all of it, but someone in a stage two moral model would be incapable of understanding the actual motives of someone in a "higher" moral state.

(Not that I agree with Kohlberg's taxonomy, but it's a useful rubric for discussing points along the development of moral growth.)

"He's giving that money away! Why would he want to do that? There must be something in it for him!"