Comments on: Are The Truly Wealthy Truly Stingy?

By: kaveetaakaul

kaveetaakaul — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:05:38 +0000

“You and I in a beautiful world…”

As also:

“Cause it’s you and me and all other people with nothing to do
Nothing to lose
And it’s you and me and all other people
And I don’t know why, I can’t keep my eyes off of you

All of the things that I want to say just aren’t coming out right
I’m tripping on words
You’ve got my head spinning
I don’t know where to go from here

Cause it’s you and me and all other people with nothing to do
Nothing to prove”

I had no clue that ‘esoteric, marvelous’ would someday describe my rather imperfect attempts..

Am beaming, despite the scalding.

But I was never drawn to linguistics..sorry to have disappointed you.

thanks for the suggestion though.. Much appreciated.

By: Narayanan Srinivasan

Narayanan Srinivasan — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:15:17 +0000

Kaveetaakaul,
Marvelous choice of words! But, please, do not write grammaticaly incorrect sentences such as “You and me have sparred earlier and over an extended period”.

He and you are the subject in this case. Hence, “You and I” is appropriate. You see, esoteric words alone do not make for elegant prose.

By: Deb

Deb — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:09:16 +0000

Hmmm…a very interesting read…all the way through the comments. Made me think for a long time about the true meanings of the words - richness, success, happiness et al. In the end, I came back to an old adage that is one of my favorites.

“Success is getting what you want; happiness is wanting what you got”.

Keep writing such thoughful pieces.

By: kaveetaakaul

kaveetaakaul — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:07:43 +0000

Hey Kartik,

Thanks buddy!

Oh yeah those pleasures which come free but lose significance for most coz of just that. Or maybe that we have lost the ability to sense the joy in say the the chirping of a bird, or the sweet smell of freshly watered earth, or the first monsoon, or the smile of a child..we often watch but dont see, hear but dont listen. Remember that poem..’What is this life full of care, we have not time to stand and stare.’ “Leisure”..I have quoted it elsewhere here as well.

Hi Murat,

I am so glad that daggers have found their sheath and white pigeons of peace seem to winging their way from ‘vilaayat’ to India.Actually, except for the initial# 12, I quite enjoyed the argument. Its only through dialogue, assension and dissension that we really discover ourselves, the real us hidden beneath shrouds of negation and neglect. Just a nudge and it reveals itself in all its glory like your #27. It was such a warm comment, which I am sure is the true reflection of you as a a person.
Thanks

By: Murat

Murat — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:01:30 +0000

Kaveetaa-I wish more people were as noble in their intentions and deeds as you are- especially with respect to “The self” being defined as goodness personified. So YOU are justified if you call anyone stingy- on the condition that you practice what you preach in #24.
Please keep posting more thought-provoking pieces (as your posts generally are).I do not know about others- but they do brighten up my day in gloomy ol’England (yes you rightly inferred my location). And yes- I would again like to apologise for my aggressive attack (very unlike me)in #12.

By: Kartik Kannan

Kartik Kannan — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:57:47 +0000

Hi Kaveeta

Sometimes the biggest wealth one can have is share a hearty laugh with a close friend….or to have the time to feel happy and reflect back on some nice moments before hitting the sack.

Regarding whether …the truly welathy are truly stingy…I guess that’s quite subjective to the way they have made the money.As long as the person remembers their roots, I guess charity and other options that keep them on the ground will naturally come, otherwise its a case of an upstart-kinda false life.

Good thought provoking piece!

Regards

Kartik

By: kaveetaakaul

kaveetaakaul — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:47:40 +0000

And..Oh about your question “Just wondering what makes you think I dont live in India and dont belong to the ‘gentry’.”

HMMMM. you see among my accomplishments like Tarot reading and palmistry, is crystal ball gazing as well. I could clearly see myself travelling over Europe landing in England..and there you were frowning over my post..

Kidding..:) Your ..what should I call it.. Naivete?..Its touching really. Murat you ip address easily shows your location .. and its not India.

About’not belonging to the gentry’? You negated that in your post to Neha..I take these things on face value..One normally means what one says.

By: kaveetaakaul

kaveetaakaul — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:50:33 +0000

@Murat,

I recall reading in the “Bhagwad Gita” that charity is a must for a householder. The financial kind, which is being made in to quite an issue here, by you, is in fact the lowest form of charity, stated therein. The highest being the gift of knowledge, or through giving of oneself in deed.

Since you mention Calcutta I am reminded of what Ramakrishna Paramhansa had to say on the matter of charity. He advised that while giving charity, fold your hands in deep gratitude before the receiver, since he has given you an opportunity to earn a meritorious deed. Needless to add that I have never forgotten this.

You extrapolate on the duties of the State, which are nowhere close to bearing the stamp of reality in India. Therefore are we supposed to turn a ‘Nelsons Eye’ and wait for relief form official quarters, towards those less fortunate? In my opinion this is akin to passing the buck.

You then ask..’Now would you call these average working class Joe Bloggs, stingy? ”

Yes I would.. most definitely. They were stingy of heart, uncaring, apathetic, unmindful of the condition of a fellow human being. Can you imagine what would have happened to the hapless thousands if not millions the world over if Mother Teresa thought the way you did? In wait for the State to lift a finger? We, none of us can even hope to be close to that saint in our Karma..but whats stopping us from doing what is right, moral, and correct in any situation that presents itself before us?

It would be undignified for me to elucidate on works of charity, or thoughtfulness I may have indulged in. Suffice to say that I am circumspect of empty words..action almost always backs up my writings. I may add here, that in keeping with Ramakrishna’s teachings, have made it a habit to inculcate gratitude towards the receiver, humility in heart, and a prayer for ‘mangal’ for all.

That is why I totally disgree with you that it is mans inherent nature to think of ones personal interests. On the contrary, our innate self is Goodness personnified, where there exists no ‘other’, where material accumulation, or even the thought of sharing ones material blessings was not a thought fit to merit attention. This is not supposed to infer that man was supposed to strip himself of all his wealth, but only that giving off a part to others in need, is not only an absolute must, ethically, morally, spititually, but a bounden duty of every right minded citizen of the world.

By: Murat

Murat — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:56:28 +0000

Neha….Read #20 to get a clearer understanding of the point I am trying to make. I cannot comment on your boss-but let me ask you what proportion of your income is spent on satisfying some need of somebody exterior to your family/stakeholder group?
The point I am trying to make is that the rich are human like you and me- when we ourselves dont go out of our way (most of the time) to help the poor/have-nots, then why should the rich?

By: Neha

Neha — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:01:41 +0000

Hey Mr. Murat..on second thoughts..you told me that you are neither wealthy nor stingy.. and then you ask Kaveetaa how does she think you are not one of the gentry!! So what is the truth? I think you are one of ‘them’..that will explain why you got so hyper:)

By: Neha

Neha — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:22:50 +0000

“using ones own wealth for personal utility (through investment in innovation and enterprise) is more beneficial to society-at least in a state where 1) realistic levels of progressive taxation and 2)an efficient bureacracy/body politik exist…”

I am sorry but I for the love of me cannot find any connection between petty stinginess and all the rest of the jargon that you are dishing out…after all i am not saying that the rich should now sponsor all the poor of the world and spend their millions on the needy..its ‘chindi pennies that they can be stingy about. My boss expects us to take a bus or train for official work..its unheard of. Conveyance allowance in an ad co.!!

By: Murat

Murat — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:41:24 +0000

“when was the last time you came to India and hobnobbed with the ‘gentry’”-lol- Just wondering what makes you think I dont live in India and dont belong to the ‘gentry’. Am i so transparent?
Money is better spent in satiating ones own personal utility and enterprise. If a rich man/woman (atleast i would) decides that it is in his/her interests to help his/her nanny by sharing his/her rotis -then by all means they should. But my point is that lets take a broader look at what are the intrinsic duties of a rich/wealthy person…it is to make the money multiply through legal means, which usually means investing in innovation and enterprise that benefits/satiates societal needs and widens the stakeholder group and more importantly satiates their personal utility.
I think its the responsibility/duty of the state to ensure that its citizens are all happy - the state has the power to tax its citizens to fulfil just this need- so they should tax the wealthy at higher rates. Now i keep emphasising realistic tax rates- the problem is many rich people in India refuse to pay taxes, not because they are stingy or love hoarding their money- but because they dont deem the tax regime to be fair (read a paper entitled ‘The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour’). In India’s case this is a legacy of the pre-liberalisation era (detailed reasoning for this statement is outside the scope of this post) -having an inherently corrupt political system and bureaucrats doesnt help either. But my theory works -Take for example in Sweden the wealthy happily pay 60% income tax above a certain income threshold- because they know that if tomorrow they were to go bankrupt-the state wouldn’t just leave them to die- but would provide resources (education and healthcare) that would help them to redevelop as productive members in society.
Sitting and calling people stingy is not constructive (hence my statement dont make the rich external to the system)….it is not the duty of the rich to be charitable - it is the duty of the state to ensure noone needs charity. In man-eat-man societies/states the rich are as insecure as any other socio-economic class.
I will tell u a particular incident I came across as a child. Growing up in a close-knit para(neighbourhood)in Kolkata, I remember once seeing the corpse of a drug addict in the middle of the street. Noone bothered even covering the body- they just left it there and went about their own business-atleast until the man’s mother came to the scene. Now would you call these average working class Joe Bloggs, stingy? The point of me telling you about this childhood observation of mine was that its in man’s inherent nature to take care of his own interests above everyone elses. No doubt, “the beggar woman giving off her last bed sheet ” should be lauded for her saintliness- but that doesn’t mean we should censure those who take care of their interests above everyone elses- even if they are rich. We shouldn’t expect anyone to go out of (what they deem is)their way to help others- when we all maintain a state there to do just that. help.

By: kaveetaakaul

kaveetaakaul — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:11:45 +0000

Ok..lets begin afresh.

To set the record straighter.. comment 17 on that post was a lengthy response to you..after which the you did not respond..

As for your comment above:

Why are you equating ‘altruism’ with charity? It has more to do with benignancy, kindliness, and other such virtues. Also its your interpretation of my post.. I did not mention the word. The spirit of my contention was quite different.

You further say “why should the rich who are like anyone else by the fact that they too have laboured to earn, accumulate and invest their wealth- just give it away. it doesnt meet any need of society - in fact money is what money does” Please tell me where is it that I have demanded that the wealthy ‘give it away’..if giving a nanny wheat flour pancakes or rotis as opposed to rice is your idea of giving it away’ then you have got me wrong and are reading into it what I have not alluded to.

Sometimes the pettiness of the act is more telling..a microcasm is as veracious as the macro. It is the attitude of stinginess which was the matter of debate here.

And then why should ‘creation of jobs’ be mutually exclusive with apportioned charitable acts? Both can afford to safely co-exist.

The problem as I see it you have taken on a pro-capitalist stance which I have not alluded to at all and neither am I in disagreement with, if you read my Guru review. Of course I confess to being no ‘economics’ major,yet even to my
intellectually impoverished argument, the rationale you offer is as if diametrically opposite to the simple observation in my post..that those who can, often desist from giving,even inconsequential sums, as if it would atrophy their treasures.

“I would say a more sustainable idea is not giving away wealth in charity but for the wealthy to pay higher taxes (realistic levels of progressive taxation)- which then is used by an honest and accountable bureaucracy/govt. to spend on education and health only- this way society will ensure that there is equal opportunity for all to do whatever they want with their lives.”

I am certain you realise the Utopian-ness of your above statement. In fact the highest defaulters are the class you are so fervently appealing for. Also view it in the light of the incident mentioned in the post ..its laughable really. You actually believe they will happily pay extra taxes?

I have censured as you call it a certain behavioural trait, but it is not me who can segregate them from society/ make them external to the system. Murat..it is they who are a “class Apart’ a networking which they create and perpetuate. I do believe that India has the intellectual acumen to rise above the rest of the world..but for 60 years all we have seen is the chasm widening. Reasons galore.. which are clearly not the purview of this post.

Also, just curious.. when was the last time you came to India and hobnobbed with the ‘gentry’? Much as I hate generalisations, as I have mentioned in the post as well, it is a lesson in ‘Wealthonomics’..

By: Murat

Murat — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:02:28 +0000

Oh just to set the record straight- I didn’t shy away from the gandhi debate- it was just that u ended the last post on that topic by saying- if i remember correctly that you wanted to change the topic and not pursue the gandhi one any further

By: Murat

Murat — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:57:22 +0000

Ok Kaveeta- since the white flag is up- here is my argument- why is altruism deemed a virtue- why should the rich who are like anyone else by the fact that they too have laboured to earn, accumulate and invest their wealth- just give it away. it doesnt meet any need of society - in fact money is what money does, and it is the responsibility of those who possess great wealth to invest their money in innovation and lucrative enterprise to make money grow, create jobs and give others a chance to live their dreams.
A lesson in economics: Wealth is created through innovation and enterprise- sitting and giving your money to charity does not do any good to society over the long run- the only benefit is a short term, unsustainable redistribution of wealth. This is the impracticality of brilliant socialistic ideals which have failed time and time again in the 21st century. - I would say a more sustainable idea is not giving away wealth in charity but for the wealthy to pay higher taxes (realistic levels of progressive taxation)- which then is used by an honest and accountable bureaucracy/govt. to spend on education and health only- this way society will ensure that there is equal opportunity for all to do whatever they want with their lives.
Ulmately i would like to say that throughout your argument you have criticised the thoughtlessness/avarice/gathering instinct of the rich- Dont censure the wealthy or make them external to the system- society needs their genius/dexterity/consumption power to keep the wheels of social progress turning.