The FT has an article this morning under the headline:
Can you be rich and caring?
The note that there are studies on this issue, saying:
Perhaps the most famous recent series of studies was done by a pair of Berkeley psychologists in 2012. One of these showed that drivers of luxury vehicles were more likely to cut up other motorists and less likely to let other drivers through. The duo also discovered the rich were more likely to cheat, lie, steal and endorse unethical behaviour at work.
And they avoid and evade the most tax too. There would be no tax havens and no tax abuse industry without them.
If you want evidence that they do not care, I suggest the existence of both of them is the clearest that can be given.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Julian Richer, John Timpson and Peter Dawe are rich. You say the rich avoid and evade tax. Therefore you saying there people are avoiding and evading tax and the world should be without them.
Or are you saying there are exceptions? In which case your post is rubbish.
The FT article makes clear there are exceptions
Only a fool thinks there aren’t
Rich people are rich because they collect money.
It’s a bit like collecting butterflies, or stamps or….books about railways… 🙂
“It’s a bit like collecting butterflies!!!”
If we paid our taxes in butterflies maybe. Since we don’t this statement is simply ridiculous.
Alan McGowan says:
“It’s a bit like collecting butterflies!!!”
If we paid our taxes in butterflies maybe. Since we don’t this statement is simply ridiculous.”
Since people who collect money do their damnedest to not pay taxes it ceases to be ridiculous.
“Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior”
Paul K. Piff, Daniel M. Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner
PNAS March 13, 2012. 109 (11) 4086-4091; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109
Abstract:
“Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.”
Professor Paul Piff, University of California, Irvine
Thanks
“Poor more generous than rich in recession, study shows” – http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/poor-more-generous-than-rich-in-recession-study-shows.
And you must contrast this article “Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior” with the following article which implies that morality (or not) is taught as part of child-rearing and therefore in one sense class neutral. Obviously disregarding the needs of others in the process or mechanics of accruing excessive amounts of money is in most cases a mental attitude that gets passed on down the generations. In psychological terms it’s a form of “domination” dependency in which fellow human beings are regarded as mere extension objects of yourself there to serve your needs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3471369/
I do not wish to be dogmatic about this, because I do not feel particularly convinced by either side; but the interesting feature of the proposition to me, was that it was based on empirical psychological research. Your link to ‘Explaining Society: An Expanded Toolbox for Social Scientists’ (DC Bell, et al) is no doubt a thorough piece of work; but it is an abstract ‘thought experiment’; not to be dismissed, but less interesting to me, in this particular case under consideration, than empirical research. I do not think that decides the issue, but I think it worth presenting the basis of the arguments.
When discussions on the topic of rich people occur, often in the shape of encomia as to their superior intelligence and ability, rather than (as is actually the case), their luck and the quality of the society and economy in which they operate, I always think of Honoré de Balzac’s observation:
“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.”
This is abundantly the case with the great aristocratic dynasties, many of whom descend from the bandits that came across with William the Conqueror, and so owe their wealth and status to plunder, but it’s probably true of the great “dynasties”, such as the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts, the Koch brothers and so on.
Of course, pace Timothy Harper, there are exceptions, maybe many of them, but rather than invalidating the claim, they are the exceptions that prove the possibility of the truth of the rule
Whenever I’ve stood outside local supermarkets rattling tins for a local charity – a talking newspaper for the blind – I’ve noticed that the most generous donations come from those who appear to have little to give while those who have parked the most expensive cars studiously avoid eye contact and hurry past. I’ve shared this observation with others and they have agreed that this is the behaviour that they too have observed.
Yes possible there is the rich and the ones who want to be rich. if you drive a fancy car, costs are higher and less money to give.
Of course, the rich are much more likely to be making regular contributions via direct debt and GAYE etc.
There is no evidence to support that claim
One is either driven by money and what it buys, or by human experiences and what it makes you.
Sometimes a bit of both, but the balance is often broken in favour of money.
Matter of choice and character.
Studies have also shown that proportionately, the rich give a lot less to charity.
Accumulation of wealth becomes a motivation in itself. Strange behaviour.
Marie Thomas says:
“Accumulation of wealth becomes a motivation in itself.”
And I was ridiculed earlier for suggesting a parallel with collecting butterflies 🙂
Eventually with persistence you could presumably have a complete collection of (albeit dead) butterflies. Trying to accumulate all the money is inherently pointless though. A fool’s errand if ever there was one. As King Midas mythically discovered.
I like the comparison with butterfly collecting!
Although it may appear cruel, it is sometimes motivated by scientific interest and research, so has a valid purpose.
The collection of wealth however seems more like a disease to me, almost like a high-class OCD