How much wealth would you accumulate before giving the rest to charity?

I like to have 10-20 million dollars in my bank. The rest I would give up :).
 
I'm not sure I understand (it's 7.00am mind you). I guess I mean I would want at least two, maybe three houses in different countries and money to go berserk on an international scale. So $2,000,0000 is well off the mark.

What I'm getting at is that the amount of money isn't particularly important, net cashflow is what matters.

$2 million gets you roughly $100k/year - I wouldn't want a mortgage on a $2m house with that (and certainly not on three houses), but I'd feel comfortable paying the rent on a $2m house.
 
So you're simply trying to subtly paint everyone as greedy bastards - nothing more, nothing less?
:lol: Honestly, why would I want that? I don't see how it hurts to think about this, unless one doesn't want to feel like a greedy bastard, that is.
 
I doubt any are feeling greedy as long as they know at some point they will give away some of their money to charity.
 
:lol: Honestly, why would I want that? I don't see how it hurts to think about this, unless one doesn't want to feel like a greedy bastard, that is.
You clearly phrased the question as a moral one. It's a subtle way of asking, "just how greedy are you?"
 
Hell, if I had £10 million, I'd give away any other income, because it would be totally superfluous at that point. I don't have expensive tastes and I already donate to charity regularly, so it wouldn't be exactly a hard choice to make.
 
I'm not talking a $400,000* a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars*, buddy. A player, or nothing.

* In 1985 dollars - adjust upward to 2012 working Wall Street stiff and player levels.
 
I doubt any are feeling greedy as long as they know at some point they will give away some of their money to charity.
Aren't you feeling just a little greedy for not giving more or earlier though?

You clearly phrased the question as a moral one. It's a subtle way of asking, "just how greedy are you?"
You're too paranoid. Of course there's a moral factor to this, but I'm not going to reveal where the actual threshold is after all have given their answers...
 
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

USA #1
 
What did I say?
What did you say? Wherever you set the number you could always be feeling greedy for not giving more. The notion of not feeling greedy because you're giving some to charity could be questioned...
 
I'd probably feel guilty for having £1 million, let alone £10 million, but then we are assuming that (a) I could have this money and (b) I would give away 100% of my other income forever.
 
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

USA #1
You might as well say lazy is good. Lazy has given us machinery and motor cars and personal jets, and remote controls and armchairs and beds and fishing rods.
 
You might as well say lazy is good. Lazy has given us machinery and motor cars and personal jets, and remote controls and armchairs and beds and fishing rods.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're not here to indulge in fantasy, but in political and economic reality. America, America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions. Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company!

All together, these men sitting up here own less than 3 percent of the company. And where does Mr. Cromwell put his million-dollar salary? Not in Teldar stock; he owns less than 1 percent.

You own the company. That's right -- you, the stockholder. And you are all being royally screwed over by these, these bureaucrats, with their steak lunches, their hunting and fishing trips, their corporate jets and golden parachutes.

Teldar Paper, Mr. Cromwell, Teldar Paper has 33 different vice presidents, each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year. Now, I have spent the last two months analyzing what all these guys do, and I still can't figure it out. One thing I do know is that our paper company lost 110 million dollars last year, and I'll bet that half of that was spent in all the paperwork going back and forth between all these vice presidents.

The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated.
 
Back
Top Bottom