Of course, there are those very rich who bequeath their whole treasure chest to charity after they pass on, possibly out of guilt, possibly because they reasoned they couldn't take it with them so what the hell, may as well put a shine on their headstone and a halo over their legacy. Some do it out to honor a loved one, etc. And when this does happen, it makes the headlines because it is a rare occurrence.
I think one of the reasons many of the hyper-wealthy donate to charity is because they believe that they can more effectively and efficiently use their money to remedy problems confronting the world than can governmental bodies. This is not only because they usually possess -- or, at the very least, believe they possess -- better skills than mere bureaucrats but is also rooted in the basic principle that an individual will take better care of their money -- whether spending it on themselves or on others through charity -- than will the government as this scenario involves some other person (government bureaucrat) handling the money of someone else (the taxpayer) for the benefit of some third-party.
But to take the advantage that the rich can easily give to charity and beat that over the heads of those who find it financially difficult is a specious argument at the least and arrogance at it's most hideous. Yet, time and again I see this very argument tossed out in defense of the nation's "highest" class of citizens.
I think it inappropriate for any person, no matter how generous, to hector or belittle another for their lack of charitable giving especially if the person on the receiving end is of limited or modest means. On the other hand, however, I do not think that it is inappropriate for individuals who support charitable giving and believe they are more efficient, on average, than government intervention at resolving or alleviating the problems faced by the most vulnerable to note that any increase in overall taxation will negatively affect charitable contributions. I think this proposition is borne out not only be economic theory but also historical experience.
They've been doing this through successfully corrupting our politicians into legislating laws that allow them to literally take from the middle class and the poor via the treasury and at the workplace in all manner of insidiously greed-driven ways.
Without any corroborating evidence this is akin to someone suggesting that the Obama Administration has passed all manner of laws permitting or facilitating the communist takeover of America. Both are hokum that are more descriptive of the mental state of the one positing such views than of actual reality.
Have the wealthy received a larger percentage of the economic gains over the past three to four decades than other segments of the population -- yes. Does this fact necessarily lead to the conclusion that the gains were the product of corruption or some other type of impropriety -- no. Moreover, such an outlook overlooks the non-salaried benefits accruing to consumers on account of globalization and rapid technological development (such development being both paid for -- through venture capital -- and then subsidized -- think early adapters -- by the rich.).
To your point, however, I agree that some of the legal and regulatory benefits accorded to certain industries or market participants are the result of improper or undue influence being exerted by the beneficiaries on regulators or the politicians. Moreover, I find this troubling as, on a fundamental level, it vitiates principles of the free enterprise system. I think the correct response, however, is to limit the role and scope of government activities in the private sector of the economy as limiting the role of government will reduce the means by which companies or others can 'rig' the game by influencing government officials to pass laws beneficial to the corporations' interests. Where regulation is necessary -- as I am not a person who would junk the entire regulatory regime of the US -- I would favor bright-line rules where little is left to the discretion of the regulators. Elimination of this sort not only will increase efficiency -- by promoting certainty -- but will also further limit the opportunity for regulators to get captured by interested third-parties (or, more precisely, regulators might still get 'captured' but it won't really matter because there discretion or power in defining the scope and executing the operation of regulations will be limited).
Finally, with respect to your closing comments regarding greed, I think your disdain for the concept is ill-placed. Can you name a single society that has not run on principles of greed (or put differently, each individual pursuing their own self-interest)? Moreover, and more importantly, no other economic system has done more to improve the quality of life for the ordinary, working person than the free enterprise system. I think it no coincidence that over all of recorded human history, the period in which the lot of the ordinary man increased most dramatically coincided, almost exactly, with the period where large parts of the world embraced free markets and, more or less, free trade. Indeed, those areas of the world in which the problem of serious poverty still exists are precisely those areas of the world that have resisted free enterprise and free trade. Finally, for those 'hard' cases of poverty that continue to exist even in country that operate under free market principles, the majority of such cases are either caused or exacerbated by government intervention and regulation. The most salient example would be the minimum wage and low-skill workers (especially minorities)(a clearer explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA#t=01m56s).
Facebook
Twitter