Is it the fear of accepting something that appears to be an unconventional method of cash exchange with others, that makes it appear to some to suspect or suggest, without proof, the presence of deception? Perhaps one of the primary barriers to successful application of cash gifting is mostly a mental one. Through the process of simple rules, one should find success.
There are long-standing traditions in other cultures, specifically Asian and in Jewish, of creating financial strength through unity, specifically through the programs in gifting. Even as Western culture focuses on the traditional notions of self-accomplishment, personal merit and individuality, some other cultures find their destiny in the fruits of community energy.
Some of the confusion in Western culture creates an impression that cash gifts somehow represents a less than legitimate match for traditional enterprise, and, therefore, is somehow robbing mindshare, and, of course, redirecting resources which might be applied to commercial processes and replacing it with something that is much less deserving of formal acceptance. The combination of the lack of awareness, and a mistrust of recognizable competition, is, ultimately, erroneously judged as a threat by those who would choose not to participate, or even to judge objectively.
This objection is from a mindset of ‘scarcity’, or one of limited resources. It pretends that gifting is composed only of recipients, while ignoring the ‘products’ of the resulting output of those who recycle their receipts into a new sequence of other activities. The late Jim Rohn said that if you feel that your cup is already full, you can only create the capacity to carry more by first emptying some from the cup first. You might eventually receive more in return than that which you remove, if you will only allow it to happen.
Legally, the annual restrictions on gifting of any kind maintain a well-supervised control of activity. Why would there be legally defined limits on gifting if gifting were not legal? Now that is not to say that gifting in any form is fair and proper. There is a saying in the financial markets – “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” Cash gifting is illegal when it goes outside of the regulations. Even Bernard Madoff took advantage of legitimate instruments, called financial derivatives, or options, in an twisted exercise of fraud to deceive others of over $50 billion for his own good. Far too many others, however, create a living by following the rules that Madoff cast aside, as they use those same tools routinely. I use them myself to create above average returns in days, but, of course, only with a small portion of my portfolio, due to the risks involved. This is done by my knowing the rules and the risks, and by my following signals of a legal, technical, and, of course, an emotional nature. Similarly, there is a thriving gifting activity that provides advantages to those who legitimately participate, with absolutely no threat of any kind to other well intended, more traditional activities.
It’s my long-term plan to ultimately dispose of excess resources by ‘gifting’ to as many of a rightful group and/or individual recipients of my contributions as possible, for their own purposes. It is a well-known fact that resource limitations exist in abundance, in private, public and non-profit areas and locations.
As I continue to open up as many streams of liquid assets as possible, I will maintain an advantage over those who are bound within their own self-imposed constraints, particularly limits that are exaggerated, especially those of well-defined cultural or legal traditions