Conservatives: how much money do you think billionaires are obligated to give...

Billionaires aren't obligated to give a cent. That's what charity is. We haven't required young men to give their lives for the good of the country for a good many years now. It too is voluntary.
 
When I saw President George Herbert Walker Bush appealing for help after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, I decided to help.

I could not reach 1-800 number, so I drove 100 miles and called from a location from which my offer of help was registered and appreciated.

Ever since then, until 2004 when my health no longer allowed me to be there, I HELPED. And if I may say so, my help - by percentage to my income - was far greater than the contribution to the poor by Vice President Joe Biden.
 
...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

Obligated? None.
 
"Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
-- Andrew Carnegie
 
If we can require young men to give their lives for the good of the country, then we can certainly require billionaires to give money for the good of the country.

and when did the draft come back?

It will come back the next time there's a war big enough to require it. You aren't so ignorant as to not know that young men still register for selective service are you?

My guess is you are.
 
"Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
-- Andrew Carnegie

"Surplus Wealth" is not a sacred trusts, but a wealth that has been accumulated by hard work, brains, ambition and management skills, and which should NEVER be a subject of disposition by those who had nothing to do with creating it.

If you want to redistribute wealth, earn it first.
 
When I saw President George Herbert Walker Bush appealing for help after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, I decided to help.

I could not reach 1-800 number, so I drove 100 miles and called from a location from which my offer of help was registered and appreciated.

Ever since then, until 2004 when my health no longer allowed me to be there, I HELPED. And if I may say so, my help - by percentage to my income - was far greater than the contribution to the poor by Vice President Joe Biden.

Right, everybody's a hero on the internet.
 
If we can require young men to give their lives for the good of the country, then we can certainly require billionaires to give money for the good of the country.

and when did the draft come back?

It will come back the next time there's a war big enough to require it. You aren't so ignorant as to not know that young men still register for selective service are you?

My guess is you are.

Being required to register for Selective Service is a long ways from being required to "give their lives for the good of the country".

I'm not going to ask you about your ignorance, that much is perfectly clear.
 
...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

They don't have to give anything.
 
"But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him - how can God's love be within him?" John 3:17


That can be applied to anyone,not just a person of faith.


That was a long winded explanation of class envy

Doesn't obamie have a brother or an uncle living in a shack? Isn't he "obligated" to give him 70% of his earnings?
 
...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

They don't have to give anything.

The OP is poorly worded. It's asking two different questions. First it says "obligated", which suggests involuntary, and then it says "should", which is voluntary.

I believe he means not "obligated by law", but by "conscience" or "ethics". But I notice a lot of posters choosing to interpret it the first way so that they can dance around the second. :eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

They don't have to give anything.

The OP is poorly worded. It's asking two different questions. First it says "obligated", which suggests involuntary, and then it says "should", which is voluntary.

I believe he means "obligated by conscience" or by "ethics", not by law. But I notice a lot of posters choosing to interpret it the first way so that they don't have to touch the second. :eusa_whistle:

No one is obligated to give any of their money to anyone.
 
Actually, Liberals don't do that; Leftists do that.

So you're saying Obama is a leftist?

I'm saying that's how the political spectrum works. I don't remember mentioning anybody's name.
Who is "left" or "right" depends on where you're standing.

Ok. Then liberals = left, conservative = right.

So for you to say "liberals don't do that, leftist do that" is a complete fabrication of the truth.
 

Forum List

Back
Top