Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...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 can dance around the second.
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 can dance around the second.
Slice it any way you wish "obligated" means "you must do it."
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.
Conservative coddling of the Rich is downright creepy.
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.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
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.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
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.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
Your statement wasn't in the past tense.
"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."
Once again your ignorance is in plain view.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
Your statement wasn't in the past tense.
"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."
Once again your ignorance is in plain view.
If you want to argue that we no longer CAN require young men to give their lives for their country, by all means do so.
Start by proving that it is no longer possible to draft men into the service.
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.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
If you want to argue that no draftees died fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or WWII, for starters,
by all means, let's hear it.
Your statement wasn't in the past tense.
"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."
Once again your ignorance is in plain view.
If you want to argue that we no longer CAN require young men to give their lives for their country, by all means do so.
Start by proving that it is no longer possible to draft men into the service.
Fact is no one today is obligated to join the military. They might at some point in the future. But, in reality, billionaires are one stock gamble away from being impoverished themselves and plenty of them have been.
Billionaires are not obligated to give a single cent to anyone. If they do, and plenty of them do, they do it because they made a choice to do so.
My personal policy is to not give a cent to any charity that benefits people. If I was a billionaire, I still would not give a cent to any charity that benefits people. That's my money, my choice.
Your statement wasn't in the past tense.
"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."
Once again your ignorance is in plain view.
If you want to argue that we no longer CAN require young men to give their lives for their country, by all means do so.
Start by proving that it is no longer possible to draft men into the service.
That's a deeply seeded logical fallacy right there. I dont think you'll ever recover.
