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

[The Rabbi]

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.

It shouldn't be hard for you to explain why then.

There are no laws or procedures currently in place to draft anyone. There havent been for 30 years or more. No one has been drafted in that time.
This isn't difficult.

 

[Wildman]

let's forget billionaires for a moment and look at the multimillionaires in congress for a moment, OK ?

• John Kerry (D-MA)- $198.65 million
• Darrell Issa (R-CA)- $140.55 million
• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $85.81 million
• John Rockefeller (D-WV)- $83.08 million
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)- $79.11 million
• Jared Polis (D-CO)- $72.09 million
• Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)- $56.80 million
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- $41.78 million

in the top eight (8) there is only one Republican, anyone wonder how much these RICH democRATS give to charity, Bubba gave his dirty underwear with a couple of buck$.

and Hitlery probably donated her used Tam...., awwww forget it

 

[Billy000]

...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.

Apparently you have trouble with vocabulary. "Obligated" does not mean involuntary. It means "should".

 

[Skull Pilot]

Conservatives have conveniently forgotten that Romney wanted to eliminate or reduce the charity tax deduction,

which would have disincentivized billionaires from giving to charity.

There should not be a tax deduction for giving to charity.

No business should be tax exempt either including the businesses of charity and religion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is curious that people look at this question from the point of view of a billionaire? Why is that, all billionaires started from a place of advantage, no one operates in a vacuum nor does anyone alone create wealth. All wealth comes from society in its various forms. That someone of advantage or a particular talent can accumulate wealth is only admirable if our values are such that vast amounts of money are the target of a worthwhile existence or contribute in some way to the society we value. Why don't people reverse the question and ask why the working poor are poor. Today that thought is almost un-American. Years of the advantaged people with little thought has created an image of working that doesn't align with reality but few ever see that. See Judt quote below.

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

"Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


The rich person's Nanny state. How the rich benefit from what belongs to all: CEPR and Introducing the Great Divergence - Slate Magazine

How did you get rich daddy? The rich get rich because of their merit.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...h-should-not-be-taxed-more-9.html#post4392557

"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy

"A surefire politics of change would necessarily involve getting people in the middle — from the 30th to the 70th percentile — to see their own economic self-interest. If they vote in their own self-interest, they’ll elect people who are likely to be more aligned with people with lower incomes as well as with them. As long as people in the middle identify more with people on the top than with those on the bottom, we are doomed. The obscene amount of money flowing into the electoral process makes things harder yet." Peter Edelman http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

"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
_

^ As wrong as humanly possible

The Forbes 400 today has very little in common with the member from 20, 30 years ago. If the Marxist economic ideology was true the list would be static; but its not

 

[Wyatt earp]

wrong thread

 

[hazlnut]

...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?

Read Andrew Carnegie's -- The Gospel of Wealth

The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie stressed the importance of recirculation of money in the society and that giving away money to charitable organization is not enough because its correct use cannot be guaranteed. He suggested that the rich should be trusted to make sure that their money reaches the community in a way that could really improve the living conditions of the needy and that the money could be regenerated in the society. He was of the opinion that accumulation of wealth was not unconstructive and the government should not try to hamper it.

Don't read to much into "the government should not try and hamper it." -- he was fine with paying taxes and he believed in Death Taxes -- progressive death taxes.

In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: "Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State, and by all means such taxes should be granted, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, at least the other half comes to the privy coffer of the State."[2] He claimed that, in bettering society and people here on earth, one would be rewarded at the gates of Paradise.

 

[boedicca]

The OP has posed one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" type of questions.

His phrasing assumes that Billionaires are obligated to give away their money in the first place.

They are not. In a free society, nobody is obligated to give their wealth, income, or possessions to another. Charity is an activity performed on a voluntary basis in Civil Society.

 

[Redfish]

the real question is do private charities do a better job of helping the needy than the government?

Of course they do. But donating to charity is not an obligation, whereas paying taxes is a forced obligation.

If you don't like what a charity is doing with you money you can stop giving any to them. But if you don't like what the govt is doing with your money---tough shit.

 

[rdean]

Food for thought...

The Americans Who Gave Away the Most Money in 2012 - Forbes

'Forbes' Billionaire List: J.K. Rowling Drops From Billionaire To Millionaire Due To Charitable Giving

"Buffett, 82, donated to three foundations run by his children...."

People like giving things to their kids, who Liberals tell us actually belong to the state

And what is it those foundations do asswipe?

 

[rdean]

the real question is do private charities do a better job of helping the needy than the government?

Of course they do. But donating to charity is not an obligation, whereas paying taxes is a forced obligation.

If you don't like what a charity is doing with you money you can stop giving any to them. But if you don't like what the govt is doing with your money---tough shit.

How much of their money comes from the government? Did you bother check that out or just assume none? Start with the largest, like the Catholic Charities.

 

[DiamondDave]

...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??

No.. I do not think anyone should be FORCED to give... you have the freedom to be a miser just as you have the freedom to be a charitable person... whether I agree with them or not.. whether you agree with their decision or not... irrelevant

 

[bripat9643]

0

 

[Redfish]

the real question is do private charities do a better job of helping the needy than the government?

Of course they do. But donating to charity is not an obligation, whereas paying taxes is a forced obligation.

If you don't like what a charity is doing with you money you can stop giving any to them. But if you don't like what the govt is doing with your money---tough shit.

How much of their money comes from the government? Did you bother check that out or just assume none? Start with the largest, like the Catholic Charities.

did I say that some charities don't get money from the govt?


is planned parenthood a charity

is Acorn a charity

is NPR a charity

is NEA a charity


but tell us mr wizard, how much does catholic charities get from the govt?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Name the people who went from being billionaires to poverty.

Billionaires?? Dunno.. but we have so few billionaires... But multi-millionaires.. let's just start with athletes like Travis Henry, Scottie Pippen, Lenny Dykstra, Andre Rison.. and do we go in to the celebrities???

People, even at this highest levels of wealth, get stupid and lose it

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a deeply seeded logical fallacy right there. I dont think you'll ever recover.

It shouldn't be hard for you to explain why then.

There are no laws or procedures currently in place to draft anyone. There havent been for 30 years or more. No one has been drafted in that time.
This isn't difficult.

We aren't drafting because we don't need to, not because we can't. For God's sake you people are idiots.

Where do the reasonably intelligent conservatives post? If there is such a thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Name the people who went from being billionaires to poverty.

lol, I guess least intelligent poster on USMB Katzndogz list was shorten than she thought it was.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It shouldn't be hard for you to explain why then.

There are no laws or procedures currently in place to draft anyone. There havent been for 30 years or more. No one has been drafted in that time.
This isn't difficult.

We aren't drafting because we don't need to, not because we can't. For God's sake you people are idiots.

Where do the reasonably intelligent conservatives post? If there is such a thing.

We can't without it being reinstated you stupid fuck and it will take both the Congress and the President to reinstate it.

The reasonably intelligent conservatives have been kicking your ass this entire thread.

 

[deaddogseye]

...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 are obligated to give nothing.

 

[buckeye45_73]

...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 arent obligated to give anything.....just look at Joe Biden...and most democrats, they dont give shit.....what's funny is, christians and muslims and jews, ect, people with strong religious views (not fakers like Pelosi) do give quite a bit......from religious conviction!