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

[buckeye45_73]

Utah, Mississippi Give Large Percentage of Income to Charity | TIME.com

But Utah is a bit of an outlier. The rest of the more generous states are dominated by the South – the country’s most Christian region and another faith that regularly emphasizes tithing 10%. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina round out the top five.



households earning $50,000 to $75,000 give more to charities as a percentage of discretionary income than those who made more than $100,000;
households making more than $200,000 give less when they’re near similarly wealthy households. But households that were in more economically diverse ZIP codes tended to give more than those that weren’t;
the more generous states voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven-lowest ranking ones voted for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

 

[Pogo]

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".

Ummm... not in this language it doesn't.

I figured you meant it that way, but it's not what you wrote. "Obligated" means it's involuntary. You "should" have used "should". By mixing the message, you gave your target audience an out. And they all took it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

0% and everything above that is gravy.

What % of conservatives this liberals should mind their own fucking business.

 

[Pogo]

Utah, Mississippi Give Large Percentage of Income to Charity | TIME.com

But Utah is a bit of an outlier. The rest of the more generous states are dominated by the South – the country’s most Christian region and another faith that regularly emphasizes tithing 10%. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina round out the top five.



households earning $50,000 to $75,000 give more to charities as a percentage of discretionary income than those who made more than $100,000;
households making more than $200,000 give less when they’re near similarly wealthy households. But households that were in more economically diverse ZIP codes tended to give more than those that weren’t;
the more generous states voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven-lowest ranking ones voted for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

And that's because it counted contributions to churches, a factoid to which your note about "the country's most Christian region" was a dead giveaway. Tithing to churches may be legally defined as a charitable contribution but you're using selective weasel wording. "Generous" doesn't mean giving to your own group.

In fact the very next paragraph in the article after your top quote is this:

>> Take away churches as charities, however, and red states no longer dominate the world of donations. Instead, New England &#8211; a region that leans Democratic, with far fewer religiously affiliated Americans but with more affluent residents &#8211; catapults toward the top. <<

Apparently you forgot to post that part. That would make you a liar by omission.

SO Busted. Your own link too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...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?

$0.00

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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
_

What is curious is that anyone with a brain thinks this is worth discussing.


Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.

It is not my business what anyone does with their money, that should be clear even to fakes like you.

Acts 3:3-4 "Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”"

 

[buckeye45_73]

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 is possible, but we dont need to, so who gives a shit about the draft?

Some people will join just cuz, others will pussy out.....which is fine...I dont like people who protest the US while at war.....for any reason....it gives the enemy hope and puts our men and women in more danger......all because of some fucking hippie type

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

which would have disincentivized billionaires from giving to charity.

P{eople like you conviently forget that liberals put all these exceptions in, so they can have elites say raise my taxes......and then blame republicans


why havent liberals killed all these tax deductions....like the first two years in obama's term? Why dont they come out for eliminating them now?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

WTF are you talking about, we already do...it's called taxes dipshit.....
and why do you like to tell others what to do, it's none of your fucking business you fakeass pro choicer(pro choice my ass!)

 

[Darkwind]

...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 not obligated to give any of it. Why do you think they have a responsibility to better mankind? Do you mean they should pay to have a third leg installed on all of us?

What about those who aren't billionaires? If I were rich to the point that I would never again have to consider how I would survive, I still would not give anything to mankind. Mankind could care less about anyone but themselves.

Just look at how selfish the alleged "compassionate" left is. If you don't have money to pay for their caring, you don't care.

That is their motto. Pure greed, based upon fear, and backed by guns.

No thanks. I gave at the office.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's the problem with liberals, they believe that you are required to give, required to prop up the less fortunate at your expense without any input from you. They wish to force compassion, not give compassion. Liberals are nonreciprocal, they demand compassion but never once consider giving it. They assume generosity is an obligation instead of an emotion. I wonder how it would work if they were made to be "compassionate" to someone else who didn't agree with them?

Liberals are wrong. But if they believe in giving so much, they can leave all their things on my front doorstep, I'd be more than glad to take it off their "compassionate" hands.

 

[Locke11_21]

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.

I have a better idea. How about we require corrupt politicians like Nazi Pelosi to give all her profits off of insider trading for the good of the country? Or how about we require the Feinsteins to give to give all their profits off of Diane's corruption for the good of the country?

Conservative coddling of the Rich is downright creepy.

What is really creepy is Obama being in bed with Goldman Sachs, and my oh my, do those lefties coddle the rich elitists in Hollywood or what! The lefties do a real good job of coddling Gates, Soros, Buffet etc.

 

[Billy000]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

 

[Billy000]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

dumbass this is a false arguement, they DO give.....but if they dont....so fucking what????

Why is this an issue......if you want them to give, make em join a church, they seem to give more.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

You are requiring people sacrifice, all for the sake of charity. Thing is, it's their sacrifice to make. You're wrong. Billionaires will give an amount they feel comfortable giving. You don't get to decide how how much.

Yes, you liberals think giving is a duty, a "responsibility." No need to repeat yourself, you've confirmed it for me. This leads me to ask, have you ever given your own money to charity?

 

[Billy000]

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

You are requiring people sacrifice, all for the sake of charity. Thing is, it's their sacrifice to make. You're wrong. Billionaires will give an amount they feel comfortable giving. You don't get to decide how how much.

Yes, you liberals think giving is a duty, a "responsibility." No need to repeat yourself, you've confirmed it for me. This leads me to ask, have you ever given your own money to charity?

I just said that i am not setting a standard. I am not saying giving in general is a responsibility. I said it is a responsibility for billionaires to give.

Yes, I have given.

 

[Billy000]

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

dumbass this is a false arguement, they DO give.....but if they dont....so fucking what????

Why is this an issue......if you want them to give, make em join a church, they seem to give more.

Well I can already tell you don't deserve to be a billionaire. Luckily you never will of course.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

You are requiring people sacrifice, all for the sake of charity. Thing is, it's their sacrifice to make. You're wrong. Billionaires will give an amount they feel comfortable giving. You don't get to decide how how much.

Yes, you liberals think giving is a duty, a "responsibility." No need to repeat yourself, you've confirmed it for me. This leads me to ask, have you ever given your own money to charity?

I just said that i am not setting a standard. I am not saying giving in general is a responsibility. I said it is a responsibility for billionaires to give.

Yes, I have given.

Stop.

No. IT IS NOT a responsibility. Why is it just billionaires? If you had said 'everyone', I would have given you a wider berth, but here you are. Responsibility equates with obligation, obligation equates with duty. So therefore, you are obligating them to give.

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed and sheltered. If we're compassionate, we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

-Penn Jillette