Aboout the billionaires' pledge to donate half their wealth to charity-

[hedgehog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half-fortune-gates

Many of these millionaires made a lot of their money shipping American jobs overseas.
Which would you rather see:

[rocktivity]

1. Be REALLY charitable and pay it out

in the form of domestic jobs with living wages and benefits, and more scholarships. And pay it out NOW--don't put it in your will and make us wait until you die.

:patriot:
rocktivity

[drmeow]

2. I think they should (in this order)

1) Invest their money in opening US based factories and paying American workers a living wage
2) Go back and recalculate their taxes based on pre-Reagan tax rates and pay the US government the difference
3) Give money to charity.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. kick for more voting

[AnArmyVeteran]

4. They aren't giving away anything.

If a billionaire gives away half his money it wouldn't change his life at all he isn't sacrificing to give. A homeless person who gives away his last dime to someone else gives away more than all the money ever donated by all the rich people combined.

And how did the billionaire get his money to start with? He didn't make it on his own. Other people working for him and the people who bought his goods are the ones who gave him his money. I'm sick of the rich getting congratulated for giving away money that was made off of the backs of the poor and middle class.

Bring back the 90% income tax rate for the rich. Then we wouldn't need their goddamned blood money.

[valerief]

5. Yeah, they'll donate it to the Help The Rich Charity. nt

[stray cat]

6. Only after you give away half of your wealth to a neighbor

[hedgehog]

9. I don't think you understand the situation here. Do you have any idea how

much a billion dollars is? If I give away half a billion dollars and keep half a billion, that amounts to $500,000,000. If I make a 1% return on that money every year, that's 5 million dollars a year income without ever touching the principle, year after year. How in the world can one person spend $5 million one time, let alone year after year.

Put it another way -

Families who make up the 5 percent of highest earners account for about 30 percent of consumer spending.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/110251-tax-hikes-may-wait

Wealth concentration in this country has reached unprecedented levels

http://www.lcurve.org/

Wealth redistribution at this point isn't a case of re-slicing a pie. With so few controlling so much, the entire economy is distorted. If wealth were spread more equitably, the pie would actually be larger because the money would be passing through more hands.

For 30 years, real wages have stagnated or actually dropped even as productivity reached record levels. The benefits of all that increased productivity went to a very few while the rest of us are working harder and longer for less and less. It has now reached a tipping point in which the purchases of the ultra rich are not sufficient to provide work for the rest of us.

[WinkyDink]

14. Do you know the difference between "percentage" and "actual"?

[stray cat]

7. Its easy to spend someone elses money - what have each of us done lately?

[Zenlitened]

8. Epic flail. - n/t

[hedgehog]

11. I point you to the comments of that 1st Century radical socialist -

Jesus:

From Mark 12:
The Widow's Offering
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."



Taken literally, the widow's donation of one mite could have been by obligation, since she could not have given any less. Following this reasoning, some interpreters note that Jesus sits down in judgment "opposite" (over against, in opposition to) the treasury; the lesson drawn emphasizes that, while people are impressed with the large sums that are put in, they did not notice that the temple took half of what the "poor widow" had to live on. Connected with Mark 13:1-2, "there will not be left one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down", the lesson is then interpreted as promising the overthrow of any worship of God sustained by robbery.

However, since the woman would have been under no obligation to give the second mite, when she gave "all her living" she could not have given any more. Following this reasoning, the tale is typically understood by Christians as a condemnation of the rich as they are described, for their inflated self importance displayed by the ostentatious announcements of their own generosity: which Jesus dwarfs by comparison to the widow's mite. Also, in light of its proximity to the widow's mite story, Mark 13:1-2 may imply that the widow's worship is of greater value than the Temple. Accordingly, the story is typically taken as an admonition to be wholeheartedly devoted to God, rather than concerned with pleasing men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite

[WinkyDink]

13. 1. Speak for yourself. 2. A billion is an OBSCENE amount of personal wealth.

[rucky]

10. Is it true that one of the billionaires built a town just for Catholics?

I think it may have been the Domino's CEO. I'll check it out, but point being is they may have some crazy (and very selective) ideas of charity.

Conservatives really are charitable - as long as they get to pick and choose who's worthy of help. In that, they totally miss the point.

I can see this whole movement being spun as a way to replace taxpayer funded programs.


edit: Ok, here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3452900&page=1

[WinkyDink]

12. Door #3; "Tax law should disallow the accumulation of a billion dollars."

[hedgehog]

15. Absolutely - people need to understand that when the wealth of the

nation is concentrated like that, it damages the entire economy. It's not a matter of seizing money from the ultra-rich, it's a matter of preventing harm to the rest of us. I would compare it to laws that forbid the development of wetlands. You may own that stretch of salt marsh, but if we let you drain it and build a monster resort complex, it causes untold damage to the entire ecosystem and can increase flooding in other areas in the event of a major storm.

Your freedom to accumulate wealth ends when it damages my freedom to make a living.