Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 2, 2026, 2:46 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The richest are the most generous? I think not.
|
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. 
I'm not sure you can draw that sort it of conclusion, Creed. Lots of charities have enormous overhead, which certainly accounts for a fair amount of that 2/3.
However, on the whole, I agree with you on the folly of expecting private charity to do what government services can for the needy. Realizing that was the largest contributor to me abandoning most libertarian ideology many years ago - I still maintain that one of government's primary roles is protecting the rights of the people - all of the people, and all of their rights - and I disagree very much with many self-described libertarians on how that ought to be accomplished. (January 1, 2014 at 11:51 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: People tend to give to things that play a part in who they are or what they do. I'm sure that factors into it. I cannot afford to give to every worthy cause - so I tend to give to causes that I most empathize with, usually ones that service the needs of the homeless and poor in my local community. 
That's the charity amount GIVEN to wealthy institutions. It says right there that only a third goes to institutions that help the poor. A THIRD. 2/3 goes to shit like opera houses and fucking Ivy League. It also pokes a hole in the argument that raising the taxes on the rich means they'll contribute less, to which I say; GOOD. Let their donations to their fucking 90210 art museums dry up, the fuck would I care? The ones actually giving to the poor will keep giving what they give, and the ones who actually weren't will donate less to their little vanity projects; won't hurt me none, but it will help us clear our deficit.
(January 1, 2014 at 11:59 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: That's the charity amount GIVEN to wealthy institutions. It says right there that only a third goes to institutions that help the poor. A THIRD. 2/3 goes to shit like opera houses and fucking Ivy League. It also pokes a hole in the argument that raising the taxes on the rich means they'll contribute less, to which I say; GOOD. Let their donations to their fucking 90210 art museums dry up, the fuck would I care? The ones actually giving to the poor will keep giving what they give, and the ones who actually weren't will donate less to their little vanity projects; won't hurt me none, but it will help us clear our deficit. Ah, I hadn't read the link - I was going on your summary. 
Great article.
But does the 2/3 include donations to disease research and things like that? I know a lot of people donate to cancer, AIDS, and a lot of other types of research. I'm ok with those, donating to Harvard isn't really a donation, it's kind of like paying your way in.  
Sergey Brin has just pledged half a billion dollars to Parkinsons, Bill gates has vowed to eradicate malaria,Warren Buffet gives half of his wealth to charity.
And notice those three are also the ones who state that higher taxes on the rich are a necessary thing...and Gates and Buffet are the 1st and 2nd most richest people, respectively.
They're the exception, however, and not the rule. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
