How Much Should Wealthy People Donate To Charity?

Hey, its a free (*)(*)(*)(*)ing country, one should donate to charity as they see fit. Charity is voluntary, when its forced it's called taxes.

 

'Lucky?' How so? Why do you assume folks making over $250K a year are just 'lucky?' Perhaps they have worked hard for it, perhaps they have worked decades to attain it. Very few get handed that kind of income for sitting around on their butts.

The wealthy do donate. Look at most any wealthy person and you'll find charities, and causes they donate to. On top of that they get taxed sometimes close to 50% of their income.

You seem to be supporting government seizing of wealth and then distributing it to those with a larger need. That is Marxism and it has never worked.

 

Charity is wasted money. Capital would be much better invested as nonprofit companies that manufacture items and employ people. For example, a rich person building a hydroponics-based company to grow tomatoes in Bronx, NY that employs 15 people is FAR more valuable than a rich person that gives the same amount money to the United Way.

 

And that's why they're getting ready to get taxed to oblivion. The Democrats are going to take over in the next election. I don't necessarily support it but I can feel it coming.

 

End of thread////

 

Oh no! We're just getting started!

 

No, it was over before it started.

See, the minute you force someone to make a donation, it seizes to be considered a donation and becomes a fee or tax.

That is why it's called a donation. It's given freely at the owners expense with no strings attached nor is it under threat of force.

Even your choices are pathetic and heavily laced with left wing rhetoric.

 

What are you talking about?

He said 'should' give.

Where did he say anything about 'under threat of force'?


Why so many of you people are getting SO emotional about a simple poll is beyond me.

 

nobody "should" anything.

 

Forget it! These guys obviously don't understand the mean of caring and generosity. That's why they're going to lose in the upcoming election. I've read a few books in my day on persuasion and not a single one of those books mentioned that hate was a winning strategy.

 

you should donate more of your personal time and labor to helping the poor.

 

I tithe 10%. But can one person make a difference?

 

what about personal time and labor ?
and yes, one person can make a difference in the lives of those around him.

 

So why are you against the idea of the "well off" donating a little more to charity?

 

I'm not against them donating more.

I'd like to see you say, "I gregdavidson, vow to help make a difference in the lives of those around me by donating more of my personal time and labor. Further, I vow to pay more attention to what I do and less attention to what I think others should do."

 

Would you rather see most wealthy people "voluntarily" donate their money and have less taxes? Or would you rather see government force them to donate their money through taxes?

 

Yes they should.

Just like you should help those less fortunate, you should treat people with respect, you should treat all people as equals.

There are a ton of things people 'should' do.

 

They should donate the amount that they feel comfortable, since charity is voluntary. The real question that you should be looking at is, "Do you believe in freedom or not?"

 

You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder. In contrast to your statement above, most of those making $250,000 and above have sacrified, work extremely hard, and deal with daunting daily responsibilities.

As well they shoudn't, since the demand of most jobs does not justify such a salary.

Most wealthy people do indeed give their money to charities, and ALL wealthy people have a substantial portion of their income taken by the government.

 

I would rather design a tax code that had each citizen contribute an equitable share, based on wealth.

 

Good point. So why aren't the "have nots" happy where they are without those things?

I think you've clearly loaded the question in several different ways. From labeling the wealthy as "lucky" to accusing them of being "helplessly greedy" and "ruining the economy" if they do not capitulate to your arbitrary views.

Personally, I agree that people who are well off have some kind of moral responsibility to help the less fortunate, but that doesn't necessarily mean indiscriminantly throwing money at them either. Furthermore, it is purely a moral responsibility and not a legal one. They should not be legally required to do anything. That's not how freedom works. And it's certainly not how charity works. Legislated charity is called socialism.

 

They should donate as much or as little as they want.

 

I would disagree with the blanket statement that charity is wasted money. There are many good charities that help sick children for instance. Or help military families.

I also think that no one should be forced to give to charity. It is a private, personal decision to help a fellow human being. Not all people want to or even can contribute to charities.

Government welfare programs are forced charity over which individuals have no control and that, IMO is wrong.

 

Great post - I agree 100%.

 

I think it's easy to make claims for other people's money.