Let's just face it. There are lots of people out there who live far beyond their means. In fact, I believe that if you earn over $100,000, you're making too much. Nobody needs a castle up on a hill or a six figure sports car to be happy. This is why I feel that it's the obligation of "the lucky ones" to donate a percentage of their income to various charities and causes. The big question here is HOW MUCH should they donate. Here's what I think: If you make over $250,000 a year NET, you should donate 20%. If you make over $1,000,000 a year NET, you should donate 30%. If you make over $10,000,000 a year NET, you should donate 50%. What do you thinK?
In the first place, living far beyond one's means is spending more than one has. If a person making $100,000 a year is spending it all then they are actually contributing to the economy. Secondly, your $100,000 limit is pretty arbitrary when one considers the varying costs of living attributed to different areas....or.....Do you want everyone to just live in the same place? It is not up to you to dictate what makes others happy. Do you have a flat-screen TV? I think that is not needed for you happiness. How about a car? You can always ride a bike, walk or take public transportation. Do you live in a house or apt? No one really needs a house and all that surplus land it is on. I think you should be happy with what I consider to be the minimal required for your survival and ultimate contribution to society. Lucky ones? There you go again imposing YOUR standards on everyone else. I work 8 to 14+ hours a day and make a good living. Am I just 'lucky?' Why would you want to take my money from me? I think if you make UNDER 100K a year you should pay a flat 15%. That would do more to increase revenue than taxing the so-called 'rich' who are the ones who create jobs.
If you're making over $250,000 a year you are "lucky". Most college graduates don't make that. In fact, many business people don't even make that. But the point I'm trying to make here is that if more wealthy people donated a huge chunk of their money, this world would be a better place.
I think we are just so fortunate to have us how much money we should make and how much we should spend and how much we should donate. Of course, liberals are generous donaters but only with someone else's money. Their money is kept in the greasy little hands.
Only a liberal cannot see the difference between being generous and demanding that other be generous. I remember an idiot saying that Barack Obama giving away ice cream when he worked at Baskin-Robbins as demonstration his genorisity at an early age. Theft for liberals equals generosity. So, gregdavidson, when you demonstrate one-tenth the generosity I do, get back to me. Who are you, Al Capone? He gave a lot to charity, too. Set up soup kitchens. Al was a Democrat.
Only a liberal? Are you saying on liberals donate money? And are you saying that a liberal came up with the idea of tithing 10% of your earnings? If that's the case, maybe I shouldn't vote for Romney in the upcoming election.
Have you considered that for every dollar contributed to charities, about 90% of it is eaten up in expenses? There are other ways to help those in need of help without having to get a charitable organisation to do it.
I think that you fail to realize that it is none of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business how much other people decide to contribute to charity. It is up to each person to decide what the appropriate amount is. Whether you agree or not is of no consequence. Are you okay with someone telling YOU how much YOU have to donate to charity?
Am I okay with somebody telling me to tithe 10%? Yes I am. But I do believe that those making more can contribute a little more.
People should donate whatever they feel like donating. Nobody owes anyone based upon the merit of existing within the same geographical borders, or based upon what they make.
Fair enough. Would you do it because you were told to or because you felt it was the right thing to do?
I'm not saying that everyone HAS to donate an exact percentage of their earnings. But I believe it makes more sense to go by such rules. And if I'm correct, Ron Paul mentioned something about "charity" instead of government. If enough people VOLUNTARILY donated more of their money to help others, then big government wouldn't have to step in to help those in need. Big government forcing the wealthy and well off to help the poor is something that most Republicans are against.
I hear ya, but why ask how much one should donate, when donation is voluntary and not dictated by anything other than what the person feels like contributing?
Uncle Ferd says charities not gettin' as much money due to the recession... ... Granny say rich folks oughta make up the slack cause dey gots the money.
People should donate as much as they like, whether it be a lot or a little. I do think that rich people should be donating more to charity, however it is their choice whether they do or not.
I think they should "donate" however much they choose to donate.. or none at all if they so choose. That's why it is called "donating to charity".. as in your original question... rather than being "taxed".. which is what you really mean. Those with wealth envy.. such as yourself... don't want charity. You want the government to steal for you.
Bollocks! Why not get those degenerates to pay there just dues.....there TAX! The problem will just disappear! Funny that...expecting those with the biggest nose at the trough to pay just what you and I pay! Certainly not the case in Europe or the USA! Regards Highlander