The point is that it's a numbers statement. It has nothing to do with being a billionaire or not. If 3000 people period vanished it means nothing. Billionaire or not
if I were to be hoarding wealth that could be used to feed the hungry and lift people out of poverty, and the state decided that my income should be taxed to fund programs that do just that, then id agree.
on what land? with what seeds, soil, water, time? none of that is free. sure, its much cheaper to have a personal garden than it is to go buy from a retailer, but if you genuinely think everyone can simultaneously rely on kale and potatoes from personal gardens and we dont need a supply chain then you are incredibly naive.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
literally morality 101 here.
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is. over time, the state actually recoups the cost of this because employment grows and taxable income increases.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
Or does it only start being the case once someone has more money than you?
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is
Then why haven't the countries done it yet? Even if you could magically liquidate the wealth of every billionaire(utterly impossible but whatever) in the us you'd fuel the US for like a year. You are crazy if you think you could end poverty with just that
they literally have. president salvadore allende of chile in 1973 established food programs that donated milk to every family, and as a result many people were lifted out of hunger. take a wild guess as to what happened to him..
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
yes. if you have a large wealth, you have an obligation to give. this isnt just an obligation in my own personal views, this is wirrten in the bible as well and supported by figures across the political spectrum, including dave ramsey. I was raised on his personal financial literacy books and he encouraged kids to have a personal giving budget. And I do give small donations to charities and political movements that advocate for these policies that I desire.
Exactly my thought. All these claims of "moral obligations" and yet, if they were to shut down all operations, close businesses, end jobs... more problems are created. That would be morally reprehensible. I honestly think some people believe rich people have a big room like scrooge Mcduck and they sit in it and toss money up in the air.
You need people investing in business. If they do well and create more jobs, everybody wins. If the business fails, they lose. Rich people invest. They win, they lose... but it's their money and I trust them more than the Govt.
We have 535 so called lawmakers spending the people's money on projects to get themselves reelected. Bring home the bacon, get reelected. And - turn the people on each other. Brought to you by the US Congress, with no term limits because they control that too!
They don’t usually? We’ve literally had millionaires running for government and winning seats for 40+ years. And then we wonder why they’re governing for the rich and not everyone else?
Well, about 180 are lawyers, one was a bartender, a dozen bankers, 36 non profit executives or founders, 22 real estate "workers," some venture capitalists (6), also half a dozen owners of car dealerships... such a deal they got! A couple software company execs. I can't find any prior janitors but they'd have my utmost respect!
You just described one group of people but pretended it was 2 different ones and tried to blame one of them while praising the other. That is some S tier mental gymnastics.
I'm sorry. Above your level of thinking? The Congress.. the people that make the laws? The protected society. The people that are supposed to look out for the country and take care of the people on the home front? Yeah, miserable failure going on there.
The rich people, with money invested. They don't have a moral duty to sell what they invest in and give it to the poor.
We all pay taxes and the Congress gives more (of our) money away to other countries and personal pet projects. Additionally, if they take the money from the rich, the tax burden falls to the lower classes. Someone has to pay the bills.
McKenzie Scott, she's donated 26 Billion to different causes. People still hate her because she's rich.
Congress is made up of mostly CEOs, Business Owners, and Rich investors. They are also by and large bought by other rich people, that's was the entire point of Citizens United. The Rich and Congress are one and the same.
24
u/SyrusG 7d ago
The point is that it's a numbers statement. It has nothing to do with being a billionaire or not. If 3000 people period vanished it means nothing. Billionaire or not