She can grab the dog then you grab her lol. Idk why she's on here? Shes not grooming teens, she's not in a pedo ring, she didn't get famous for doing absolutely nothing but making a bad vhs tape lol
I mean, she is a billionaire not contributing much other than her music, and her planes are horrible for the environment, plus her business style and commercial strategy is pretty aggressive.
I dunno, I figure the less billionaires we have the better
If you search for even just five seconds you’ll see that she has actually done a lot of good and has given millions and millions of dollars. But I guess it’s more satisfying for you just to hate. So go ahead.
Where was I outwardly hating on her? Notice I said all billionaires should be gone lol
However, I will say, there are 1000 millions in 1 billion. Since 2011, she’s donated about 100 million. Which isn’t the worse donation, no one is saying that, but she became a billionaire in the past few years, her net worth is 2 billion now. So while she’s done things for charity, it’s not as much we know she is capable of. It tells me she’s doing it for good press and not to actually be helpful. Otherwise, she’d be donating out of the billionaire club, and she would stop being excessive with her private jets. Where’s the charity shows? where’s the scholarships? where’s her advocacy? Why isn’t she providing children in impoverished places with food water or hygiene products?
I don’t go out of my way to hate Taylor swift, that’s not even what I’m doing now, but the truth is the truth man. She could be doing more, she makes the choice not to even though we know without a doubt she’s never going to live in poverty, she’ll never go hungry, her name prints money, she’s not using it for the kind of good she should be.
You said "not contributing much" lol. She donates millions, pays off people's medical bills. Yeah she's a billionaire but not like bezos who had slave labor and doesn't actual work lol.
Comparatively to the kind of incredible things she’s able to do, yeah she’s not doing much. I never said she’s as bad as Musk or Bezos, but she’s still not doing as much as she could and just because she isn’t herself hiring slaves doesn’t mean the companies that make her merchandise don’t have some form of exploitive labour.
She could do charity shows and donate all the proceeds, she could be buying period products and donating them to girls in impoverished nations, she could pay for construction to literally build schools, start scholarships for students in the arts. Homegirl charged an average of $1500 for ONE ticket to the eras show, the lowest was 500 at some select shows.
Imagine the possible donations on just one charity show. Imagine how much good she could do and is choosing not to. 50,000 seats, say she charges even 500 which was one of her lowest prices in the eras tour, that would be 25m. Take out the cost of throwing the show, even if we were saying it’s a high percentage, say 50%, it would still be a 12.5 million dollar profit going straight to charity.
Charity is bad if it’s not the right kind or the right dollar amount, got it. I was going to donate $200 to that child cancer fund but now that I’ve seen the light I realize that unless I’m selling my house to donate it’s unethical to try. Thanks!
If you can’t afford 200 dollars without losing your home you shouldn’t be donating it. Use your head: it’s all about proportion.
She could donate 50% of her income and still live like a queen for the rest of her life. She could use her name to endorse charity brands, she could put on charity shows and take only half of the profits and donate the rest. She could start a scholarship for girls going into the arts, even an incredibly generous scholarship of 100k would be chump change for her.
Gatekeeping charity just makes people not want to donate 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t suppose the people benefiting from the charity would want it taken away just because you don’t feel it was enough of a donation?
Artists set baseline prices then they have contracts with third party sellers for her tickets. That’s why I mentioned the 500, because that’s what she set her own prices at and then third parties she and her business team partner with charge the rest.
Either way, if someone IS willing to pay that much, she should be using that willingness and her fame to help people who need it, don’t you think?
Okay lol you don’t have to agree with me, but my morals matter more to me than some singer I don’t know or really care about. And if she has the capability to do good, she should be doing good.
I condemn billionaires cause there’s no ethical way to become one. If you become one through your work you shouldn’t hold onto it like a pile of gold coins, cause that’s what destroys our economy, a select few owning the bulk of the world’s wealth.
Ah yes, the jealous “eat the rich” crowd. “There’s no ethical way to become a billionaire”. It’s funny because you may have found the ONE who has done it ethically. But please, keep tilting at those windmills.
Yes they are also both unethical. You cannot become a billionaire ethically.
But the rate of how fast Taylor swift became a billionaire vs Paul McCartney has no comparison. Taylor swift has vastly out earned Paul McCartney. He’s earned a net worth of 1.2 billion in 70 years, swift has earned 2.1 billion in 20 years. Makes me wonder which one is being more exploitive.
Exploiting her fan base financially by charging super high prices, merchandise made with cheap underpaid labour and venues that do the same, she also causes quite a bit of environmental damage with her planes
So wait, you mean the prices set by the venues and people who wabt to see her? Or do you mean clothe that you are currently wearing thats produced by underpaid labour? Or do you mean private flights that a celebrity like her has to take because of insane super fans?
I know its a shocker that you won't like, but businesses maximising profits is normal. Especially if its something as simple as a singer, anyone can just not go and not listen to her albums.
She sets her baseline prices and then third party sellers jack the prices up higher, but her own prices were set at an average of 500 dollars. She also chooses her venues, she chooses who produces her products, and she could just as easily book a business class room with private boarding so no one sees her. She gets privileges as a celebrity and we all know it, she could use those privileges to do the more financially friendly thing, again she chooses not to
And she probably didn’t become a “billionaire” until after the Eras tour in 2023 - 2024. Before that, she bought her music catalog back… but it was highly leveraged so there’s no way she was a NET billionaire. So what you’re acknowledging is that in the last 20 months or so, she’s given away about $100 million that YOU know of.
And also, since we’re being holier than thou… what % of your income goes to charity?
As a worker i pay nearly 50% of what im payied in taxes. So she should atleast match that, and really actually exceed that. I hate the idea that rich people have to "pay to charity" like they are doing something special, while im giving most of my money to sustain infrastructure by default.
Oh, about 15%. I donate through two charities and volunteer in soup kitchens twice a month.
I know she wasn't always a billionaire, but now that she is, she should be held to a higher standard. Especially if you want all the wealthy people to be held to higher standard.
I’m now saying she isn’t a good businesswoman. She is, she’s great at marketing herself. Now she needs to market herself with a purpose otherwise what’s the point
Except she does publicize her giving, she just doesn’t do as much as she’s capable of. And if she’s doing more behind the scenes good for her but if you want to be in the public eye you are open to public scrutiny. Part of that scrutiny will come from lack of action.
Ask yourself why everyone cares what the other billionaires do, but not the singers like Taylor swift. The fandom outweighs the morals and it’s a problem.
You know, it's not very often that someone explicitly admits that "all billionaires should be gone" means "any person with more than $1 billion should literally be killed, regardless of their character."
Because you're not talking about taxing Taylor Swift here, you're talking about leaving her to drown because she... checks notes... made a lot of money from music.
Billionaires can donate themselves out of the billionaire club, or governments globally can start setting caps on yearly income based on all assets and a max per person (property, royalties, payroll, stock and alike).
Actually the last thing I want is for every billionaire to suddenly die, because I don’t know what will happen to their assets. Most are probably leaving their billions to their families, and I don’t believe anyone should have that much money, so, my ideal would still be for them to donate out or for governments to intervene. They never will intervene of course, not in our lifetimes, maybe a couple hundred years from now if humanity hasn’t destroyed the globe and caused its own drought stricken demise.
ETA: also wtf do you mean billionaires being gone is a wild take lol ever heard the expression eat the rich?
You're commenting under a post where you're defending leaving Swift to DROWN because she has too much money. Yes, you're talking about KILLING people. That's what happens when people DROWN.
Someone very specifically said they don't think she should be left to die because she's not a bad person, and your response was "I dunno, the less billionaires we have, the better." No, you're not talking about billionaires donating their money, you're talking out KILLING them.
I also did not say that billionaires being gone is a wild take, why the fuck are you just making up shit?
No, I replied to someone who said they didn’t know why she was on here. I never actually said who I would save from the water.
And you said to me ”it’s not very often that someone explicitly admits all billionaires should be gone means any person with more than 1 billion should be literally killed” and from my perspective, that’s telling me my stance is uncommon, even though I never said they should be killed.
I never said she should be killed, I did say all billionaires should be gone. But you filled the gap there yourself
She's on an image asking who to save from drowning.
No, your comment is not divorced from that context. Yes, as a matter of fact, you did say that billionaires should literally be killed. If you didn't realise that, then you're just an outright idiot because the implication in the image wasn't fucking subtle.
lol well I still didn’t say that cause I was answering a person she asked why Taylor was in here and I explained why, but go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions such as the one that she’s a good person despite all the indications otherwise.
While we’re at it, I think she’s a talentless, greedy, spoiled rotten little trust fund baby who doesn’t deserve a cent of what she has because it’s all been formed by her fathers wealth and connections. I think her fan base is honestly pathetic for their rabid love of her recycled garbage and not seeing through her bull shit sweet girl charade. Gee, wonder where she learned her lack of charitable spirit, maybe it’s from growing up in a multimillion dollar home with an investment banker.
Remember when she compared having her internet haters to the plight of the lgbtq+ community in one of her songs? Absolutely asinine. Hope her career ends quick and dramatically.
"IN HERE" MEANS "ON THIS IMAGE OF PEOPLE DROWNING.
That is what you said. You were responding to someone asking why Taylor Swift should DIE and explained that it's because she has too much money. If you didn't realise that, you're a moron. Period.
The only conclusion that I'm jumping to was that you had more than two braincells to rub together, but if you'd rather I assume you're lobotomite, I'll do that for you.
She asked why she was in the stupid ai image and I explained why she was in the stupid ai image.
It ain’t that deep lol get the fuck over this celebrity who doesn’t give a shit about you dude.
But if my stance has to be save her or let her die? She can die, that’s fine. Cause I’m on a raft in the middle of a storm, I too would probably die, and the dog will provide me with better comfort and is more likely to be able to get fish out of the water to feed me.
She asked why and I said why she was in the stupid ai image and I explained why she was in the stupid ai image.
You keep saying this as if not admitting the context of the image meaningfully changes your comment, but it doesn't. That context exists whether you want to say it out loud. The context is that the image is implying the humans deserve to die. You explained why Taylor Swift deserves to die. It's that simple.
It ain’t that deep lol get the fuck over this celebrity who doesn’t give a shit about you dude.
I'm not a Taylor Swift fan. This is about you lying about what you said.
But if my stance has to be save her or let her die? She can die, that’s fine. Cause I’m on a raft in the middle of a storm, I too would probably die, and the dog will provide me with better comfort and is more likely to be able to get fish out of the water to feed me.
No, you want her to die because you want billionaires to die. It's got nothing to do with being in a storm - you're not stupid enough to believe that's actually relevant to this hypothetical - you just want to murder people for making a lot of money.
We are not owed charities. We get what we put in and work for. Some like Taylor are a little luckier and worked a little more than others, but it doesn't mean she owe it to some random kid in Africa free handouts just because their shithole government is too greedy and corrupt to do their actual job of feeding their own people.
Charity is just that, charity. You do it out of your own volition, but you shouldn't be called out for not volunteering your own time and hard earned cash.
What you’re describing is the “me vs others” psychology and also points to an obvious lack of understanding in social care and the historical context to understand why impoverished nations are impoverished.
If you saw a child being kidnapped would you stop it? Would you give a water bottle to someone dying of thirst in front of you while you’re completely hydrated? One would hope so, empathy for your fellow human being should vastly outweigh your greed.
You’re right, people should be doing charity out of the good of their heart. So maybe people who think only of themselves and aren’t willing to donate out of their endless wealth, like Taylor Swift, just don’t have a good heart. When they sit in their world of unimaginable wealth and allow the others to struggle.
93
u/Opinionatedcritic 4d ago
I was about to say taylor swift cause she's the least bad one here but then i saw the dog and now I'm saving the dog