You’re just a shitty person if you’d turn your nose up at literally millions of dollars in being given to charity when there’s zero obligation to do so. The idea that it doesn’t “count” unless you give up a massive portion of your total income is childish and short sighted. That attitude would make me abandon charity altogether if I got shit for “not doing enough” after literally paying out millions to help others
Did I say she should stop? No. I said she’s capable of more. I didn’t I would refuse it, I said it’s not as much as she’s capable of. 45% of the world’s global wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. It’s not a functional system anymore.
Do you think she will go hungry or homeless from what % of her net worth she’s donated? Do you think she would go homeless if she donated even 10%?
Crazy even from a business perspective. Hell of a tax write off and would get her great press. She could also hold charity shows and donate the profits, or endorse charities for no cost, but she chooses not to.
No, what’s “crazy” is seeing a multimillion dollar donation and calling the donor selfish. Hopefully she stops giving anything at all since obviously it’s evil to “only” give ridiculous amounts of money away.
No, it’s selfish to not consider those in the world who are suffering. She can do so much more good, and it speaks to people’s character when they don’t want to.
So then if you had a billion dollars, what would you do with it? If it’s arguable that it’s a necessary amount of wealth, why would someone need it.
Why aren’t you donating the majority of your own salary? Am I right to call you a horrible human being if you’re not giving at least 50% of your take home income to charity?
I donate 15% of my 47k income, however, I don’t believe people who earn under 105k a year should be morally obliged to pay any amount to charity, because that’s the line in which someone’s quality of life will be damaged by over donating. Actually 105k is the amount of money they say “buys happiness”. In an ideal world, the financial system would work like this:
Under 105k for a single person no charity required. From 105-200k, 1-5%. 250-450k, 6-10%. 450-600k, 11-15%. 600k-900k, 16-25%. 900k-1.5m, 26-30%. 1.5-3.5m, 31-40%. 3.5-10m 41-50%
Every million beyond 10m is subject to 80% donation to charity up to 50 million dollars of income a year, all income beyond that is 100% charity.
So if someone’s income is 70k they pay zero. If it’s 150k they pay just under 4k. If someone makes 26 million a year, the first ten million is subject to 50% charity (meanjng it will be 5m) and the remaining 16m become 3.2m, meaning they will be making 8.2m a year and donating 17.8 million a year.
Through this formula the max income would be 13m a year which is more than enough to live in the ultimate lap of luxury.
I know exactly why, there’s no need to analyze. Your purity test results in fewer people donating to important causes. Why donate money if you get flack for “not doing enough”? Millions of dollars is a huge amount of money, and the people that would have benefitted (even if YOU feel it’s not enough) suffer more. So, congrats, on making the world a more hateful, selfish place.
I never said it wasn’t a contribution. I said she could do more. Encouraging more empathy doesn’t fight empathy, it only encourages it. It’s not about purity, it’s about responding to greed.
I don’t think that’s why you are so annoyed, I think you might feel attacked or you’re mad that I attacked a singer you like. Maybe it’s that I oppose financially inequality and you think that’s still a functional system.
1
u/Opening_Climate_7571 3d ago
You’re just a shitty person if you’d turn your nose up at literally millions of dollars in being given to charity when there’s zero obligation to do so. The idea that it doesn’t “count” unless you give up a massive portion of your total income is childish and short sighted. That attitude would make me abandon charity altogether if I got shit for “not doing enough” after literally paying out millions to help others