I do not believe the rich are obligated to donate any amount to charities. Of course it is a very nice gesture to do so, but just like any middle class worker who puts immense effort into moving up in position and making enough to live on, every bit earned is in exchange for hard work. The poor and impoverished are less obligated since they lack the means to support themselves with a career. The wealthy and middle class have the means to do so, however. The rich actually owe a great deal of their wealth to penny-pinching in the crucial initial years of investment. Looking at this news source, it is clear that many middle class families find it difficult to let go of ten grand for a charity when they could be using their hard-earned money on other personal expenses. It is easy to think the rich are greedy for hoarding all their money, but in fact it is even more difficult for them to let go of their money since every cent is earned through sweat and blood.
That may be true. However, if Justin Bieber sings a bad song, that he puts no effort into it, how will you defend that he wrote random garbage lyrics, and made a fortune from it being a part of his album? Does it necessarily mean he worked harder than, say, peasants or farmers in China? Did you know that every grain of rice has to be hand picked? In terms of working hard, the lower class individuals put in far more (and back-breaking) effort into their work just so individuals like you and I, who belong in the middle class, and the higher class individuals, such as Justin Bieber, can live our lives.
I believe the rich should be obligated to donate a minimal amount to charities annually, or monthly would work too. Considering none of the rich people on this chart gave more than 10% of what they're worth to charity, I believe that the rich should be obligated to give at least 15% of what they're worth. They're rich not only because they worked hard (money that they deserve to have), but they also had luck on their side (money they don't deserve), because there are thousands of people probably just as smart, just as hard working, and maybe even more talented than the CEO making billions of dollars a year, but just because they didn't have that luck to factor in, they didn't make it to the top. If you did make it to the top, you should be grateful to the luck you had carrying you that far, and give something back to society as a result, because there are other people just as deserving, if not more deserving, of that position that you hold, so you might as well show some appreciation for being there.
I think it is way too extreme to ask the rich to donate at least 15% of their net worth. Although the amount those billionaires donated in the year 2012 seemed insignificant compared to their net worth, it was still a very significant amount of cash and a very generous donation.
Why is it too extreme? For us to donate 15%, maybe, we might not have the money to buy food or pay mortgages, but for people with billions, 15% of their money would be insignificant, after a certain amount, money loses meaning, they can still buy everything they need, and more, with the money remaining, I think it's important for them to remember the society that put them into their positions, and for them to give people who need charity the same opportunity they had to reach their position.
What else does the rich need in terms of wealth? Western Canada Highschool is the only school in Calgary to be supported by an Oil Industry, Husky Energy. While other teachers are forking out their own money to buy books for their students in other schools, Western is spending money (this was awhile back) thinking about adding a TV to the main foyer. The money spent on this TV could have bought like ten books for other students who are lacking in books in other schools.
Even if they have a lot of money, who are we to say that they must donate at least 15% of THEIR money? It's really up to them, isn't it? After all, it is their money.
Bill was only giving a personal (and general) guage of how much an individual (those who are extremely wealthy) should donate. Of course, this % would go down in proportion to income, in relation to every other individual in society.
Yeah, it's their money, but it shouldn't be up to them. They didn't earn 100% of what they have, are you really telling me that all the billionaires earned 100% of what they have? If they don't give back to society what they don't earn, they should be punished, at least 15% of their money isn't THEIR money, it's money they got from being lucky, and they should give it back to the community.
I do think that they should give back to the society, however, it's up to them. We can't pressure them to donate money or say that the amount they give to society is not enough
They got rich based on the thought to save money, but the problem is they carry this thought on to where they have too much money, but they still want to save it, we pressure them to get rid of this thought, we manage to convince them to give up a portion of it, we convince them they have too much for them to use, we can pressure them, because this is for the benefit for the society, and they won't realize it themselves because they already have a belief that they need to hold on to their money that's ingrained in their head, and we need to pressure them to get rid of this belief, that they've already gotten too much money out of it.
I don’t think all rich people are greedy. It’s certainly possible that they all have a drive to make money, but I’m sure not all of them want to hoard the money. At a certain point, entrepreneurs generate enough money to buy whatever they want. After that it’s no longer about the money. They will make money for the thrill of it. They want to make something out of nothing and sell it all at the end so they can start all over again. The rich are people too and it’s too harsh to place the responsibility of helping the poor all on them.
The rich may be people too, and it may be harsh to place responsibility on helping poor, but society is a hierarchy; Without the poor, there can not be the rich. Without the indication of an individual being known as "poor", we will be unable to deem an individual, "rich".
Additionally, as a hierarchy, there has to be somewhat of a balance between the rich, the middle, and the poor. If all individuals are rich, then money would be deemed worthless; as such, having the poor at the bottom of the hierarchy, is what makes, not only in theory, but also in reality, the rich the people are only rich as a result of having the poor in the society. Without the poor, the rich, or high class individuals will cease to exist.
I don’t think that rich people carries any special obligations to help the poor; nevertheless, I think they should donate to charity, out of the kindness of their hearts. Rich people have excessive amount of wealth, with more money than they can spend in their lifetime. They are more than capable of spreading some of their wealth to help those who are less fortunate. And with the resources that they have, I think that rich people carries a greater responsibility to the society since they are more influential and can make a greater difference in the world. Rather than forcing the rich to give away their money, I think that government should just impose a higher tax on the rich. I mean its way harder to give away money in your pocket than it is to give away money that you never received. Plus, this would help to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor and the money that the government collect could be used to provide more public services to the poor.
Although the rich are not oblligated to donate, I believe that it would be the right thing to do. Some people only need a small amount of help, and if every wealthy person could give directly in even a small way (atleast once in their life) there would be a lot more oppertunites provided and possible lives changed.
If wealthy people do not want to donate to charities financially then they should give indirectly with their time, knowledge, and connections, all of which the less fortunate rarely have the luxury of owning. Wealthy people can also get tax breaks by giving back, so why not use that.
I do not believe the rich are obligated to pay more than what they have pledged to charities. In the article, it looks as if the rich are not pledging large percentages of their net worth to charity. But that is because in reality those figures do not fully represent everything the wealthy is giving back.
Pledging money to charity is not the only way to help the poor and the unfortunate. If you look at CEOs of large corporations, it is because of their factories in poor regions that the populace there can afford basic needs like food and shelter. Sure, they are being underpaid them and have to work labour intensive jobs, but without these jobs they would not even have access to basic needs. These corporations also generate lots of income in the form of taxes for the Canadian government which in turn can use that money to fund international relief missions like those going on in Mali right now.
In addition, many of the charities and foundations that are dedicated to helping the poor and the sick are founded and funded by the rich. Because of these reasons, I believe the rich are not obligated to give more to charities because their contribution to the poor is abundant in other areas.
Donating to charity should be something people do because they want to help others, not because they are obliged to. In a perfect world everyone would be pitching in 10% of their income, but we live in a world where we think of ourselves first. So if some big shot producer wants to donate even a percentage of his earnings to a charity well then I say good for them! And if they don't well then that's their choice, no one should feel obligated to do anything.
When looking at the figures in the article, celebrities donate millions of dollars, which is amazing! So why are we looking at their total income? is 100million not enough? So what if it's only 5% of their income, I think that's pretty generous, every dollar counts.
Most of the rich people earned every peeny they have so it is their right to decide how they will spend them. Donating part of their income to charities is a nice way to use their money and makes them more generous people but we should not criticize those who choose not to do so. It is a free of will instead of an obligation. Since there is no one pressuring us on giving out a certain percertage of our income, why should it be different for people who make a lot more than we do? No matter how much they are donating, they are willing to donate what they have earned and those are good deeds that they have done.
It certainly could be nice if the rich does donated part of their money for the poor. However, I don't see any reasons why the rich should carry the responsibilities of thoes who aren't. They also got problems of their own. Firstly, everyone have to pay taxes. In Canada, the more money you earn, the higher tax you have to pay. So basically they are already giving "charities" to our country. Secondly, saying the rich are obligated to pay a certain amount of money to the poor almost sounded like stealing to me. I mean if you compare some of the richest people in the world, such as Bill Gates, to us, it could be like comparing us to those starving in Africa. I certainly don't see many of us donating 10% or 20% of our money to them. What right do we have to ask others to do so? Because we don't have enough money to donate? Well, they don't either. Thirdly, I don't see earning money as a crime. If we do, however, creates a law which demands for "charity" from the rich, then it could be seen as a crime to be rich. Though I don't think the rich should be obligated to donate, I do think those who are smart will donate despite their level of generosity. Reason? For reputation of course.
I don’t agree that the rich should be obligated to donate more money. On one hand, many of them such as Bill Gates has already donated a fair amount of money already, so it’s certainly not necessary to pressure theses people to do anything more; On the other hand, those rich people who have not donated much money yet, they generally do not feel like giving off their money without any reward, this may sound cold blooded, but they may think they deserve to have the money that is earned by themselves, so there is no point and no chance of success by forcing them to donate (more). Thus, it is not obligated for them to donate, however, there is an alternative way : governments can come up with some new policies to encourage them to donate more, such as reduce the tax rate on those who donate. It is still not mandatory for them, but it certainly will have some good effects.
I do not believe the rich are obligated to donate any amount to charities. Of course it is a very nice gesture to do so, but just like any middle class worker who puts immense effort into moving up in position and making enough to live on, every bit earned is in exchange for hard work. The poor and impoverished are less obligated since they lack the means to support themselves with a career. The wealthy and middle class have the means to do so, however. The rich actually owe a great deal of their wealth to penny-pinching in the crucial initial years of investment. Looking at this news source, it is clear that many middle class families find it difficult to let go of ten grand for a charity when they could be using their hard-earned money on other personal expenses. It is easy to think the rich are greedy for hoarding all their money, but in fact it is even more difficult for them to let go of their money since every cent is earned through sweat and blood.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true. However, if Justin Bieber sings a bad song, that he puts no effort into it, how will you defend that he wrote random garbage lyrics, and made a fortune from it being a part of his album? Does it necessarily mean he worked harder than, say, peasants or farmers in China? Did you know that every grain of rice has to be hand picked? In terms of working hard, the lower class individuals put in far more (and back-breaking) effort into their work just so individuals like you and I, who belong in the middle class, and the higher class individuals, such as Justin Bieber, can live our lives.
DeleteLove it. Great comments Sean.
DeleteQuestion for you...do you believe that a CEO of a powerful company works harder than a blue-collar worker, for example?
ReplyDeleteI believe the rich should be obligated to donate a minimal amount to charities annually, or monthly would work too. Considering none of the rich people on this chart gave more than 10% of what they're worth to charity, I believe that the rich should be obligated to give at least 15% of what they're worth. They're rich not only because they worked hard (money that they deserve to have), but they also had luck on their side (money they don't deserve), because there are thousands of people probably just as smart, just as hard working, and maybe even more talented than the CEO making billions of dollars a year, but just because they didn't have that luck to factor in, they didn't make it to the top. If you did make it to the top, you should be grateful to the luck you had carrying you that far, and give something back to society as a result, because there are other people just as deserving, if not more deserving, of that position that you hold, so you might as well show some appreciation for being there.
ReplyDeleteI think it is way too extreme to ask the rich to donate at least 15% of their net worth. Although the amount those billionaires donated in the year 2012 seemed insignificant compared to their net worth, it was still a very significant amount of cash and a very generous donation.
DeleteWhy is it too extreme? For us to donate 15%, maybe, we might not have the money to buy food or pay mortgages, but for people with billions, 15% of their money would be insignificant, after a certain amount, money loses meaning, they can still buy everything they need, and more, with the money remaining, I think it's important for them to remember the society that put them into their positions, and for them to give people who need charity the same opportunity they had to reach their position.
DeleteWhat else does the rich need in terms of wealth? Western Canada Highschool is the only school in Calgary to be supported by an Oil Industry, Husky Energy. While other teachers are forking out their own money to buy books for their students in other schools, Western is spending money (this was awhile back) thinking about adding a TV to the main foyer. The money spent on this TV could have bought like ten books for other students who are lacking in books in other schools.
DeleteEven if they have a lot of money, who are we to say that they must donate at least 15% of THEIR money? It's really up to them, isn't it? After all, it is their money.
DeleteBill was only giving a personal (and general) guage of how much an individual (those who are extremely wealthy) should donate. Of course, this % would go down in proportion to income, in relation to every other individual in society.
DeleteYeah, it's their money, but it shouldn't be up to them. They didn't earn 100% of what they have, are you really telling me that all the billionaires earned 100% of what they have? If they don't give back to society what they don't earn, they should be punished, at least 15% of their money isn't THEIR money, it's money they got from being lucky, and they should give it back to the community.
DeleteI do think that they should give back to the society, however, it's up to them. We can't pressure them to donate money or say that the amount they give to society is not enough
DeleteThey got rich based on the thought to save money, but the problem is they carry this thought on to where they have too much money, but they still want to save it, we pressure them to get rid of this thought, we manage to convince them to give up a portion of it, we convince them they have too much for them to use, we can pressure them, because this is for the benefit for the society, and they won't realize it themselves because they already have a belief that they need to hold on to their money that's ingrained in their head, and we need to pressure them to get rid of this belief, that they've already gotten too much money out of it.
DeleteI don’t think all rich people are greedy. It’s certainly possible that they all have a drive to make money, but I’m sure not all of them want to hoard the money. At a certain point, entrepreneurs generate enough money to buy whatever they want. After that it’s no longer about the money. They will make money for the thrill of it. They want to make something out of nothing and sell it all at the end so they can start all over again. The rich are people too and it’s too harsh to place the responsibility of helping the poor all on them.
DeleteThe rich may be people too, and it may be harsh to place responsibility on helping poor, but society is a hierarchy; Without the poor, there can not be the rich. Without the indication of an individual being known as "poor", we will be unable to deem an individual, "rich".
DeleteAdditionally, as a hierarchy, there has to be somewhat of a balance between the rich, the middle, and the poor. If all individuals are rich, then money would be deemed worthless; as such, having the poor at the bottom of the hierarchy, is what makes, not only in theory, but also in reality, the rich the people are only rich as a result of having the poor in the society. Without the poor, the rich, or high class individuals will cease to exist.
I don’t think that rich people carries any special obligations to help the poor; nevertheless, I think they should donate to charity, out of the kindness of their hearts. Rich people have excessive amount of wealth, with more money than they can spend in their lifetime. They are more than capable of spreading some of their wealth to help those who are less fortunate. And with the resources that they have, I think that rich people carries a greater responsibility to the society since they are more influential and can make a greater difference in the world.
ReplyDeleteRather than forcing the rich to give away their money, I think that government should just impose a higher tax on the rich. I mean its way harder to give away money in your pocket than it is to give away money that you never received. Plus, this would help to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor and the money that the government collect could be used to provide more public services to the poor.
Although the rich are not oblligated to donate, I believe that it would be the right thing to do. Some people only need a small amount of help, and if every wealthy person could give directly in even a small way (atleast once in their life) there would be a lot more oppertunites provided and possible lives changed.
ReplyDeleteIf wealthy people do not want to donate to charities financially then they should give indirectly with their time, knowledge, and connections, all of which the less fortunate rarely have the luxury of owning. Wealthy people can also get tax breaks by giving back, so why not use that.
I do not believe the rich are obligated to pay more than what they have pledged to charities. In the article, it looks as if the rich are not pledging large percentages of their net worth to charity. But that is because in reality those figures do not fully represent everything the wealthy is giving back.
ReplyDeletePledging money to charity is not the only way to help the poor and the unfortunate. If you look at CEOs of large corporations, it is because of their factories in poor regions that the populace there can afford basic needs like food and shelter. Sure, they are being underpaid them and have to work labour intensive jobs, but without these jobs they would not even have access to basic needs. These corporations also generate lots of income in the form of taxes for the Canadian government which in turn can use that money to fund international relief missions like those going on in Mali right now.
In addition, many of the charities and foundations that are dedicated to helping the poor and the sick are founded and funded by the rich. Because of these reasons, I believe the rich are not obligated to give more to charities because their contribution to the poor is abundant in other areas.
Donating to charity should be something people do because they want to help others, not because they are obliged to. In a perfect world everyone would be pitching in 10% of their income, but we live in a world where we think of ourselves first. So if some big shot producer wants to donate even a percentage of his earnings to a charity well then I say good for them! And if they don't well then that's their choice, no one should feel obligated to do anything.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the figures in the article, celebrities donate millions of dollars, which is amazing! So why are we looking at their total income? is 100million not enough? So what if it's only 5% of their income, I think that's pretty generous, every dollar counts.
Most of the rich people earned every peeny they have so it is their right to decide how they will spend them. Donating part of their income to charities is a nice way to use their money and makes them more generous people but we should not criticize those who choose not to do so. It is a free of will instead of an obligation. Since there is no one pressuring us on giving out a certain percertage of our income, why should it be different for people who make a lot more than we do? No matter how much they are donating, they are willing to donate what they have earned and those are good deeds that they have done.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly could be nice if the rich does donated part of their money for the poor. However, I don't see any reasons why the rich should carry the responsibilities of thoes who aren't. They also got problems of their own.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, everyone have to pay taxes. In Canada, the more money you earn, the higher tax you have to pay. So basically they are already giving "charities" to our country.
Secondly, saying the rich are obligated to pay a certain amount of money to the poor almost sounded like stealing to me. I mean if you compare some of the richest people in the world, such as Bill Gates, to us, it could be like comparing us to those starving in Africa. I certainly don't see many of us donating 10% or 20% of our money to them. What right do we have to ask others to do so? Because we don't have enough money to donate? Well, they don't either.
Thirdly, I don't see earning money as a crime. If we do, however, creates a law which demands for "charity" from the rich, then it could be seen as a crime to be rich.
Though I don't think the rich should be obligated to donate, I do think those who are smart will donate despite their level of generosity. Reason? For reputation of course.
I don’t agree that the rich should be obligated to donate more money. On one hand, many of them such as Bill Gates has already donated a fair amount of money already, so it’s certainly not necessary to pressure theses people to do anything more; On the other hand, those rich people who have not donated much money yet, they generally do not feel like giving off their money without any reward, this may sound cold blooded, but they may think they deserve to have the money that is earned by themselves, so there is no point and no chance of success by forcing them to donate (more). Thus, it is not obligated for them to donate, however, there is an alternative way : governments can come up with some new policies to encourage them to donate more, such as reduce the tax rate on those who donate. It is still not mandatory for them, but it certainly will have some good effects.
ReplyDeleteThe rich should be encouraged or even incentivized to give to charities. Nobody should ever be "obligated" to give their money to anyone.
ReplyDelete