Just something I want to get off my chest, doesn't have to be a long thread or anything.

 

 

 

I'm sure everyone knows by now that the world is sort of in a "depression" or whatever and is going to get worse. One thing that angers me is that there are hundreds of millionaires/billionaires in this world with mass amounts of money. I remember hearing somewhere that the average person makes 3 million in their lifetime. Sure, some of these people/companies need some money to keep their business going, but they will NEVER need all of the money that they have. Surely these people can contribute billions of dollars to help the world out a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I want to get off my chest. I mean seriously, what is someone like Hannah Montana going to use millions of dollars on besides saving it for nothing. :| Sure they may have earned it and quite a few havn't, but they could give up a lot of it to help the world.

It is official, we're in a recession and have been since December 2007.

 

 

 

I think my post could be summed up as "life's not fair" without going into any detail.

life is fair to a point

 

 

 

Hannah Montanna, in the example above, is not some lucky tart that got millions overnight. She allows herself to be manipulated into an object that the people will admire, and is paid a fraction, just as the companies that support and brought her up.

 

 

 

Coprorate CEOs are brillant people, that look at all the facts and know when to make the right investments. They have been harmed in this recession too, as many banks, and as a result corporations, are feeling financial strain. But why should they give out billions of their money when they might need that security down the road. Fortune is not a peice of elitesm or greed, it's security.

 

 

 

Hate to tell it to you, but the people that make the money usually deserve it. And the people that don't make the money, in most cases, don't. Luck of course plays a role, but not as often as you might think.

Many people that are more than "well off" donate to various charities all the time.

 

 

 

There are also smaller acts of good deed, such as:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_ ... cret_santa

 

 

 

Anyways, I agree with the two posts above mine too.

I do think everyone is entitled to a life of necessities... but then I also think those who are able to earn extra cash should be entitled to living life beyond that. I'm torn.

If I'm ever rich I'll donate every penny that I make more than I need (to live comfortably). I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I had money that I had no need for while people starve to death, die of malaria, aids, and are homeless.

If I'm ever rich I'll donate every penny that I make more than I need (to live comfortably). I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I had money that I had no need for while people starve to death, die of malaria, aids, and are homeless.

 

 

 

That's easier said then done. I'm sure once you have access to things because of your vast wealth, the more things you'll think you "need".

If I'm ever rich I'll donate every penny that I make more than I need (to live comfortably). I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I had money that I had no need for while people starve to death, die of malaria, aids, and are homeless.

 

 

 

That's easier said then done. I'm sure once you have access to things because of your vast wealth, the more things you'll think you "need".

 

 

 

And there's also retirement funds and kids' college to pay for(both of which can take hundreds of thousands of dollars). A lot of money can be spent while just living comfortably.

These people are already successfull and like you and me they have to find something to do. Really just gaining more money to them is a way of measuring up their success and seeing how well they did. They attach a monetary value to hard earned work. To be honest just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean they're gonna just give it away. These people get such a bad rep because people see their huge pile of cash and say "Your a jerk because you're hording it all to yourself" when in fact in the same situation most people would do the same.

Are you saying people shouldn't keep what they deserve? I hope not. Yes, donate, but they only should donate, what they want to donate. It's ridiculous to ask people to donate. Even more so to force them, they earned it.

Are you saying people shouldn't keep what they deserve? I hope not. Yes, donate, but they only should donate, what they want to donate. It's ridiculous to ask people to donate. Even more so to force them, they earned it.

 

 

 

But who is to say they deserve leisure more than the destitute deserve necessity?

The people who earned the leisure deserve it. That's all there is to it.

The people who earned the leisure deserve it. That's all there is to it.

 

 

 

No... that isn't all there is to it. You can't just ignore the fact that there are starving people out there while you're sitting on your marble fountain. Well, technically you can, but you can't say that's all there is to it.

Are you saying people shouldn't keep what they deserve? I hope not. Yes, donate, but they only should donate, what they want to donate. It's ridiculous to ask people to donate. Even more so to force them, they earned it.

 

 

 

But who is to say they deserve leisure more than the destitute deserve necessity?

 

 

 

Why should the wealthly help anyone but themselves? Or help anyone beyond those directly around them (family, friends)?

 

 

 

 

 

Side note: Damn you Saruman and your sig!

Once an incredibly wealthy person has everything that could make them happy, then they should start donating.

 

 

 

I couldn't know that thousands of children of dying, while I have like $40 million "kicking around", and i could save them all :|

It often comes down to karma. Quite a lot of the time, people get what they deserve.

Easier said than done, all there is to it really.

I hate this attitude simply that someone who has worked their [wagon] off to get where they are now have an obligation to bring the world out of a financial crisis or should be taxed more / pay more simply because they've achieved something and done something with their life.

 

 

 

People like Hanna Montana, don't deserve to be rich, she's a useless talentless [bleep] who gives nothing to society other than being a bad role model. Take the money off her and put her out on the street showing how much of a struggle it is when you can barely get by.

Once an incredibly wealthy person has everything that could make them happy, then they should start donating.

 

 

 

I couldn't know that thousands of children of dying, while I have like $40 million "kicking around", and i could save them all :|

 

 

 

 

 

Well naturally, no, I don't think anyone could. But, they earned the money, so they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my personal stance, while yes, everyone should donate, no one has to. If you worked your [wagon] off your whole life, wouldn't you want to enjoy the fruits of your labor? Whether it's 40,000, 400,000, 4,000,000, or even 40,000,000 dollars, it's yuor money, keep it. And actually, a lot do give to charity, simply because it's a tax write off, and taxes are a [bleep] for rich people. You usually see people on TV who don't give to charity, but many do, Warren Buffet for one. I think he donated a whole hell of a lot to Africa.

I hate this attitude simply that someone who has worked their [wagon] off to get where they are now have an obligation to bring the world out of a financial crisis or should be taxed more / pay more simply because they've achieved something and done something with their life.

 

 

 

People like Hanna Montana, don't deserve to be rich, she's a useless talentless [bleep] who gives nothing to society other than being a bad role model. Take the money off her and put her out on the street showing how much of a struggle it is when you can barely get by.

 

As much as I agree with the first half of your post, I think the second half is completely wrong. It seems like the 'thing' to do these days is bash Miley Cyrus for ruining music or society. People make her out to be like she's destroying the world when artists before her have done the exact same (and much worse) things. Just because you don't like her music doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve to be rich. I'm sure she's worked her [wagon] off just as much as any of them, if not more because of her show. Also, if she gives nothing to society then neither do the thousands of other artists/bands in existence. And I'm not even gonna touch the "bad role model" angle with a 10 foot pole.

Once an incredibly wealthy person has everything that could make them happy, then they should start donating.

 

 

 

I couldn't know that thousands of children of dying, while I have like $40 million "kicking around", and i could save them all :|

 

 

 

 

 

Well naturally, no, I don't think anyone could. But, they earned the money, so they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my personal stance, while yes, everyone should donate, no one has to. If you worked your [wagon] off your whole life, wouldn't you want to enjoy the fruits of your labor? Whether it's 40,000, 400,000, 4,000,000, or even 40,000,000 dollars, it's yuor money, keep it. And actually, a lot do give to charity, simply because it's a tax write off, and taxes are a [bleep] for rich people. You usually see people on TV who don't give to charity, but many do, Warren Buffet for one. I think he donated a whole hell of a lot to Africa.

 

 

 

not to mention just how hard it is to have money "kicking around" most of the people that are rich usually have most of their funds taken up in investments for later, to get them more money. While doing this is another form of tax write off, it's much better than just giving your money away, especially for the sake of security, joy of life, and emergency procedures. If you have cancer, are you better off with 20 000 saved up for 20 000 000 saved up?

You have no idea how hard it is to be Hannah Montana. She is manipulated by people every day, working hard, singing classes, acting classes, and has millions of fans whom she has to be sure to appeal to.

 

 

 

Wikipedia says:

 

Cyrus was ranked #35 on the "2008 Forbes Celebrity 100" with an estimated earnings of $25 million during June 2007 to June 2008.

 

 

 

AFT.org (American Federation of Teachers) says:

 

The average salary for traditional public school teachers increased 4.5 percent in 2006-07 to $51,009

 

 

 

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers?

 

 

 

I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Various others are talking about how rich people have just earned it. If the US is a meritocracy, then one would expect no correlation between the social class you are born in and the social class you end up in in later life. If you're born in the bottom 20%, in a meritocracy you have an equal chance of working hard and joining the top 20% as someone born already in the top 20%. In fact, there's a high correlation between the social class you're born in and the class you stay in. That's not to say that some people don't work hard, end up earning lots of money, and eventually move up in class, it's just much less likely if you're born into a working class family.

Welcome to the world that is a fusion of utopianism and a lack of understanding of something called "income taxes".

 

 

 

There's a name for this world that would probably get this post deleted, so I'll just leave it.

That's capitalism, and that's what our nations have decided is best. It might be the only working system as it relies on peoples own greed and self-interest in an attempt to maintain structure. It's not perfect, but its all we got.

You have no idea how hard it is to be Hannah Montana. She is manipulated by people every day, working hard, singing classes, acting classes, and has millions of fans whom she has to be sure to appeal to.

 

Cyrus was ranked #35 on the "2008 Forbes Celebrity 100" with an estimated earnings of $25 million during June 2007 to June 2008.

 

The average salary for traditional public school teachers increased 4.5 percent in 2006-07 to $51,009

 

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers?

 

 

 

I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement.

 

That's apples and oranges; neither could do the others job. Miley couldn't teach US history nor could my old US history teacher perform for 50,000 screaming fans. Whether you want to admit it or not, Miley Cyrus has achieved stuff. She has her own tv show (with a movie coming out in '09), a couple albums released, accessories, clothes, and toys. You don't have to like her, but it's hard not to think that what she's building isn't incredible.

 

Did you look at the rest of the Forbes list, though? Oprah was #1 at $275 mil when she does nothing special; she doesn't sing, dance, or act. She has a talk show. I know a lot of people who could do her job, but I bet she couldn't do theirs.

 

Various others are talking about how rich people have just earned it. If the US is a meritocracy, then one would expect no correlation between the social class you are born in and the social class you end up in in later life. If you're born in the bottom 20%, in a meritocracy you have an equal chance of working hard and joining the top 20% as someone born already in the top 20%. In fact, there's a high correlation between the social class you're born in and the class you stay in. That's not to say that some people don't work hard, end up earning lots of money, and eventually move up in class, it's just much less likely if you're born into a working class family.

 

I agree with you here, but you seem to be belittling people's accomplishments. Yes, it is true that America isn't exactly the land of social mobility that we make it out to be, but we aren't given titles for life. A child born into a wealthy family has to work to keep their status. They can't piss away their money and still expect to live in a $10 million mansion, they do have to work for it.