More Money Than They Will Ever Need.

[The-Dark-Knight]

Every day people die in third world countries from easily preventable diseases, people all over the world are starving, dying. People living on the breadline trying striving to make ends meet.

All the while people like Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, George Lucas, Donald Trump, The Hiltons & Bill Gates right hand man sit on billions upon billions of dollars. Okay so they give something to charity but it should still be noted that these people as well as the overly rich famous live lives that other people could only dream.

People like footballer David Beckham who earn just under a million pounds a week yet he gives twenty thousand pounds to charity? twenty thousand? thats like you or i giving five pound/dollars.

I remember watching Children in need (british telethon for abused children, child cares & ill or dying children) kelly osborn was on there with her mother sharon saying 'lets give ten thousand pounds' to which her daughter replyed no we can do better than that 'lets give twenty' a week earlier i watched 'The Osbournes' with Sharon being excited that her 2 new cars were so cheap at a mere one hundred thousand dollars each.

It's stupid that people are allowed to earn so much, spend money on stupid things (a diamond encrusted skull was sold at auction last year for millions of pounds made by Damien Hirst) All the while people are dying from things that could so easily be prevented, contaminated water for one.

There should be a tax for people like Gates, Hilton Et al, never mind there contributions, they should have to give a certain amount to charity each year, not what they want to give.

These people have way more money than they will ever need, than any of us will ever need, its time they gave something back.

Your thoughts?

 

[ALP]

edit oh nvm, my mistake

 

[Arcturus]

It's just the way the world works, sadly enough.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

edit oh nvm

I'm refering to his right hand man the second time whose name escapes me.

 

[ALP]

I'm refering to his right hand man the second time whose name escapes me.

lol yeah, I just noticed that. My mistake


But very interesting point you make. Most of the rich(or at least the ones you named) have given away millions to billions.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Every day people die in third world countries from easily preventable diseases, people all over the world are starving, dying. People living on the breadline trying striving to make ends meet.

All the while people like Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, George Lucas, Donald Trump, The Hiltons & Bill Gates right hand man sit on billions upon billions of dollars. Okay so they give something to charity but it should still be noted that these people as well as the overly rich famous live lives that other people could only dream.

People like footballer David Beckham who earn just under a million pounds a week yet he gives twenty thousand pounds to charity? twenty thousand? thats like you or i giving five pound/dollars.

I remember watching Children in need (british telethon for abused children, child cares & ill or dying children) kelly osborn was on there with her mother sharon saying 'lets give ten thousand pounds' to which her daughter replyed no we can do better than that 'lets give twenty' a week earlier i watched 'The Osbournes' with Sharon being excited that her 2 new cars were so cheap at a mere one hundred thousand dollars each.

It's stupid that people are allowed to earn so much, spend money on stupid things (a diamond encrusted skull was sold at auction last year for millions of pounds made by Damien Hirst) All the while people are dying from things that could so easily be prevented, contaminated water for one.

There should be a tax for people like Gates, Hilton Et al, never mind there contributions, they should have to give a certain amount to charity each year, not what they want to give.

These people have way more money than they will ever need, than any of us will ever need, its time they gave something back.

Your thoughts?

How are you going to define "need?"

For instance, why should you buy a 60-inch plasma HDTV when you can make do with a 24-inch HDTV? You don't "need" the 60-inch TV, so the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. You don't "need" a new car when there are plenty of good used cars that are much less expensive. So, the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. When you truly start defining "need," you're going to find that there are a lot of people besides the insanely wealthy that have more money than they really need.

Look, I firmly believe that those with money ought to help out those in need. But, it's their money to spend as they see fit, not mine. If they want to be stingy misers, then they should be able to do so.

 

[Mister J]

There should be a tax for people like Gates, Hilton Et al, never mind there contributions, they should have to give a certain amount to charity each year, not what they want to give.

These people have way more money than they will ever need, than any of us will ever need, its time they gave something back.

Your thoughts?

That's ridiculous. Nobody has to give jack to charity, that's why it's referred to as 'charity'.

This notion of 'giving back' is completely offbase. No one goes out and buys Microsoft products because they think Bill Gates is a nice guy and they simply want to help him. They're purchasing those products, because of their usefulness. The same is applicable to any media magnate, actor, musician, businessman, etc., who has managed to acquire a sizable fortune. It's the simple exchange of goods and services for money. 'Giving' has nothing to do with it, so I don't see what it is they're suppose to give back.

People's financial successes shouldn't be subject to the equivalent of a penalty to correspond with some ideology to cure the ills of the world. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Donald Trump or any person of comparable wealth isn't more responsible for making the world better than anyone else.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

How are you going to define "need?"

For instance, why should you buy a 60-inch plasma HDTV when you can make do with a 24-inch HDTV? You don't "need" the 60-inch TV, so the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. You don't "need" a new car when there are plenty of good used cars that are much less expensive. So, the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. When you truly start defining "need," you're going to find that there are a lot of people besides the insanely wealthy that have more money than they really need.

Look, I firmly believe that those with money ought to help out those in need. But, it's their money to spend as they see fit, not mine. If they want to be stingy misers, then they should be able to do so.

Of course people wil disagree and yes i agree with your view on the word need, but theresa diffrence between a person who buys a big tv and a person who buys a diamond encrusted skull.

Some people will buy a big tv and be short of money for weeks there after. I just dont think anybody needs to earn 1 million a week when people all over the world aredying.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

That's ridiculous. Nobody has to give jack to charity, that's why it's referred to as 'charity'.

This notion of 'giving back' is completely offbase. No one goes out and buys Microsoft products because they think Bill Gates is a nice guy and they simply want to help him. They're purchasing those products, because of their usefulness. The same is applicable to any media magnate, actor, musician, businessman, etc., who has managed to acquire a sizable fortune. It's the simple exchange of goods and services for money. 'Giving' has nothing to do with it, so I don't see what it is they're suppose to give back.

People's financial successes shouldn't be subject to the equivalent of a penalty to correspond with some ideology to cure the ills of the world. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Donald Trump or any person of comparable wealth isn't more responsible for making the world better than anyone else.

i never said that people buy microsoft products because they think Gates isa nice man, Where you got that from i have no idea.

But you really think it'sok that peopleearn millions a week and give so little back? if you had billions in the bank would you just sit on it knowing there are people dying in 3rd world countries of viruses that could be cured with a vaccine that costs as little as 5p?

It's the 'i'm allright jack' attitude that has the world in the state it is.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Of course people wil disagree and yes i agree with your view on the word need, but theresa diffrence between a person who buys a big tv and a person who buys a diamond encrusted skull.

Some people will buy a big tv and be short of money for weeks there after. I just dont think anybody needs to earn 1 million a week when people all over the world aredying.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

I honestly don't like the ridiculous level of materialism any more than you do. On my way to work, I drive by these massive mansions. One has a Hummer and what I think is an Aston Martin parked out in front of it almost all the time. I often think when I drive by that they could have done so much more good with the money they spent if they had just bought a modest home that didn't have fifteen more rooms than occupants. I also think about the energy wasted heating and cooling those homes.

As a Christian, I know that I shouldn't live extravagantly and should help others in need. But, even though I'm renting a one-bedroom apartment while saving for retirement and saving aggressively for a down payment on a home (and holding myself to a budget), it's sometimes difficult to realize that compared with most of the rest of the world, I am extraordinarily wealthy. I have a heated/cooled place to live, with good clothes and shoes . . . and the only time I miss a meal is when I deliberately skip one.

Despite my disagreeing with you on confiscating wealth for charity, I think you bring up an important question: If we truly care about helping others in need, what are we willing to give up to do our part?

 

[Mister J]

i never said that people buy microsoft products because they think Gates isa nice man, Where you got that from i have no idea.

Your initial post contained the statement "it's time they gave something back". It order to 'give something back', you have to be given something. None of these people acquired their fortunes because people chose to selflessly 'give' them their money. They patronized the varied products, TV shows, movies, etc., because it met a need or want they had. That's the exchange. Giving has nothing to do with it, so there's nothing to give back.

But you really think it'sok that peopleearn millions a week and give so little back? if you had billions in the bank would you just sit on it knowing there are people dying in 3rd world countries of viruses that could be cured with a vaccine that costs as little as 5p?

I'll rather make those choices of my own accord, be it toward aiding others or choosing inaction. What's not OK is for it to be deemed that I have to be a better world citizen, simply because I have the means. Someone earns an exorbitant sum of money, they can do whatever they want with it, even if that's turning a blind eye to anything beyond their own life.

 

[Silicon Surfer]

The extremely poor are the fastest reproducing segment of the world's populace. They can't feed themselves but they will have child after child after child. The numbers of these poor are in the billions. Even if you seize the entire fortunes of the world's rich and divide it among the poor it would not amount to much. They would go through it fairly fast and be broke again. The problem is that there are so many of them and they can't support themselves.

 

[November Rain]

the price you pay for suceeding in the free world is watching your poorer breathren suffer and seeing nothing you can really do will make a significant difference.

 

[Jerry!]

Worry about Number One.

 

[C.F. Kane]

If only every problem in the world could be solved just by throwing money at it.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

Just because people have been fortunate enough to get however much money doesn't mean they should be force to give it all away and just because you feel for whatever causes you feel for doesn't mean they do they may have something else they donate to but even if they don't no one has the right to say they should give money away

 

[GarudA]

Last I heard on Warren Buffett, was that he was giving away 80% of his money to charity. Which is about $30 Billion.

I Just feel it's up the person themselves whether or not they wish to give money away or not.

 

[terry78]

A lot of these people do give milliions to charity, but you don't always hear about it,that's the thing. But if you did, we'd say they just wanted the recognition. And if I had billions in the bank, I would get a giant gated house in the hills too, because living amongst the common folks, I would most certainly be in danger every day.

 

[Matt]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done a lot for charity. Practically everyone you listed have. They have donated millions upon millions of dollars, more than you or I will ever see in our life time.

I love the way a thread like this pops up every now and then. We shouldn't punish people for being successful. That is essentially communism. Granted, some people are born into it...but that doesn't change the fact that someone, somewhere in their family line worked hard to ensure his or her future generations would be financially secure. If they want to keep it all locked up in a vault, then so be it. It is THEIR MONEY. Not the government's to allocate out as they see fit.

And T-D-K, how much money did you give to charity last year? Do you own an X-Box 360? A DVD player? A nice TV? Any luxury items? How about a car? If so, what kind? If you bought it new, why didn't you buy a $4,000 car isntead and give the difference to charity? I mean, hell, the 10-20 thousand dollar difference would feed an entire African village for a coupel years and surely you don't NEED a new car, simply one that runs well. Why shouldn't you be held to your own standards?

 

[Bubonic]

It's just the way the world works, sadly enough.

Well at least in a capitalist defined system.
Early societies, and most tribes and tighter knit groups have redistributive systems that ensures no one gets to rich for their own good.

How are you going to define "need?"

For instance, why should you buy a 60-inch plasma HDTV when you can make do with a 24-inch HDTV? You don't "need" the 60-inch TV, so the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. You don't "need" a new car when there are plenty of good used cars that are much less expensive. So, the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. When you truly start defining "need," you're going to find that there are a lot of people besides the insanely wealthy that have more money than they really need.

Look, I firmly believe that those with money ought to help out those in need. But, it's their money to spend as they see fit, not mine. If they want to be stingy misers, then they should be able to do so.

Your right to point out that it is much more then the filthy rich that spend to much. In fact, the average joe spends much more then his means then does Bill Gates. We are a consumer society, and if we were to seriously consider redistribution, it wouldn't be simply up to the tycoons.

The extremely poor are the fastest reproducing segment of the world's populace. They can't feed themselves but they will have child after child after child. The numbers of these poor are in the billions. Even if you seize the entire fortunes of the world's rich and divide it among the poor it would not amount to much. They would go through it fairly fast and be broke again. The problem is that there are so many of them and they can't support themselves.

There is some truth in what you say, but your overgeneralizing.
In the U.S., and other industrialized countries a lot of people are poor due to their own ineptness. They spend beyond their means.
But in most countries of the world, it is geo-politics that has guided peoples poverty, not fault of their own. You can't look at a Zambian family living in a dirt hut and say, well, if we redistributed, these bums be at it again. No, not at all, it is the colonial powers fault that they are in such dire conditions.
I think you are underestimating the money people have compared to the people on this earth. If redistribution also included average people, then it be more then enough.

 

[SuBe]

How are you going to define "need?"

For instance, why should you buy a 60-inch plasma HDTV when you can make do with a 24-inch HDTV? You don't "need" the 60-inch TV, so the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. You don't "need" a new car when there are plenty of good used cars that are much less expensive. So, the government should force you to give the difference in price to charity. When you truly start defining "need," you're going to find that there are a lot of people besides the insanely wealthy that have more money than they really need.

Look, I firmly believe that those with money ought to help out those in need. But, it's their money to spend as they see fit, not mine. If they want to be stingy misers, then they should be able to do so.

That's ridiculous. Nobody has to give jack to charity, that's why it's referred to as 'charity'.

This notion of 'giving back' is completely offbase. No one goes out and buys Microsoft products because they think Bill Gates is a nice guy and they simply want to help him. They're purchasing those products, because of their usefulness. The same is applicable to any media magnate, actor, musician, businessman, etc., who has managed to acquire a sizable fortune. It's the simple exchange of goods and services for money. 'Giving' has nothing to do with it, so I don't see what it is they're suppose to give back.

People's financial successes shouldn't be subject to the equivalent of a penalty to correspond with some ideology to cure the ills of the world. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Donald Trump or any person of comparable wealth isn't more responsible for making the world better than anyone else.

100% Agreed with Both of these. If they put out a product that people purchase. It is not being greedy to keep the money you earn. If Society didn't want their Product or Service, they wouldn't be giving them the money in the first place.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

The Dark Knight, what are you doing to help the problem's of poor people? Don't just leave it to the super-rich, lead by example, why don't you join the peace corps to help these people out yourself.

 

[Matt]

The Dark Knight, what are you doing to help the problem's of poor people? Don't just leave it to the super-rich, lead by example, why don't you join the peace corps to help these people out yourself.

Because its easier to criticize people for actions that you, yourself will not take

 

[Figs]

Every day people die in third world countries from easily preventable diseases, people all over the world are starving, dying. People living on the breadline trying striving to make ends meet.

All the while people like Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, George Lucas, Donald Trump, The Hiltons & Bill Gates right hand man sit on billions upon billions of dollars. Okay so they give something to charity but it should still be noted that these people as well as the overly rich famous live lives that other people could only dream.

It's stupid that people are allowed to earn so much, spend money on stupid things (a diamond encrusted skull was sold at auction last year for millions of pounds made by Damien Hirst) All the while people are dying from things that could so easily be prevented, contaminated water for one.

There should be a tax for people like Gates, Hilton Et al, never mind there contributions, they should have to give a certain amount to charity each year, not what they want to give.

These people have way more money than they will ever need, than any of us will ever need, its time they gave something back.

Your thoughts?

Your post is ridiculous and I'm going to assume your just jealous.

Listen, those people (minus Paris Hilton) you mentioned all earned and worked hard for their money. In short...they deserve it!

I'm sorry but there is no law that you must use your wealth to help other third world countries or the poor in your own country. I think the fact that they make contributions from their own free will is good enough, especially when they could just tell the poor to "F*** themselves".

If you want to ***** and complain about people who have way more money than they need. Complain about all the athletes out there. Most of them make waaay too much for playing what is essentially a childs game.

They buy multiple cars and houses and spend more than they have. When those meatheads wake up and realize they've spent too much, they cry for more money.

 

[The Lizard]

Because its easier to criticize people for actions that you, yourself will not take

But....isn't that the exact purpose of internet message boards in the first place?