|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on May 26, 2003 15:27:50 GMT -5
I was talking to a friend yesterday, and the idea about Bush pulling money from charities got me thinking. Why does it always have to be America that pours all the money into foreign charities?
I mean, I know that this country is very profitable, but what about the other countries in the world that have plenty of money to go around? I mean, Russia and Britain and quite a bit of Europe have a lot of cash to put towards these charities. How come no one ever hits them up for gas money?
If people want to hit America up for money, look to all the billionaires we got. Let the African governments and charities have a chat with big Bill Gates. Have them go talk to the Rockafeller family. Or what about the DuPonts? I'm sure the Ford company has enough money to give out. Talk to General Motors, they own like 7 different car companies. There are also so many celebrities ... Britney Spears, Ja Rule, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Lopez, and the entire NFL.
There should be a law in America that if a company or a person has so much money, they should be required to put so much of that money into foreign and domestic charities. I know that some of the people/companies I mentioned do put money into charities, but Bill Gates giving a couple of million to a city if chump change.
Well, that's all I have to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on May 26, 2003 16:35:42 GMT -5
Maybe people who work hard and EARN their money (no matter what you say about Bill Gates, he DID work hard for his money) should be allowed to keep it and do as they wish with it. Give some of it to charity? Sure. Keep it all? A little selfish maybe, but why shouldn't they? It's their money. As for celebrities, even if they don't really sing or act, they still work hard. Do you know how hard it is to be under hot lights all day, to have to dance constantly, and to have to act all happy when your world is falling apart? If you haven't, you have no idea how hard it is to be a celebrity. I do agree that other countries should give money to the poorer ones, however let's face it - the U.S. is the richest one. Besides, they seem to like interfering plenty with other countries, I don't see why they shouldn't do it with their money. /end sarcasm But seriously, I don't think anyone should be FORCED to give up their money. The government and whoever else is in charge doesn't need that much control of our lives. Similarly, no other country should be FORCED into giving money if they do not wish to.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on May 26, 2003 16:56:24 GMT -5
I realize that they worked hard to achieve all of the money that they accumulated. But for those that did work hard, it should be right that they give back to the society that allowed them to get there. I mean, with free enterprise in America, they were able to have billions of dollars. Don't you think they should give back a little? Take for example, the NFL player that joined the military upon the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. He gave back. It didn't have to be in monetary value, but he still gave back.
And people like the DuPonts and Rockafellers haven't had to work for their money for over 50 fifty years. The current family members get their money through trust funds, stock market accounts (which their accountants manage and not themselves) and inheritances. They should be required to give a lot more back than those who earned it.
I also do know that celebs do work hard.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 26, 2003 21:19:36 GMT -5
<<it should be right that they give back to the society that allowed them to get there>>
Its called the progressive tax system.
<< Don't you think they should give back a little?>>
You mean like how the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay over half the taxes?
<<They should be required to give a lot more back than those who earned it.>>
Who and what kind of government is to judge?
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on May 26, 2003 21:24:44 GMT -5
I ain't talking about the taxes. I am talking about charities and whatnot.
And you asked what type of government should judge, a Socialist government. The United States is a very Socialist country, if you didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 26, 2003 21:43:56 GMT -5
<<I ain't talking about the taxes. I am talking about charities and whatnot.>>
Well donations that are compelled by the government is little more than taxing. The government has no right or Constitutional ground to force you to donate to a charity or something of the sort, no matter who you are.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 27, 2003 6:25:04 GMT -5
There should be a law in America that if a company or a person has so much money, they should be required to put so much of that money into foreign and domestic charities.
That smacks of Socialism.
DuPonts and Rockafellers haven't had to work for their money for over 50 fifty years. The current family members get their money through trust funds, stock market accounts (which their accountants manage and not themselves) and inheritances. They should be required to give a lot more back than those who earned it.
The Duponts, for example, the Dupont Company puts millions of dollars into research and development of the products we use daily. See my surely somewhat naïve example of why they shouldn’t really have to put additional monies into charities. The same goes for the billionaires in the US of which only make up five percent of the population. The working middle-class give out much more even if there was a law. Sure a big company should give back to their communities, but they already do that by employing a work force.
As to those in the music industry, not everyone is Bob Geldof or Bono who spearhead programs to help those in need. If it’s not on their heart, it won’t be effective. Not to mention, I wouldn’t want to work a 16 hour day then have to manage a charity that I started, it’s too much. With all the appearances and junk like that that take up a celeb’s life I’m surprised they have the energy to do what they do to begin with.
The United States does pay a large percentage of the charities. How about other countries coming along side and instead of criticizing, help out too. Sure we’re rich, but I’m not, I’m just scraping by. Britain and the US do pay the larger percentage of charities. However, Bill Gates worked his ass off the get where he is, and we shouldn’t punish innovation. Like it or not, Bill Gates changed the face of computing, and made computers, eh, for the most part, easier to use. Not only that, Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corp. employs many. Now that’s charity that works.
The rich do an unbelievable charity service. They keep me, and many others working. They only have to pay what is a fair and competitive wage. One must remember that Bill Gates doesn’t have to keep Microsoft open for anyone, neither do car companies. I’ll use General Motors just as an example. It is a world-wide company that has, several hundred thousand employees, plus it pays the retirement and health benefits of an additional several hundred thousand. Millions of dollars are spent on research and development so that GM can remain competitive with Ford, Toyota and what have you.
Then there’s additional millions – probably billions, spent on insurance and other benefits, and workman’s compensation in case the employee gets hurt on the job. Millions are spent to pay them, and millions more is stolen by those who feign injuries to get a little more.
Millions more are spent on advertising so that people are made aware of the new products available. That’s sounds like a lot of money, but if GM didn’t design new models and advertise, people may not buy the products, GM goes under, well that’s a little dramatic.
What would happen is GM would stagnate as a company. As a result, it would have to slash its budget, and workforce, whom later would be in the unemployment lines. Guess who pays the unemployment benefits of former GM workers. GM. Then there’s the fact that GM owns other car companies in Asia and the EU. It employs those people as well.
To keep everyone happy, and to stay within the bounds of each countries’ customs and business rules, GM has to spend additional millions on legal procedures so it can, again, remain competitive, and keep those people employed. Ah, then there’s the suppliers for GM whom it picks and chooses for the best prices, then there’s the costs of shipping and all the peripheral costs and business that are fed by GM so it can sell its products and services. So in reality, a big company like GM isn’t that much of a money hogging monster, although it does make big profits. The people who work for GM have one job, to make money for GM so they can continue their employment, and extend the life of General Motors.
Then there’s the horrendous taxes a company like that must pay to local, state, and national governments. I’d hate to see a tax bill like that, it probably pays the equivalent of a small countries’ gross national product. The property the GM facilities are on are taxed, the money GM makes is taxed, and I know I’m missing a few. I’m surprised they can do anything at all, whew!
Surely there are the rich who should give and give generously, but it should not be mandated, or it might even have the opposite effect, and those who do give generously and don't have to, might say, "the hell with it." You can’t force people to be good or compassionate, it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 28, 2003 7:43:26 GMT -5
with free enterprise in America, they were able to have billions of dollars. Don't you think they should give back a little?[
Not if it's a free enterprise system. And if not, you have a host of other problems to work through.
Now on the subject of celebrities giving, yes they are wealthy and they are rich. But let's face it, they're products of the industry. They work, they're successful, but get a wrinkle and you're done.
Many business do give generously. Then they write it off on thier taxes. If that sounds like a "so what they can afford it" thing. It does help them. That's a good thing, because I give too, and get a bigger tax refund at the end of the year. If you change the tax laws so that a company doesn't get a tax break, but make a law for compulsory giving, it drags the business down. In some cases they'll have to make a choice. Do they expand and employ more people? Or do they give all the money they make and stagnate because they can't do any R&D. And if they don't give enough, now they have to spend time and money on legal fees.
Then there's the charities themselves. Who gets the biggest cut of the trough? Some charities are shady. They waste money and the president goes home in a leased 2004 Cadillac.
The bottom line, to borrow a phrase used to describe the last line of a financial statement and should stay there. Is that no one has any real obligation to keep the company open. Bill Gates doesn't HAVE to keep Mircosoft going. Nothing is stopping him from waking up one morning and saying, "Know what? I've mad emy money. I'm done."
I can also think of another problem with compulsory giving for a company. Now they have to hire a bunch of people to manage the giving. Just think of the hostile uinions that would want a peice of that pie. I respect unuins, and it's great what they do, but it's also why a car cost $25,000! Anyway, it's already so that some 30 percent of a company's employees are there, that do work that has nothing to do with what the company is about.
If the charity stuff is too hard, complicated, or with frustrating and suffocating conditions, which no doubt would creep in there, again, there are no laws on the books that say a company HAS to stay in business. The CEO or President, or owner can just say, "You know what, this is too much, I'm tired of it." And the doors close and everyone loses.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 28, 2003 15:39:09 GMT -5
This is just ridiculous. They earned their money, that means they have a right to spend it however they like.
As I recall, isn't Bill Gates the one who gave $24 billion or so to world health care? I could be wrong, but there was definitely something like that.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 28, 2003 19:28:11 GMT -5
^^ Agreed.
I don't care if the Rockefellers are "old money" they should spend their money how they want. They earned it.
Yes, I think it is the decent thing to give to charities (although, personally, only ones that I believe in, and ones that I think have worth), but... who has the right to tell me how to spend my money and when (if I was rich, that is)? That is why America is the way it is (take that as a good or bad thing). You are free to make money, if you can and choose to do so, and you have the freedom to spend it on whatever you want, whether it be a $5000 bra or charities.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 29, 2003 6:09:34 GMT -5
As I recall, isn't Bill Gates the one who gave $24 billion or so to world health care? I could be wrong, but there was definitely something like that. Or 24 million. Hey, that's still a decent chunk of change for anyone. And as a matter of fact, he did. Here is a website for that. www.liberalartsandcrafts.net/contentcatalog/charity/billgates.shtmlDon't get me wrong, it's great to give and be compassionate. I do it. But you can't make it a law and it should never be mandated or forced. Whatever happens, the working middle class out-give the 5% of the billionaires, just because of sheer numbers. It's bad enough we need a tax code that's so complicated it's 6,000 pages long.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 29, 2003 10:29:26 GMT -5
However, if people are poor and starving we do all have social responsibility. Some people do not give anything away. Whether you're rich or not so rich, I feel personally that we ought to give to make sure that every person is entitled to the same quality of life that we have. I don't know much about US laws and charities and everything else, but I do believe that in whatever country you are in, if you're rich or just normal middle class or whatever, you ought to give away because you're responsible socially for those around you that don't have as much.
America can't be perfect in what it gives away. From what I can see, if it destroys Iraq (whether thats justified or not is not the issue) then it should pay to restore it and it's people... if the only way that happens is through charities then by all means America and American people should give.
And yes, as a socialist I believe that rich people should give more. They don't need the little bits of money as much as the poorer people.
However, I don't believe that giving should become a law. Rather I think that giving should be encouraged. Part of giving is seeing yourself helping others and that helps the person and often motivates them to give more. Making giving an actual law would hinder that and people might begin to resent it. Also, it would be hard to administrate. People give to charities they sympathise with, so how can you make sure that people give a certain amount to charities when there are so many? The best thing to do is to encourage giving.
|
|
|
Post by strangelilboi on May 29, 2003 12:46:19 GMT -5
If corrupt, rich people are not forced to give money, they never will and nothing would work. Eventually it will only result in a medevial peasant system that we are trying to get rid of.
Thats the main problem in poorer countries. The rich are very rich and the poor are very poor. Sigh
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 29, 2003 14:32:10 GMT -5
If corrupt, rich people are not forced to give money, they never will and nothing would work. Eventually it will only result in a medevial peasant system that we are trying to get rid of.
Uh....Not all rich people are corrupt. And check out you facts, almost all major corps do give money, as to many rich people, and if we force them to give......well, it's just not right.
I have no idea what you're getting at about the "medieval peasant system" That the rich employ the poor and deprive them of rights? Not happening right now. The world is not in a medieval peasant system that I'm aware of.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on May 29, 2003 15:47:10 GMT -5
I liked how Strawberry put it. If America does end up totally decimating Iraq (which hasn't really happened, except for the power loss), then we should rebuild it. Quick side note: Bush is already going to help rebuild Iraq, how he manages to achieve that, I do not know. Maybe he has a little piggy bank in his desk.
Anyway, the same country rebuilding happened after WWI, the Allies helped to rebuild Germany after the war ended and they saw how terrible the living conditions were.
Off the history now ...
I do think that $24 million is a great donation to world healthcare. But that amount is great, but it is not completely necessary. Ten American dollars could completely stock an African pharmacy for about a year. Look how much money was wasted in that $24 million. Some of that $24 million could have gone to villages in South America, Africa, etc. to install running water or a water purification system. That $24 million dollars could also have hired a doctor for a village.
|
|