Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   LA Homeless (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=876774)

manson1972 06-06-2019 07:40 PM

LA Homeless
 
I'm not big on pitting stuff but this story: Staggering homeless count stuns LA officials just irks me. Everyday I read about rich Hollywood stars and their lifestyle. Hell, there was just a story of Tracy Morgan buying a $2M dollar car. And yet, this homeless situation in LA. Makes me sick, especially when people can't wait to go see a movie, entertainment!, that cost $1B or whatever to make and makes billions.

There is no way that Hollywood is "liberal" or actually cares about people less fortunate than them. I wish they would just stop trying to pretend that they are.

Also, fuck, shit, piss.

Covfefe 06-06-2019 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685223)
Everyday I read about rich Hollywood stars and their lifestyle.

Why? Personally I avoid that and usually don't have difficulty doing so.

manson1972 06-06-2019 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covfefe (Post 21685231)
Why? Personally I avoid that and usually don't have difficulty doing so.

I don't read "People" or anything. But there is one page in the free newspaper that the Washington Post gives out on the metro that has stories of that type.

Saintly Loser 06-06-2019 07:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU

octopus 06-06-2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685223)
I'm not big on pitting stuff but this story: Staggering homeless count stuns LA officials just irks me. Everyday I read about rich Hollywood stars and their lifestyle. Hell, there was just a story of Tracy Morgan buying a $2M dollar car. And yet, this homeless situation in LA. Makes me sick, especially when people can't wait to go see a movie, entertainment!, that cost $1B or whatever to make and makes billions.

There is no way that Hollywood is "liberal" or actually cares about people less fortunate than them. I wish they would just stop trying to pretend that they are.

Also, fuck, shit, piss.

Why would they stop pretending when itís profitable?

Covfefe 06-06-2019 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685235)
I don't read "People" or anything. But there is one page in the free newspaper that the Washington Post gives out on the metro that has stories of that type.

Do you like movies? Is that why you take more interest in these people than others out there who also immerse themselves in frivolous luxuries while disconnected from the downtrodden?

It's honestly foreign to me. I was rarely allowed to watch movies as a child and have never gotten much into them or why these people's opinions are rationally considered consequential beyond the fact that, like those others their money can influence political clout.

Vinyl Turnip 06-06-2019 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685223)
I'm not big on pitting stuff but this story: Staggering homeless count stuns LA officials just irks me. Everyday I read about rich Hollywood stars and their lifestyle. Hell, there was just a story of Tracy Morgan buying a $2M dollar car.

With that kind of capital, he could've eradicated homelessness by giving every indigent person in Los Angeles $33.89. What a dick!

kaylasdad99 06-06-2019 10:47 PM

To be fair to Mr. Morgan, he is in NYC...

Chisquirrel 06-06-2019 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21685435)
To be fair to Mr. Morgan, he is in NYC...

That doesn't fit the whining narrative, though, so we'll just ignore it.

Monty 06-06-2019 11:52 PM

One question for OP: Why did that guy pay two million bucks for a dollar car?

Dr. Crap 06-07-2019 12:35 AM

How much celebrity money would it take to solve LA's homelessness problem?

Guest-starring: Id! 06-07-2019 01:00 AM

Around $381 million.

Wendell Wagner 06-07-2019 01:23 AM

manson1972, you seem to be starting with the assumption that because you read a lot about rich actors, they must be the richest people in the U.S. First, actors aren't even the richest people in the film production business. Here's an article giving average annual incomes for various professions in the film business:

http://money.com/money/4965728/movie...t-paid-actors/

Furthermore, the average annual incomes for people in the film business aren't the richest for any business. There are lots of jobs with higher average annual incomes. Here are some:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/the-...n-america.html

If you really want to make a huge amount of money, become the CEO of one of the top 500 companies:

http://money.com/money/5287123/ceo-pay-afl-cio/

The people you read a lot about are not the richest people. The richest people try to stay out of the news. Here's the Forbes list of the richest people in the U.S. Note how few are connected with the film industry:

https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

Biotop 06-07-2019 01:29 AM

The fault is not with Hollywood but with all of us.

manson1972 06-07-2019 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner (Post 21685524)
manson1972, you seem to be starting with the assumption that because you read a lot about rich actors, they must be the richest people in the U.S. First, actors aren't even the richest people in the film production business. Here's an article giving average annual incomes for various professions in the film business:

http://money.com/money/4965728/movie...t-paid-actors/

Furthermore, the average annual incomes for people in the film business aren't the richest for any business. There are lots of jobs with higher average annual incomes. Here are some:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/the-...n-america.html

If you really want to make a huge amount of money, become the CEO of one of the top 500 companies:

http://money.com/money/5287123/ceo-pay-afl-cio/

The people you read a lot about are not the richest people. The richest people try to stay out of the news. Here's the Forbes list of the richest people in the U.S. Note how few are connected with the film industry:

https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

I don't assume they are the richest people in the US. I assume they are of the liberal persuasion, since they espouse those ideals on TV and such. Instead of glamourous shots of actors at swank parties and red carpets, how about photos of them at the LA homeless camp actually doing something?

If they don't want to do anything, or don't actually care, then fine. But don't act like they do.

manson1972 06-07-2019 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty (Post 21685476)
One question for OP: Why did that guy pay two million bucks for a dollar car?

Because he's stupid?

iiandyiiii 06-07-2019 08:10 AM

Reasonable pitting. IMO it's always reasonable to pit rich people if/when they're not doing enough to help those suffering around them.

Wendell Wagner 06-07-2019 08:18 AM

Incidentally, Tracy Morgan is only worth $12 million, so spending $2 million on a car was ridiculous. (You're going to say that that's still a lot of money. 1.07% of Americans are worth more than $10 million. 0.07% are worth more than $50 million.) Let me correct one other thing in the OP. No movie has ever cost $1 billion to make. The most one has cost is $412 million. You should learn about how much money is thrown around in businesses other than entertainment.

Wendell Wagner 06-07-2019 08:22 AM

Also, the fact that some actors and other entertainers talk publicly about liberal causes doesn't mean that they are all liberal. A lot of entertainers are conservatives. They just don't go out of their way to discuss it.

Dewey Finn 06-07-2019 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685639)
If they don't want to do anything, or don't actually care, then fine. But don't act like they do.

Is the assumption that because the homeless still exist in Los Angeles that none of these so-called liberal actors are doing nothing to address the situation? How do you know that they're not? Perhaps they advocate for changes in government policies and programs to address the issue. Perhaps they contribute to programs that address the issue. Who knows? Certainly not you.

manson1972 06-07-2019 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner (Post 21685665)
Incidentally, Tracy Morgan is only worth $12 million, so spending $2 million on a car was ridiculous. (You're going to say that that's still a lot of money. 1.07% of Americans are worth more than $10 million. 0.07% are worth more than $50 million.) Let me correct one other thing in the OP. No movie has ever cost $1 billion to make. The most one has cost is $412 million. You should learn about how much money is thrown around in businesses other than entertainment.

Well, I feel the same about sports and sports stars. But I don't really see sports stars on TV bragging about how liberal they are, or being held up as examples of liberalism. It's usually "Look how awesome I am, I bought all my teammates $30,000 watches!" :rolleyes:

Chronos 06-07-2019 08:46 AM

And the elephant in the room, you can't solve homelessness just by throwing money at it. A large proportion of homeless people are homeless not because they can't afford a home, but because of various sorts of mental illnesses. Some of those mental illnesses, we can't treat, or can only barely treat. Some of them, we can, but only with the consent and cooperation of the patient, and one manifestation of the mental illness is that they refuse treatment. And even in those relatively rare cases where the problem is as simple as lack of money, the people who need the help might not even know that it's available, and then there are significant logistic issues in getting the help to those who need it while preventing abuse of the system.

Guest-starring: Id! 06-07-2019 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner (Post 21685665)
No movie has ever cost $1 billion to make.

And the recalcitrant three-toed sloth in the room... oh yes there i-i-is.

Johnny L.A. 06-07-2019 09:27 AM

I don't speak French, but shouldn't the title be LES Homeless?

Monty 06-07-2019 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685642)
Because he's stupid?


I was making a joke about the redundancy in your OP.

Typo Negative 06-07-2019 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685639)
I don't assume they are the richest people in the US. I assume they are of the liberal persuasion, since they espouse those ideals on TV and such. Instead of glamourous shots of actors at swank parties and red carpets, how about photos of them at the LA homeless camp actually doing something?

If they don't want to do anything, or don't actually care, then fine. But don't act like they do.

So this is liberal bashing and you don't really give a fuck about the homeless. You have absolutely no idea how they feel, what charity work they do, what charities they donate to, or even what political views they have. (Hint, some are actually Republicans)

But never let facts get in the way of a good story. Or stupid rant.

Go soak your head.

Eonwe 06-07-2019 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21685688)
. . . or being held up as examples of liberalism.

You know who holds up movie stars as "examples of liberalism"? Conservatives.

The left does not idolize Hollywood for being a bastion of liberal good examples. Your premise here is flawed in the extreme.

bobot 06-07-2019 11:05 AM

Tracy Morgan grew up in the projects. If he can afford a few million dollar car today, more power to him! I'd like to see a fuckwad like Trump start there, then, and be where Mr. Morgan is today.

pool 06-07-2019 11:27 AM

Tracy Morgan is worth way more than $12 Million after the Walmart Settlement, supposedly court documents state him and a fellow comedian got as much as $90 million, not sure if that's for the both of them together or what. I still wouldn't buy a car that expensive if I was that rich.

This thread also makes me think about the threatened Hollywood boycotts over abortion legislation in states like Georgia. I thought about starting a thread about it. I have a friend that works on movies and tv shows in the Atlanta film industry. Georgia has been turning slowly purple especially with the recent rise of the film industry. All these lower people in the tier of movie production like set dressers, prop masters, graphic designers are for the most part hardcore liberals, they are not the ones in favor of restricting abortions but if the film industry pulls out at the behest of director, famous actors, producers and higher ups in the business, sure the state suffers but they're probably actually hurting the people that agree with them the most. It sounds counter-productive, burning bridges with the people that agree with you, those are the ones you are putting out of work who can't afford to relocate to California most likely.

I don't think Hollywood Actors really understand or at least care about the little people in their industry even though they are on the same side.

RadioWave 06-07-2019 12:38 PM

Robin Williams had it in his contract that any production he was involved in must hire a certain number of homeless people in the filming area to do non technical jobs.
Jodie Foster is rather well known to help out with homeless charities as well as having made several documentaries raising awareness of the issue.
Susan Sarandon has testified before Congress to raise funds to fight violence against homelessness.

That's just off the top of my head.

bump 06-07-2019 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21685652)
Reasonable pitting. IMO it's always reasonable to pit rich people if/when they're not doing enough to help those suffering around them.

How much is enough though? That's a question for which I have never seen a good answer.

I mean, would we be cheering Morgan had he paid a million toward the homeless, and bought a car that only cost 1 million? What about 1.5 million and a 500k car? Or if he'd just not given any money and bought a 75k car?

iiandyiiii 06-07-2019 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21686218)
How much is enough though? That's a question for which I have never seen a good answer.

"Enough" is when there are no longer homeless and/or suffering people out there.

My point is that the wealthy should always and forever be obligated (morally speaking) with a burden to use their wealth to help others. That never goes away, IMO. If I ever became wealthy, I should be continually obligated and reminded of that obligation to help those less fortunate then I am.

I'll add that I'm pretty damn fortunate (if not wealthy, at least IMO). And if someone challenged me and said I wasn't doing enough to help the homeless and suffering people, they'd probably be correct.

Johnny L.A. 06-07-2019 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. (Post 21685759)
I don't speak French, but shouldn't the title be LES Homeless?

Since I don't speak Spanish either, maybe it should be LOS Homeless.

Typo Negative 06-07-2019 01:53 PM

https://www.serudsindia.org/5-hollyw...rk-will-shock/
Quote:

George Clooney is one of the actor who often seen in working for the social causes. Recently in Aug of 2017 we have seen the Gravity star, raising 1 million dollars to the southern poverty law Centre to fight hate crimes. He is also seen with his Ocean Eleven stars Matt Damon and Brad Pitt to stop the genocide occurring in Sudan
Quote:

Apart from making chartbuster songs, the American singer-songwriter has been doing immense charity work. At a young age of around 25, she started showing her interest in social causes and worked for the betterment of needy people. During floods in state of Louisiana, Taylor donated an amount of whopping 1 Million $.
Quote:

Leonardo DiCaprio is one of most active member in environment protection team at global level. When he finally won his dream, Academy award, in his speech of acceptance, he mentioned “Let’s protect earth” showed how dedicated he is for social causes. The titanic star reportedly raised 30 Million $ for environmental projects
Quote:

In 2008, Jolie announced plans to open an AIDS & tuberculosis clinic in Ethiopia, the country from which her daughter Zahara Marley was adopted. Already, a portion of the $2 million was donated to the Global Health Committee has gone to medications to treat these diseases, which are ravaging the country”.

Her charity organization, Jolie-Pitt Foundation has raised more than a jaw dropping 50-60 million $ for the destitute people of the society.
Quote:

In 1998 he founded the Jackie Chan charitable Foundation that offers scholarships, free medical treatments and shelter for disaster driven people and disabled children.

According to socialworkhelper.com,

he has raised 29 million dollars for drought relief in China
He donated 5 million dollars for earthquake victims
His foundation raised 5.2 million dollars for Singapore Thong Chai Medical institution
Celebrities Who Secretly Do A Ton Of Charity Work

So, manson1972....what have you done for the underprivileged?

Dr. Drake 06-07-2019 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21685697)
And the elephant in the room, you can't solve homelessness just by throwing money at it. A large proportion of homeless people are homeless not because they can't afford a home, but because of various sorts of mental illnesses. Some of those mental illnesses, we can't treat, or can only barely treat. Some of them, we can, but only with the consent and cooperation of the patient, and one manifestation of the mental illness is that they refuse treatment. And even in those relatively rare cases where the problem is as simple as lack of money, the people who need the help might not even know that it's available, and then there are significant logistic issues in getting the help to those who need it while preventing abuse of the system.

While that is true, you're talking about the eradication of homelessness. The issue now is that there are more homeless than ever, an increase that outpaces the general population increase. That suggests that there IS a solvable problem in the mix, along with the unsolvable base issue, because the situation has changed. And in the last 30 years, the entire employment sector has changed, from what jobs there are to how one acquires them; housing and education costs have risen enormously, as have individual debt burdens; many people live far away from close relatives, and in general have fewer close relatives than we did before birth control became widely available; L.A. in particular has tons of people whose roots (and thus deep social safety nets) are elsewhere.

Try2B Comprehensive 06-07-2019 02:36 PM

Millions of people spend money on cigarettes instead of helping the homeless.

Just teasing ya there, Manson. I don't see how blaming actors helps anything. And, "liberal" far more often seems like an accusation than something people self-identity as, so appealing to "liberal values" might not be too effective.

All decent people should have values. Dragging "liberalism" into it just confuses things IMHO.

rsat3acr 06-07-2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biotop (Post 21685529)
The fault is not with Hollywood but with all of us.

Not true, while some issues like inadequate mental health facilities may be partially a function of society, if someone gets hooked on crack and looses everything it sure as hell not my fault.

bump 06-07-2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21686228)
"Enough" is when there are no longer homeless and/or suffering people out there.

My point is that the wealthy should always and forever be obligated (morally speaking) with a burden to use their wealth to help others. That never goes away, IMO. If I ever became wealthy, I should be continually obligated and reminded of that obligation to help those less fortunate then I am.

I'll add that I'm pretty damn fortunate (if not wealthy, at least IMO). And if someone challenged me and said I wasn't doing enough to help the homeless and suffering people, they'd probably be correct.

Not to hijack, but what's "wealthy" in this context? I mean, anyone who's got their needs met (meaning themselves and their family) could probably afford to give something, but nobody's expecting anyone to buy Busch Light instead of craft beer because there are homeless people out there, and the $3 difference per six-pack could add up over time.

And what does suffering mean? That's awfully indistinct as well.

That's the problem- it's always vague, and something of an implied guilt trip to anyone who's not breaking even.

Chisquirrel 06-07-2019 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pool (Post 21685977)
This thread also makes me think about the threatened Hollywood boycotts over abortion legislation in states like Georgia. I thought about starting a thread about it. I have a friend that works on movies and tv shows in the Atlanta film industry. Georgia has been turning slowly purple especially with the recent rise of the film industry. All these lower people in the tier of movie production like set dressers, prop masters, graphic designers are for the most part hardcore liberals, they are not the ones in favor of restricting abortions but if the film industry pulls out at the behest of director, famous actors, producers and higher ups in the business, sure the state suffers but they're probably actually hurting the people that agree with them the most. It sounds counter-productive, burning bridges with the people that agree with you, those are the ones you are putting out of work who can't afford to relocate to California most likely.

It's about denying massive tax revenue to governments attempting to oppress others. Costume designers and set dressers in LA lose out when movies are filmed in Georgia and elsewhere, too. Which group is larger, the 5,000 movie workers, or the 30,000 women who would be denied the right to control their own body?

iiandyiiii 06-07-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21686466)
Not to hijack, but what's "wealthy" in this context? I mean, anyone who's got their needs met (meaning themselves and their family) could probably afford to give something, but nobody's expecting anyone to buy Busch Light instead of craft beer because there are homeless people out there, and the $3 difference per six-pack could add up over time.

And what does suffering mean? That's awfully indistinct as well.

That's the problem- it's always vague, and something of an implied guilt trip to anyone who's not breaking even.

This is all subjective and just my opinion; I don't have an exact cutoff. IMO, most wealthy people should feel some guilt -- that kind of guilt might motivate them to do more. Most of them aren't bad people -- they're just people. But people with the incredible privilege of US-style (or Western-style) wealth have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and in my experience few of them (including my wealthy relatives who are very nice people!) feel much of this guilt or obligation, and I think they ought to.

manson1972 06-07-2019 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioWave (Post 21686139)
Robin Williams had it in his contract that any production he was involved in must hire a certain number of homeless people in the filming area to do non technical jobs.
Jodie Foster is rather well known to help out with homeless charities as well as having made several documentaries raising awareness of the issue.
Susan Sarandon has testified before Congress to raise funds to fight violence against homelessness.

That's just off the top of my head.

Good for Robin Williams.

Jodie Foster just sold her home for almost $15 million.

Susan Sarandon has a $12 million dollar California home. And various other million-dollar properties.

They don't care about the homeless. The fact that you think they do just proves my point.

manson1972 06-07-2019 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21686287)
Celebrities Who Secretly Do A Ton Of Charity Work

So, manson1972....what have you done for the underprivileged?

Good for those celebrities.

I'm not in the habit of disclosing what I may or may not do for the underprivileged. I'm not rich. If I was, I would certainly do so, in the hopes that other rich people would follow suit. I wouldn't drive by the homeless in LA to my $12 million mansion.

Dr. Drake 06-07-2019 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21686886)
Good for Robin Williams.

Jodie Foster just sold her home for almost $15 million.

Susan Sarandon has a $12 million dollar California home. And various other million-dollar properties.

They don't care about the homeless. The fact that you think they do just proves my point.

Let me get this straight: they don't care about the homeless because, although they are active in charity work benefitting the homeless, they are still rich.

What would you have them do? What could possibly satisfy you?

I mean, I really do think that $10 million homes are excessive, and income inequality and the existence of the super-rich are not good for society, but criticizing people for not giving away enough of their wealth is illogical. If we felt that people were obligated to give up a portion of their wealth in order to benefit society, we would tax them. We used to, but decided it would be more efficient to rely on ad hoc charitable giving that sustainable programs to help the indigent.

manson1972 06-07-2019 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 21686931)
What would you have them do? What could possibly satisfy you?

For an example, I mistakenly had TMZ on the TV tonight, and learned that Rihanna is worth $600 million dollars. I would have her go on TV and say "I'm donating $100 million dollars of my own money to help alleviate homelessness in LA"

That would satisfy me. Since there is no real difference between $600 million and $500 million.

Dr. Drake 06-07-2019 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21686939)
For an example, I mistakenly had TMZ on the TV tonight, and learned that Rihanna is worth $600 million dollars. I would have her go on TV and say "I'm donating $100 million dollars of my own money to help alleviate homelessness in LA"

That would satisfy me. Since there is no real difference between $600 million and $500 million.

So it is okay for Rihanna to keep $500 million, but unacceptable for otherwhosis to have sold a $15 million house. Okay.

You know who has way more than $600 million? The federal and state governments. You know who is in a better position to do something to alleviate the worst effects of homelessness? The federal and state governments. But by all means, let's blame the overpaid celebrities. It's clearly their fault.

manson1972 06-07-2019 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 21686968)
So it is okay for Rihanna to keep $500 million, but unacceptable for otherwhosis to have sold a $15 million house. Okay

Depends on their net worth

Quote:

You know who has way more than $600 million? The federal and state governments. You know who is in a better position to do something to alleviate the worst effects of homelessness? The federal and state governments. But by all means, let's blame the overpaid celebrities. It's clearly their fault.
You know who doesn't go on TV and say "I'm so #woke. blah blah blah"? Federal and state governments.

You know who doesn't drive by homeless camps in LA to their million-dollar mansions? Federal and state governments.

Wendell Wagner 06-08-2019 04:04 AM

To repeat a list from earlier, here are 400 Americans who could give away half their fortunes and still be richer than Rihanna:

https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

Why aren't you asking these people to give away more of their money? Why are you talking just about people in the entertainment community? Is it because you don't actually know how money is distributed in the U.S., where the amount that people in the entertainment industry own isn't nearly as much as the amount that people in many other businesses own? Is it because you want to blame liberals for everything, and the only way you can do it is to pick on people in the entertainment industry, since you think that they are mostly liberals? Why do you think that they are mostly liberals? Have you actually done any research on their political opinions, or did you just see a headline on a tabloid about one liberal actor and decided that this proves they must mostly be liberals?

I don't think it's any worse for someone to preach about helping the homeless and not give away most of their fortune than it is for someone to publicly scorn the homeless and not give away most of their fortune. I can't do anything about people's free speech. I can do something about the tax structure in the U.S. I don't waste time reading about what celebrities say about politics. They aren't experts on it. Read things by people who are actual experts on politics and economics, not things by people in an irrelevant field like entertainment.

Nava 06-08-2019 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21686939)
For an example, I mistakenly had TMZ on the TV tonight, and learned that Rihanna is worth $600 million dollars. I would have her go on TV and say "I'm donating $100 million dollars of my own money to help alleviate homelessness in LA"

That would satisfy me. Since there is no real difference between $600 million and $500 million.

You know, I don't even know what religion she is, if any, but my own says that one should not publicize one's donations to charity unless one expects the publicity to help the cause.

Would Rihanna publicizing any and all donations she makes (and which right now you have no idea if she makes any, or by how much) lead to you donating money or time to those causes? 'Cos if not, and since you're also not any taxation authority to which she's beholden, it's none of your business honey.

Broomstick 06-08-2019 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21686228)
My point is that the wealthy should always and forever be obligated (morally speaking) with a burden to use their wealth to help others. That never goes away, IMO. If I ever became wealthy, I should be continually obligated and reminded of that obligation to help those less fortunate then I am.

I'm not even sure you have to wait until you're wealthy. I've only just re-entered the lower middle class from the bottom up and yet I am helping to support a soup kitchen and have helped furnish the new homes of two needy people in the past three months. If collectively we all want a better society then I'd say we all need to help those less fortunate.

Of course, the extent of my help is going to be less than that of a millionaire (or billionaire) simply because I have fewer resources. The more resources a person has the greater the moral obligation to use that wealth wisely. IMHO. Of course, others have different opinions.

Broomstick 06-08-2019 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21686886)
Good for Robin Williams.

Jodie Foster just sold her home for almost $15 million.

Susan Sarandon has a $12 million dollar California home. And various other million-dollar properties.

They don't care about the homeless. The fact that you think they do just proves my point.

Caring about the homeless and helping others does not require the philanthropist to beggar him/herself in the process.

You're setting up an impossible situation there.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.