I did not read it quite that way. I disagree you strongly though. The “when you’re that wealthy” line is wrong. BETTERING HUMANITY is the moral imperative of us all. If you are a billionaire and you are not a major supporter of charities (plural) then you do deserve the paper cut. And if you are not rich and you are not giving where you can you also deserve the same paper cut. And if you really poor then maybe the only giving you can give is your time.
So… you agree.
In my experience having dealt with Billionaires in a professional capacity, they tend to “give back” by creating scholarships, endowing charities, educational institutions, arts and culture, hospitals and sports programmes.
Not by tipping waitstaff a few percentage more.
Not quite. I am saying that we all have the responsibilities not just the rich.
This question shows a phenomenal lack of understanding of the most trivial economic principle. Pay close attention to the paragraph which follows. It can be used as an argument in favor of progressive or socialist policies but, regardless of such an argument, it reflects a fundamental truth. Right-wingers who can’t grasp even this much shouldn’t bother to try posting about economics.
People who are less well off spend money on things they need. Richer people, as the quote implies, are likely to spend money on things they don’t need. Ignoring 2nd-order effects, the spending may have an equivalent effect on total GDP, but spending on things that are needed is fundamentally “better” than spending on things that are unneeded. Despite trickle-down dogma, the economy is finite. Those employed building luxuries are not employed building necessities.
Spending a billion dollars on useless gadgets is not the same as spending a billion dollars on feeding hungry children. Even right-wingers understand this much, if they understand anything at all.
Well, yeah.
But this thread’s about you’d do if you were a billionaire, so that what we’re talking about.
The poor are not that way because there’s not enough to buy. The poor are that way because they lack the money to buy it.
It doesn’t really matter whether they’re employed in a factory making necessities or employed to polish your solid gold toilet - a job is a foundation of being able to buy what they need.
Same, with an occasional Big Tip for really exceptional service.
I tend to over-tip now, so I’d probably over-over-tip.
I’d also tip extra to whoever had to sweep up the rose-petals my little people laid down for me to walk upon.
Seems like the very least you could do.
Note, I also think that randomly handing out money is also making the world a bit better. Ultimately, improving the world means improving happiness. We feed the hungry so they can be fed and thus get rid of the unhappiness of not being fed or the unhappiness of dying because of lack of food.
That’s why I don’t understand people who freak out about trying not to unnecessarily offend people. Making the world a happier place is the moral imperative. You offend people only when necessary to make the world a happier place.
This, with splurges as I felt like.
Yes, I’ll have the Almas caviarstuffed albino lobster, my good man, with a side dish of young hops shoots, white trufflesand saffron; all served on Royal Copenhagen Royal Danicaplatters. Of course, I will need a rhodium tureen of clarified Animal House butter. As for libation, please bring me a bottle of Pasion Azteca Platinum Tequila and the souvenir gold and diamond DeMer jigger.
My wife will have the cheeseburger and water.
How did I get to be a billionaire? If I won a big lottery, I probably would be more generous than if I shrewdly worked my way up to such wealth.
I’d still start at 20% (they have to earn less…), but I figure I’d be paying more than eight bucks for lunch…