I agree with this so much. It is becomming a standard response. Like, let’s see you donate that percentage of your net worth (and oftentimes these people donate to multiple causes over the years). I’m also not saying ‘those poor multimillionnaires’, there is enough wrong worh our system. But they are doing something while you only go full keyboard warrior.
People keep bringing up “percentage” like it means anything at all. If I donated 10% of my net worth to Maui, I would have to skip groceries for a couple of months to get by. If Oprah were to donate 90% of her net worth, she would still have more money than I’ll ever see in my lifetime. Percentages mean nothing to the lifestyles of billionaires.
I never thought I would be sort of ‘defending’ extremely rich people on here. I guess my point is, we shouldn’t get distracted and entitled about how people who earned their money relatively fairly (as far as I know) by current society standards in the normal system should spend it, instead we should focus on reforming the system to one where inequality is less of a problem
I agree, but don’t forget that holding the overprivileged responsible to society for the wealth that society gave them is one of the necessary steps towards that reform. Without a culture of giving back, the change we want will never happen.
It’s just not the same. If Oprah donated 50% of her money, she’d be fine. If I donated 50% of mine, I’d be fucked, and have to spend over a year getting it back.
I’m not disagreeing on the notion that she would be fine. And for the record, I am not a fan of glamourizing billionnaires at all. But someone who is poorer than you are (just the fact that you have acess to the internet suggest that stayistically many people in the world are worse off than you are) could say you would also be ‘fine’ giving away half your posessions.
My point is don’t hate the player, hate the game. We need tax increases on wealth to invest heavily in education, infrastructure, health, social security. The current distribution of wealth is, in my view, ethically indifensible. But it sounds entitled to me when people just hate on these donators instead of the system that creates them or the rich assholes to donate to industry lobby instead of people in need
So we should… praise them for their donation even though they know they are materially contributing to wealth inequality in their country?
Yes the rest of us are also part of a system of exploitation (and that’s bad and I hope you are all combating against it as best you can), but we’re much more beholden to it, seeing as how our actual survival requires full lifelong participation in that system.
If there’s anyone that could be considered “above capitalism” it’s the billionaires. They actually have some individual power to shift the rules of the game they know is crooked. Or at least not take take take take and still want praise for giving away a micron of a rounding error of their wealth.
I don’t think my argument was a straw man fallacy, I was merely illustrating my point. But I do get that it is not the same, you and Oprah. Also, I didn’t see you criticising the system, just the one person. But I am fine to agree to disagree.
Exactly. I’m not saying poor rich folk. I just saying it’s nice they donated, and the amount can do a lot of good.
I can’t afford to donate. So I’m thankful someone can. I swear these people would complain if a rich person just randomly gave them 10k, cause they could afford to give them more.
If I’m at a birthday party and we’re only getting cake crumbs and someone comes by and offers me a slice, then yeah it’s nice for me, but how can they afford to just be giving away cake at a crumb party? It’s not just charity, it’s inequality and people with more money want credit parting with the surplus they’ve accumulated.
I’m not even talking about millionaires. They’re down here with the rest of us as far as I’m concerned. You can earn millions by directly working for it.
But anyway when I give money to the local animal rescue, it stings a bit, because that’s money out of my pocket that I would have otherwise spent. And I’m well off compared to most.
A billionaire is so far beyond that you may as well not even call it “money” for them, because it’s so different then what you or I associate with the term. Their lifestyle will never be at risk of having to change because they spent too much.
They have insane, unethical, embarrassing, pernicious, criminal amounts of available capital.
More like you give a homeless person food and they start telling you how evil you are for not buying them an apartment and financing the rent for 12 months.
Sure, you can be happy that they donated money to a cause. But billionaires are the reason donations and philanthropy are necessary in the first place. You don’t become a billionaire unless you’re doing unethical shit and/or exploiting a lot of people (there’s inheritance, but that’s another problematic topic altogether).
I agree with this so much. It is becomming a standard response. Like, let’s see you donate that percentage of your net worth (and oftentimes these people donate to multiple causes over the years). I’m also not saying ‘those poor multimillionnaires’, there is enough wrong worh our system. But they are doing something while you only go full keyboard warrior.
People keep bringing up “percentage” like it means anything at all. If I donated 10% of my net worth to Maui, I would have to skip groceries for a couple of months to get by. If Oprah were to donate 90% of her net worth, she would still have more money than I’ll ever see in my lifetime. Percentages mean nothing to the lifestyles of billionaires.
I never thought I would be sort of ‘defending’ extremely rich people on here. I guess my point is, we shouldn’t get distracted and entitled about how people who earned their money relatively fairly (as far as I know) by current society standards in the normal system should spend it, instead we should focus on reforming the system to one where inequality is less of a problem
I agree, but don’t forget that holding the overprivileged responsible to society for the wealth that society gave them is one of the necessary steps towards that reform. Without a culture of giving back, the change we want will never happen.
True, I agree
It’s just not the same. If Oprah donated 50% of her money, she’d be fine. If I donated 50% of mine, I’d be fucked, and have to spend over a year getting it back.
I’m not disagreeing on the notion that she would be fine. And for the record, I am not a fan of glamourizing billionnaires at all. But someone who is poorer than you are (just the fact that you have acess to the internet suggest that stayistically many people in the world are worse off than you are) could say you would also be ‘fine’ giving away half your posessions.
My point is don’t hate the player, hate the game. We need tax increases on wealth to invest heavily in education, infrastructure, health, social security. The current distribution of wealth is, in my view, ethically indifensible. But it sounds entitled to me when people just hate on these donators instead of the system that creates them or the rich assholes to donate to industry lobby instead of people in need
Some players have enough wealth to make the rules of the game. So I have to disagree.
So we should… praise them for their donation even though they know they are materially contributing to wealth inequality in their country?
Yes the rest of us are also part of a system of exploitation (and that’s bad and I hope you are all combating against it as best you can), but we’re much more beholden to it, seeing as how our actual survival requires full lifelong participation in that system.
If there’s anyone that could be considered “above capitalism” it’s the billionaires. They actually have some individual power to shift the rules of the game they know is crooked. Or at least not take take take take and still want praise for giving away a micron of a rounding error of their wealth.
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
Uhhh, happy for ya money buckets, but people with that kind of money ARE the fucking game.
Bit of a strawman, there. I am criticising the system, not the people. These two are just emblematic of it.
I don’t think my argument was a straw man fallacy, I was merely illustrating my point. But I do get that it is not the same, you and Oprah. Also, I didn’t see you criticising the system, just the one person. But I am fine to agree to disagree.
So, what is the reason such people are so rich and have no obligation to help beyond what they choose? Oh yeah. The system of neoliberal capitalism.
Exactly. I’m not saying poor rich folk. I just saying it’s nice they donated, and the amount can do a lot of good.
I can’t afford to donate. So I’m thankful someone can. I swear these people would complain if a rich person just randomly gave them 10k, cause they could afford to give them more.
If I’m at a birthday party and we’re only getting cake crumbs and someone comes by and offers me a slice, then yeah it’s nice for me, but how can they afford to just be giving away cake at a crumb party? It’s not just charity, it’s inequality and people with more money want credit parting with the surplus they’ve accumulated.
I’m not even talking about millionaires. They’re down here with the rest of us as far as I’m concerned. You can earn millions by directly working for it.
But anyway when I give money to the local animal rescue, it stings a bit, because that’s money out of my pocket that I would have otherwise spent. And I’m well off compared to most.
A billionaire is so far beyond that you may as well not even call it “money” for them, because it’s so different then what you or I associate with the term. Their lifestyle will never be at risk of having to change because they spent too much.
They have insane, unethical, embarrassing, pernicious, criminal amounts of available capital.
More like you give a homeless person food and they start telling you how evil you are for not buying them an apartment and financing the rent for 12 months.
Sure, you can be happy that they donated money to a cause. But billionaires are the reason donations and philanthropy are necessary in the first place. You don’t become a billionaire unless you’re doing unethical shit and/or exploiting a lot of people (there’s inheritance, but that’s another problematic topic altogether).