Should the rich give back?

Jerlene

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
20
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
If a person, such as a celebrity, is successful and rich, should they have to give back to charities, communities, etc.? I see a lot of people on social media giving celebrities a hard time when they make a big purchase, saying that they should give the money they spent on X to someone more needy. It bothers me to see so many people with this mentality. I don't think celebrities owe anyone anything. I think they work hard for it(most people don't know the schedule they have is incredibly demanding) and they just got lucky with their career path. So do you think the rich should give to the needy? Do you think it should be expected of them? Is it wrong for people to assume that it is?
 

Jason76

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
465
Age
47
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Unitarian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Well, the Bible says the person who hides his charity is the blessed one (Sermon on the Mount). I mean, I remember this George Carlin kit where he was bashing the "celebrity do-gooder thing". I can't really blame him. Well, I know celebrities mean well - but I won't think less of celebrities who don't wear their heart on their sleeve - because maybe they are in secret. I can't really judge!

Who knows if AC/DC is the biggest donor in Africa?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If a person, such as a celebrity, is successful and rich, should they have to give back to charities, communities, etc.? I see a lot of people on social media giving celebrities a hard time when they make a big purchase, saying that they should give the money they spent on X to someone more needy. It bothers me to see so many people with this mentality. I don't think celebrities owe anyone anything. I think they work hard for it(most people don't know the schedule they have is incredibly demanding) and they just got lucky with their career path. So do you think the rich should give to the needy? Do you think it should be expected of them? Is it wrong for people to assume that it is?

I really hate it when other people try to spend someone else's money LOL As Jason said, it's possible they give in secret.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes, I think they should give some of their funds to help out others around them. Of course, they are not obligated to. If they do give, it should be done where they don't gloat about it
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If a person, such as a celebrity, is successful and rich, should they have to give back to charities, communities, etc.? I see a lot of people on social media giving celebrities a hard time when they make a big purchase, saying that they should give the money they spent on X to someone more needy. It bothers me to see so many people with this mentality. I don't think celebrities owe anyone anything. I think they work hard for it(most people don't know the schedule they have is incredibly demanding) and they just got lucky with their career path. So do you think the rich should give to the needy? Do you think it should be expected of them? Is it wrong for people to assume that it is?

The whole approach to what "the rich" should do is usually little more than tubthumping and rabble rousing. It's easy to demand that other people live in a manner of our choosing but the simple reality is that, compared to many, most of us are rich. Essentially what much of this kind of posturing boils down to is little more than spite and envy, where "the rich" means "people with more than me".

Ultimately what someone else does with their money is their business and they don't need my approval. It's far more productive to figure what I'm going to do with the resources at my disposal than to be fussing over what someone else would do.

Some years ago I was a member of another board (sadly no longer in existence). There were just a small group of us using it, and although most of us had never met in person we all felt we knew each other reasonably well, having formed something of a huddle on a different board. One member of the group was financially struggling and it was agreed by the staff (I was an admin of the board) that we would post a message inviting the membership to donate to meet a specific need that a member had. Everything was anonymous to protect the privacy and dignity of the member we knew had a very specific need. Anyway, take a wild guess who the first person to donate to the cause was... That person was struggling to pay their own bills but still managed to find something to give to someone they assumed was in even greater need than they were.

It's easy for those of us who don't have untold millions behind us to figure anything we do pales into insignficance against what "rich people" can (and, we therefore assume, should) do. But just look through Scripture to see what God does with donations that can only be described as pitiful. One person gives up their lunch at a gathering of thousands and Jesus uses it to feed everybody with plenty left over. A widow gives her last drops of oil and scraps of flour to make a cake for Elijah and her meagre resources never run out. A widow throws a couple of copper coins into the collection, right after people dumping wads of cash, and Jesus praises her for her giving. God isn't constrained by human quantities.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If a person, such as a celebrity, is successful and rich, should they have to give back to charities, communities, etc.?



No.


There is no crime in being successful. It's NICE if they choose to "spread the blessings around" but this should not be a legalistic mandate.

It should be remembered, too, that in the USA and most countries, the successful are profoundly punished for being successful by paying nearly all the income tax for the country, while perhaps HALF of the population pays none to little taxes at all - a tiny percentage of their income (often 0%). IMO, countries should follow the "economics" of God that God instituted - ALL returning the EXACT SAME percentage (in God's case, it's 10%), so that all contribute equally in terms of PERCENTAGE. Now, if any WANT to contributed more (as I choose in the case of my offerings, giving more than 10%) that's their choice.

"Class warfare" and "Hate the rich" are mantras of the left, the mean hateful selfish "rich" never been defined. They LOVE the idea of taking from those bad "rich" people so THEY can give it to their supporters and get the appreciation and make them feel dependent on the political left.



.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As others have, I think, said in one way or another, should they? is answered Yes if the people in question are of our faith and have avoided paying taxes. But if the question is asked merely out of some egalitarian or Marxist theory of justice, the answer becomes No.
 

Jason76

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
465
Age
47
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Unitarian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
As others have, I think, said in one way or another, should they? is answered Yes if the people in question are of our faith and have avoided paying taxes. But if the question is asked merely out of some egalitarian or Marxist theory of justice, the answer becomes No.


It can do wonders in the short term - but not good in the long one. I mean, come on, if someone is giving you free cash for college, living expenses, you're going to love it!
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As others have, I think, said in one way or another, should they? is answered Yes if the people in question are of our faith and have avoided paying taxes. But if the question is asked merely out of some egalitarian or Marxist theory of justice, the answer becomes No.

I don't really see what taxes have to do with anything, other than giving people who aren't inclined to give a handy excuse for not doing anything. You know - when confronted with poor people it's easier to just figure you paid your taxes and it's the government's problem now.

The eternal questions to those who would answer Yes to the question are very simple. Firstly, who are "the rich"? Secondly, how much should they "give back" and to whom should they give it? "The poor" doesn't cut it unless you can define who counts as "poor", and "those less well off" doesn't work because it would mean a billionaire could tick the box by merely throwing a few bones to a relatively impoverished multimillionaire. Thirdly, how do you know they aren't already giving all that and then some but without making a big fanfare about it?

An awful lot of presumably well-meaning rhetoric throws around terms like "the rich", "the disadvantaged" and the like as if they were self-explanatory. The trouble is that so many terms are vague enough to mean more or less whatever somoene wants them to mean and can change based on context. We might refer to the kid raised in the ghetto who is a genius but whose mother (presumably the father is long since gone) can't afford to send them to a decent school as "disadvantaged". But compared to, say, the children of Bill Gates one could argue that the children of Donald Trump are "disadvantaged" because their father didn't even get his net worth to $10bn let alone $50bn or more.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It can do wonders in the short term - but not good in the long one. I mean, come on, if someone is giving you free cash for college, living expenses, you're going to love it!

Very true, although there is a difference between an endless stream of free money and someone helping out with a specific expense, particularly if it's an unexpected expense that breaks an otherwise balanced budget.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't really see what taxes have to do with anything, other than giving people who aren't inclined to give a handy excuse for not doing anything. You know - when confronted with poor people it's easier to just figure you paid your taxes and it's the government's problem now.

Nevertheless, if the government confiscates 50% or so of your income in order to run the welfare state, it can hardly be said that you are not contributing anything to the poor.
 

Jason76

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
465
Age
47
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Unitarian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Very true, although there is a difference between an endless stream of free money and someone helping out with a specific expense, particularly if it's an unexpected expense that breaks an otherwise balanced budget.

Well I'm not so much concerned about the tax payer problem - as the damage done to whom is given the money. I mean, the Welfare State has done nothing but damage to people - in the long run (breakdown of the family etc.).
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Nevertheless, if the government confiscates 50% or so of your income in order to run the welfare state, it can hardly be said that you are not contributing anything to the poor.

True, although your earlier post suggested that avoiding taxes somehow obligated someone to give to the poor.
 
Top Bottom