ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 3892
May 29 08 6:51 AM
Interact
Posts: 2633
May 29 08 7:26 AM
Sorry, but when one-third of your income still allows you to pay for mortgages and property taxes on estates totaling over $87 million, I still think that's an absurd amount of wealth to hoard away for one family.
May 29 08 7:49 AM
ScarletGirl wrote: Sorry, but when one-third of your income still allows you to pay for mortgages and property taxes on estates totaling over $87 million, I still think that's an absurd amount of wealth to hoard away for one family. I don't get why it's such a concern as to what they spend their money on when they give MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars to charity. The argument that "it's still a small percentage of their income" is absurd to me.
SG, I'll try to explain my personal p.o.v on this, and it has to do not only with wealthy celebrities and actors, but with families who are exceedingly wealthy due to business acumen, the fortune of being born royal, or other. A family so rich as we're describing here does support charity well with the millions they dole out. Who do they support with the multi-millions they spend on lavish homes, overpriced children's clothing, jet-setting, artificially high priced jewelry, etc.? They support a group of merchants and marketers who themselves have become wealthy and are in a way to increase their net worth. So a lot of money is hoarded at the economic top of the scale. It's traded within the upper echelons for extremely expensive goods and services. Meanwhile, on the lower and larger part of the economic scale, some families live reasonably well, way down low, families struggle. What if Extremely Wealthy Family X (EFWX, to keep it anonymous) switched its habits, living on the millions it had earmarked for charities, and giving the multi-millions that support its rich'n'famous lifestyle away? To me, that spells "economic stimulus package" way more effectively than does the US government's rebating of money that taxpayers had to fork over, anyway. And EWFX would still be living in kingly style. The next logical question is how far down the economic ladder we could ask people to do the switcheroo, living on their charitable contris and donating what they'd previously been living on, to charity. And the answer is that one would have to wait (and not for very long) to see the effect of multi-millions going to improve the lives of the needy, but it probably wouldn't go that far down, because most people simply don't have the multi-millions that a select few, do. So....that's why I don't see it as absurd. FWIW. JMHO. And remember, I am one of those libertarians....!
May 29 08 8:19 AM
Posts: 6326
May 29 08 10:16 AM
I think, in general, actors and actresses are paid ridiculous sums of money for basically professionally bullshitting. That being said, when they do use their money, particularly a third of it, for charitable donations I simply cannot criticize that. Sure, I roll my eyes when I read about the latest celebrity buying an overpriced, gas guzzling car or buying their own private jet or buying some butt ugly "mansion" or "estate" that is insanely overpriced because it sits in Beverly Hills. But then I think about people living at or below the poverty level and wonder if they would be critical of someone like me, who certainly doesn't make a celebrity's income, but makes sufficiently more than poverty level, spending my money on getting my hair done, or getting an occasional manicure or pedicure, or my husband wanting a motorcycle. Is it really any different (other than the levels of income and spending we're talking about)?
Honestly, is it really up to the wealthy and extremely wealthy to support all the charities? In a perfect world, everyone would give 10%, or a quarter or a third, or whatever. Do these celebrities need multiple homes? Of course not. Do they need multiple vehicles, personal planes, etc? Of course not. But I feel like if I criticize the spending habits of celebrities like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, then I must criticize myself too. I give to charity and I tithe to my church - - but I could give more, if I didn't treat myself to getting my hair done, getting my nails done, etc. I realize it's not the same as buying yet another McMansion, but adjusting my salary to theirs, I feel it's really an adequate comparison.
I prefer to direct my scorn at people who either donate to CO$ funded charities (which is nothing more than lining more Scieno pockets) or don't choose to give back at all, particularly when they are much more financially fortunate than most of the population.
JMO.
Posts: 3365
May 29 08 3:09 PM
Posts: 3199
May 29 08 5:08 PM
Share This