Velo Vol
Internets Expert
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 36,568
- Likes
- 16,919
Terrible.
Had the exact same thought. If they feel they are obligated to do more then they should just do it. In fact doing it from a charitable stance insures their support will go where they think it’s needed. This stupid ass virtue signaling from a group of out of touch elitist rich assholes isn’t useful or productiveThis is the absurdity of humanity at this point. If you have the means to help people you should and I believe have a moral obligation to do so. But if you have the means and don’t help people because the government isn’t taking enough from you, then you’re just a weak coward. These people are saying they’ll only do the right thing for humanity if government forces them…that they are unable or unwilling to do it on their own accord.
Why would you invite the middle man of government to skim even more off of what would be available to those actually in need. It makes no sense except, as you said, the virtue signaling.Had the exact same thought. If they feel they are obligated to do more then they should just do it. In fact doing it from a charitable stance insures their support will go where they think it’s needed. This stupid ass virtue signaling from a group of out of touch elitist rich assholes isn’t useful or productive
That is not what they are saying.This is the absurdity of humanity at this point. If you have the means to help people you should and I believe have a moral obligation to do so. But if you have the means and don’t help people because the government isn’t taking enough from you, then you’re just a weak coward. These people are saying they’ll only do the right thing for humanity if government forces them…that they are unable or unwilling to do it on their own accord.
Terrible.
That is not what they are saying.
What they are saying is that the need is far greater than what they alone can address.
That the best way to meet those needs as a society is for everyone to shoulder an equitable amount.
And that they think the equitable amount for people in their financial situation should be higher.
That is not what they are saying.
What they are saying is that the need is far greater than what they alone can address.
That the best way to meet those needs as a society is for everyone to shoulder an equitable amount.
And that they think the equitable amount for people in their financial situation should be higher.
It just doesn't work.“According to a study conducted by the Patriotic Millionaires together with Oxfam and other non-profits, a progressive wealth tax starting at 2% for those with more than $5 million and rising to 5% for billionaires could raise $2.52 trillion, enough globally to lift 2.3 billion people out of poverty and guarantee healthcare and social protection for individuals living in lower income countries.”
What they “alone” could address is 2.3billion people by being taxed 2-5%. What’s the overhead on that tax? How many people could they help if they just donated that 2-5% straight to the poor and sick they are expecting the government to help?