English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

38 answers

It wouldn't be DONATING if they *had* to do it, would it?

2006-07-31 07:13:37 · answer #1 · answered by SavageLettuce 4 · 0 0

Oh, sure; let's make charity mandatory for anyone earning an income over a certain dollar amount or who falls within these job catagories. It doesn't smack TOO much of oppressive behavior.

Hey, I'm not crazy about the fact that there are people making insane amounts of cash while people go hungry, but the problem's not going to be fixed by targeting a select few. Theoretically, if you got $5.00 from every working American a year, you could not only feed all the poor in the world but create the means for the needy to produce food. IF they were willing to put the time and effort in. IF there were no opposition to our aid from any local warlords or whatnot. IF The majority of people cared enough. And... IF the organizations responsible for executing charitible programs were trustworthy enough to do thier jobs, instead of giving thier executives large salaries and paying for celebrity photo ops.

Forced charity is extortion. And real charity needs a lot more fine-tuning to be effective, regardless of how much money it has.

2006-07-31 07:14:45 · answer #2 · answered by QuackJak 4 · 1 0

Of course! Not all taxes go to the poor so sometimes it's better if they give directly to the people in need or to charities/Non-Government Organizations (NGO's) involved in helping the poor and needy.

Even those who aren't rich (celebrities, prof. athletes, etc.) can give money to the poor. It doesn't need to be in big amounts, whatever you can give is help enough.

2006-07-31 07:11:54 · answer #3 · answered by Iya 3 · 0 0

Absolutely not! The wealthy 1% of this nation pay the largest amount of taxes (90% give or take a few) and employ the most amount of people through their investments and business building. That being said, most of our countries poor comes from bad parenting, a lack of education, and poor motivation brought on by environment and TV.

2006-07-31 07:10:01 · answer #4 · answered by raiderking69 5 · 0 0

Some do. Some should because a lot of them always say that they grew up poor. However it's their money and they do with it what they please. In my eyes everyone should donate to the poor, you never know if it's going to be you.

2006-07-31 07:34:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i think that they rich people should donate money to the poor people because they should be thankful that they have alot of money and should give some who dont have. because if i was rich will donate to the poor and sick people and the animal too............

2006-07-31 12:41:51 · answer #6 · answered by crazmarie11 2 · 0 0

yes dey should donate money 2 da poor. o and also those ppl makin comericals da encourage ppl 2. it cost millions of dollars 2 put comercials on tv y dont dey use dat 4 contributing 2 da less fortunate

2006-07-31 07:07:53 · answer #7 · answered by Rane Flare 2 · 0 0

Surly they should pay because God is giving them the money not only for themselvs.
we have a very big example which is BRITNEY SPEARS she has a foundation and she always donates money for poor people .

2006-07-31 07:12:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Working since i was 16 joint the military retire and still poor, not everyone is Lazy Jenny A, circumstance arrive. so careful what comes out of your mouth you could be sleeping under bridge never know.

2014-04-06 17:35:45 · answer #9 · answered by ? 1 · 0 0

they are not obligated to donate money to the poor but i think that they should help people that cant work or do any thing for them self

2006-07-31 07:09:18 · answer #10 · answered by bonnie3bd 3 · 0 0

No, they work for their money. If you feed the poor, they will just multiply. If they are poor, they should try their luck at acting. Or just try "acting" like a productive member of society.

2006-07-31 07:08:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers