These figures are all from tax returns and do not all refer to the same tax years.
Where did you pick up the idea that Socialist economies do not compete against the economies of other countries and set demands upon their own workers regarding output, speed, efficiency, etc.? Nothing changes about human nature just because Socialism has taken over.The Redeemer, for example, would not set "competition" as the framework for the economy.
Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money, so the topic is just as relevant as any other discussion regarding people’s morals. Wealthy people don’t need to have a $7,000 mo mortgage, and drive new cars, and buy $500 purses. They absolutely have expendable income that is not tied up in stocks that they can share with the less fortunate. Jesus focused more on caring for the poor than any other topic. I think it’s a valid topic for us too.First off, I'm always confused why people think that this is our business. How much some else gives to charity, is our business why? Because we are motivated by greed and envy of others?
No Christian should be bothering to shove their nose into other people's wallets.
In fact, to be perfectly honest, if more Christians spent more of their time worrying about how much they themselves gave to charity, we wouldn't need the money of the wealthy.
Because here's the reality.... Compared to 90% of the planet, some of the poorest people in America, have what is consider a wealthy life style to everyone else.
Second, saying 'could (insert anyone) give more to charity', is a ridiculous question. Everyone, all of us, could give more to charity. All of us. Every single person on this thread, and this whole forum, could give more to charity, starting with the money they wasted getting an expensive computer, to post online, about how the rich could give more to charity.
Fact is, most of the people on this forum, could live fine, without dozens of the luxuries they think they have to have. How many could have saved $10 on Starbucks or other coffee, and given it to the poor?
The only reason they think the rich should sacrifice for the poor, but they themselves should not, is because they are motivated by greed and envy. People don't like it that someone else is doing better than them, and the socially acceptable way to show that, is by saying "oh well... they should donate more to the poor!".
Thirdly, that article plainly says that the amount of money given to the poor, by the rich, drastically increased. So the amount of money given to the poor has gone up, not down.
If you truly care about the poor, and that is all that matters, then the only important fact of that article is that the very wealthy gave $4.6 Billion dollars more to charity.
Why do you care what percentage that is of their income, if all you care about is far more money is going to charity?
Because this is motivated by greed, and envy. It's that simple.
Lastly, I'm blown away by how obvious than answer is. Rich people get most of their income in stock.
Stock options, usually have a requirement that the executive must keep the stock in the company for an amount of time. Meaning, they can't sell it, and give it to charity.
Let's take for example, the compensation package for the CEO of Walmart. 70% of the CEO's compensation package is all stocks. In fact, only 5.7% of his compensation, is his base pay.
That means, if the CEO donated his entire base pay, he would only be donating 5.7% of his income to charity. And of course he couldn't do that, because his base pay, is the pay he uses throughout the year to pay his household bills with.
Another problem is that many CEOs get compensations in the form of things they can't donate. For example, Warren Buffet has a full time year-around security detail, that is part of his compensation, plus a corporate jet. How exactly would you expect him to donate security and travel services to a homeless shelter or some other charity?
He can't.
So I would submit to all of you, that expecting the super wealthy to donate the same percentage to charity, as low-wage people like myself, is unrealistic.
And again... it's none of my business what the rich do with their own money. Christians like myself, need to be less motivated to shove our nose up other people's butts, and being all greedy and envious of what other's have. No Christian has any business worrying about this stuff. You want to worry about how much is donated to charity? Go work at a shelter, and donate your own money. Stop worrying about what other's do. You worry about you.
Where did you pick up the idea that Socialist economies do not compete against the economies of other countries and set demands upon their own workers regarding output, speed, efficiency, etc.? Nothing changes about human nature just because Socialism has taken over.
Define "Charity".
Perhaps pool the money you plan to give and you can donate 1/2 to what you think are good places and she can do the same with the other half. I think people rarely agree on what is good or definitions of something, and that does not make one better than an other in many cases, just opinion.My wife and I have had this discussion several times. We don't agree on where we should give.
I understood you to be saying it about Capitalism/Free Enterprise.I didnt say any of this about socialism.
If someone here has said that, I will have to take a look at the post.but to insinuate capitalism is virtue-driven isn't honest
Perhaps pool the money you plan to give and you can donate 1/2 to what you think are good places and she can do the same with the other half. I think people rarely agree on what is good or definitions of something, and that does not make one better than an other in many cases, just opinion.
As someone who is not rich, but works in a field that inherently pays well, I completely agree with this. No one here knows how much we give or what we do for others. To top that off, I get comments about how I as a woman shouldn’t have a career job or that the reason I haven’t had kids yet is due to me being selfish and caring more about a career than a family (also not true; for us, not having children is not for a lack of trying). Frustrating.But it is frustrating that we get comments from people about being one of the selfish rich.
Do you have scripture to show that "Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money?"Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money, so the topic is just as relevant as any other discussion regarding people’s morals. Wealthy people don’t need to have a $7,000 mo mortgage, and drive new cars, and buy $500 purses. They absolutely have expendable income that is not tied up in stocks that they can share with the less fortunate. Jesus focused more on caring for the poor than any other topic. I think it’s a valid topic for us too.
Do you have scripture to show that "Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money?"
When I read, I get a sense that He is very concerned about our souls and not too concerned about things of the flesh... But maybe if I look harder at the scriptures you point out....I can see less life and salvation and more money and spending prioritization?
Perhaps the OP could be reworded to "Is it the responsibility of the Rich to give more?"
I mean concerned that rich people help the less fortunate with their money.Do you have scripture to show that "Jesus was very concerned with what people did with their money?"
When I read, I get a sense that He is very concerned about our souls and not too concerned about things of the flesh... But maybe if I look harder at the scriptures you point out....I can see less life and salvation and more money and spending prioritization?
That is a horrid example. In some countries you can live comfortably on $10,000 a year. $32,000 a year would not allow you to live well (if at all AND if you expect to rent or own a small apartment or home) in San Francisco, but it would in Sidney, MT.Did you know that if you make just $32,000 a year, you are the top 1% wage earners in the world?
That is a horrid example. In some countries you can live comfortably on $10,000 a year. $32,000 a year would not allow you to live well (if at all AND if you expect to rent or own a small apartment or home) in San Francisco, but it would in Sidney, MT.
People love to toss out money figures but seem to forget that there are MANY factors. I can also claim $3 will buy you a great steak dinner (but I fail to also add in 1802 North Carolina).
Amen to that.I would expect the truth is that it''s not really a matter of rich or poor; both - all people - tend toward selfishness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?