Quote:
Quote by: G. Adams  Why does he not deserve to spend his money on himself? Why should he be forced to take care of the worlds poor? Tell me, have you ever in your life purchased a luxury? And by luxury I mean anything, anything at all, not essential for you to live another day. So, a chocolate bar, or a computer, or any piece of clothing not as basic as possible to keep you warm? Why do you have the right to spend your money on these things, things you want to make your life more enjoyable, when others are dying as children? Why do you deserve the right to spend your money more than this guy?
Why would it be fair for him to donate what he has generated to those who have done nothing for him? It would be noble, and generous, and kind of him to do so, but why would it be fair for him to donate it? He will already no doubt pay more tax per year than you or I will make in a lifetime, so why should he give up more? When would you be happy with what he has given? When he is living in the gutter?
By the way, a donation is voluntary. |
I'm not discussing donation, I'm discussing fairness. You are criticizing the position that this billionaire should share his wealth because you say it is unfair. I am saying that if you are to judge situations based on fairness, why is it fair for one person with more opportunities in life to be wealthy while another person with less opportunities is poor? Fairness says that the money is his, but it also says that the money should be distributed to the less fortunate. My point is that the criteria for which you claim the billionaire deserves his wealth (fairness) is the same criteria which dictates that he should spread his wealth.
As for myself, yes, fairness would dictate that I should share my property and wealth with less fortunate people (If I am accurate in my interpretation of fairness).