Chinaski_86 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 23 minutes ago, Malfatron said: she earned that money she can give as much or little away as she wants This. Most people don't donate a single dollar to charity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acgott Posted November 15, 2018 Author Share Posted November 15, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 51 minutes ago, Acgott said: I'm in. It looks amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: 160 million was 16% of her profits. It's plenty to scoff at when she's making 95 million a year on residuals alone. Yes, she could be heartless and give nothing, but I'm sorry if I don't consider billionaires particularly altruistic when they're donating millions of dollars when they're worth billions of dollars. Especially considering the tax write-offs. If somebody with 100 million dollars donated 1 million dollars, would that be all that generous or selfless? I just can't call her some saint when she has like a dozen houses in the whitest areas of Great Britain only to get on a soap box about immigration only to shut up immediately when somebody challenged her to use one of her 12 18-bedroom houses to house an immigrant family. Like... It would be extremely simple for her to buy a 200,000 dollar house to put her money where her mouth was and look like an absolute saint in the eyes of everybody. 200,000 would have been like 20 bucks to her, probably 2 dollars, and instead of coming out strong against the challenge she shut right up and did nothing. She's donated a lot of money, yes, but the tax write offs probably even out, and when you're a multi-billionaire on a fixed income of 95 million dollars a year in royalties, I'm sorry if 160 million doesn't scream hero to me. If I was making 95 million a year and had a billion dollars, I'd probably be giving away 160 million to charity, too, and I'm the most selfish person I know. Umm...who cares? That $160 million qualifies her as one of the most charitable people in the history of the world total dollars wise. Could she afford to do more? Sure. Does she have to? No, she's already done more than all of us could even imagine put together and multiplied by 10. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 50 minutes ago, seminoles1 said: Umm...who cares? That $160 million qualifies her as one of the most charitable people in the history of the world total dollars wise. Could she afford to do more? Sure. Does she have to? No, she's already done more than all of us could even imagine put together and multiplied by 10. She has more than all of us could even imagine together. Multiplied by 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: She has more than all of us could even imagine together. Multiplied by 20. That's great. She earned that money and can do whatever she wants. She decided to donate $160 MILLION. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this. Every billionaire can give more than what they've given. So could every millionaire. Just a little bit helps; $160 million is more than enough to qualify anyone as charitable beyond appreciation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo18287 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) Dumbo looks good. Edited November 16, 2018 by Dingo18287 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 31 minutes ago, seminoles1 said: That's great. She earned that money and can do whatever she wants. She decided to donate $160 MILLION. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this. Every billionaire can give more than what they've given. So could every millionaire. Just a little bit helps; $160 million is more than enough to qualify anyone as charitable beyond appreciation. Sorry. It's not that simple. She's not the first billionaire to stop being a billionaire due to donations, she's making 95 million a year, she will literally never want for anything. 160 million doesn't make her a hero, it makes her like every other billionaire out there that's a public figure. The number 160 million means nothing in the face of a billion dollar net worth and a 90+ million dollar annual income. It really means nothing. I know it sounds stupid to argue about that, which is why I'm gonna drop it off of this, but I hate how everybody points to her donations to charity to make it seem as if she's some great person. I personally don't see any donation that leaves someone with 6 - 12 mansions as particularly saint-like, and I find Rowling to be an extreme hypocrite in almost every virtue-signaling rant she goes on. And worse than all that, she keeps changing the books she should have left alone 11 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Fantastic Beasts is getting not great reviews. Further proof that Rowling has lost any touch and magic she had. I swear, Fantastic Beasts was the most boring possible movie in the Harry Potter world, and 40% of Harry Potter fanfiction would have made a better movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 13 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Sorry. It's not that simple. She's not the first billionaire to stop being a billionaire due to donations, she's making 95 million a year, she will literally never want for anything. 160 million doesn't make her a hero, it makes her like every other billionaire out there that's a public figure. The number 160 million means nothing in the face of a billion dollar net worth and a 90+ million dollar annual income. It really means nothing. I know it sounds stupid to argue about that, which is why I'm gonna drop it off of this, but I hate how everybody points to her donations to charity to make it seem as if she's some great person. I personally don't see any donation that leaves someone with 6 - 12 mansions as particularly saint-like, and I find Rowling to be an extreme hypocrite in almost every virtue-signaling rant she goes on. And worse than all that, she keeps changing the books she should have left alone 11 years ago. I will sum up a reasonable response with: you are wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncosFan2010 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Quote I know it sounds stupid to argue about that, which is why I'm gonna drop it off of this, but I hate how everybody points to her donations to charity to make it seem as if she's some great person. I personally don't see any donation that leaves someone with 6 - 12 mansions as particularly saint-like, and I find Rowling to be an extreme hypocrite in almost every virtue-signaling rant she goes on. And worse than all that, she keeps changing the books she should have left alone 11 years ago. I can agree that people like Rowling that virtue signal and then drive home in range rovers can be annyoing, but its her money and she has done more good than any of us ever will. Look at it like this, the British government is already taking outrageous sums of her money in tax. Her ability to generate so much revenue has made her a tax cow for the government, and in turn has contributed untold amounts to welfare programs in England. That is a net good. She isnt polluting rivers, she isnt using slave labor in some faroff land, she isnt some startup thats helping the disgusting social media obsession. She wrote good books, that were in such demand that she is now insanely rich. Of all the wealthy people out there, in terms of how she got her wealth and the negative externalities that go along with it, shes one of the last mega-wealthy that should be chastised. Her brain and creativity got her those 12 houses. If she is rich enough to take the loss rather than rent out the ones she isnt occoupying, then thats her right. Should she make her empty homes into boarding rooms for homeless people? Do you realize the liability that goes along with that? The cost of staff, food, upkeep, etc. The likleyhood that they end up trashed? Its just not realistic. 160M is 160M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 1 hour ago, BroncosFan2010 said: I can agree that people like Rowling that virtue signal and then drive home in range rovers can be annyoing, but its her money and she has done more good than any of us ever will. Look at it like this, the British government is already taking outrageous sums of her money in tax. Her ability to generate so much revenue has made her a tax cow for the government, and in turn has contributed untold amounts to welfare programs in England. That is a net good. She isnt polluting rivers, she isnt using slave labor in some faroff land, she isnt some startup thats helping the disgusting social media obsession. She wrote good books, that were in such demand that she is now insanely rich. Of all the wealthy people out there, in terms of how she got her wealth and the negative externalities that go along with it, shes one of the last mega-wealthy that should be chastised. Her brain and creativity got her those 12 houses. If she is rich enough to take the loss rather than rent out the ones she isnt occoupying, then thats her right. Should she make her empty homes into boarding rooms for homeless people? Do you realize the liability that goes along with that? The cost of staff, food, upkeep, etc. The likleyhood that they end up trashed? Its just not realistic. 160M is 160M. Well she is using to both local North American presidents but cant focus on her own stories to get them right? She does this sort of nonsense to be a rabble rouser nothing more just to stay relevant as I said before. That's why trump uses it and others. But shes contributing to this cess pool of online bullying and internet mob mentality. Shes really no different then the guy shes bashing but wants to pass herself off as this person who's all about the people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncosFan2010 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Quote Well she is using to both local North American presidents but cant focus on her own stories to get them right? She does this sort of nonsense to be a rabble rouser nothing more just to stay relevant as I said before. That's why trump uses it and others. But shes contributing to this cess pool of online bullying and internet mob mentality. Shes really no different then the guy shes bashing but wants to pass herself off as this person who's all about the people. I meant more-so that she didnt gain wealth creating another soul crushing social media platform. I do agree w/ your statement though. Twitter virtue signalers are the verbal equivalent of the guy that puts a troop ribbon on the back of his car and moves on with his life. Pure empty gesture to pontificate your own self importance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty21 Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 @Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, Tyty said: @Outpost31 At work. What does it say that confirms everything I already know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.