Should rich people and corporations be forced to give to charity?

[cupidkisses]

Yes

No

[curiousnorway]

Depends what you mean by charity. If you means taxes, yes, then rich people should contribute. It would make sense that rich people contributed more than the poor in a country since they've more money. Many rich people can still live a luxury life and afford a lot although it's mandatory for them to pay taxes. With a good tax system the government can afford a better welfare system making the differences between the poor and the rich lesser. Universal health care and education would definitely improve many peoples' lives.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Should the poor and middle class be forced to buy from these rich people and corporations? No. its their money they can do with it as they please, if you don't like that they have money then don't buy from them (though them simply having money seems a rather petty reason to want to punish them), but you do not have the right to demand of others what you will not demand of yourself.

[Catholicgirl22]

No. Often the only reason rich people and corporations give to charity is as a tax write off. A lot of charities are run like lucrative businesses anyway with inflated salaries for their CEOs. I get that a certain amount needs to be spent on administration but some charities spend like 40% of charitable donations with sometimes as little as 18% ever reaching its cause.

[Cccgala]

Corporations and 'rich' people are private entities. It should be the discretion of those entities whether to partake in private charity or not.

Forcing entities to partake in 'charity' is a mandate, as opposed to genuine, charitable intents that are voluntarily done.

[madhatters4]

they should. but they shouldn't be forced.

[AbdKilani]

Yes, just as tax , i can give endless examples of countries that suffer of a huge gap in wealth distribution , that led to an awful living condition
Greed is taking humanity to doom , and it will show it self more and more
In Islamic system , the rich are responsible for the poor, they pay Zaka each year , and it is taken from the frozen unused money , so it will keep going into the economic wheel.

[Oram52]

No, that's private property. No one can be forced to do anything with their own private property. Luckily we don't live under socialist dictatorships. Forcing people to give away their private property defeats the purpose of having a government. Its governments job to protect Life, Liberty & Property.

[FrenchyRomain]

why? it's their money, for example how would you feel if you created a company like facebook and all of a sudden you hear "Hey you are now forced to donate 10% of what you earn every month to a charity of your choice"
The correct answer is "FUCK YOU" ;)

[FinalVow]

they do so they don't have to pay taxes. cause tax breaks for the rich is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. turns out that donating to a charity can be one that they own so eventually they get the money back plus some... the irony

[ThatPersonOverThere]

They already are, it's called "Taxes" and it gives jobs to tons of unqualified people.

[Cosytoasty]

That’s called tax. Being *forced* to give to charity doesn’t make it charitable anymore lol...

[ENTP_EMO]

bill gate's charity gave away 28b? It's on his website. I can't clarify, but statistically, they give more than us commoners following 80/20 rule or 90/10.

[Paris13]

Rich or Poor, No One, hun, Should have to Reach Into their Pockets if it is Not First... Inside their Hears. xx

[Paris13]

However, we should all contribute to paying taxes. xx

[JayParris]

That's called taxation, so of course it already happens. I see more of a problem with the politicians who pass bills that don't use it for good purposes.

[TadCurious]

If they were forced to give it wouldn't be charity. Charity is the voluntary giving to those in need or other social causes.

[CubsterShura]

A small percentage of tax taken for the purpose of benefitting the poor won't hurt anyone.

[andreasderjuengere]

To be forced is not the idea of charity. Thus, it will not work the way you may expect.

[Intraluminal]

That's essentially what taxes are for,. Minus the military budget of course.

[captain_voidwalker]

People have to right to use thier money for what ever they want no one has a right to force them do give it away

[Anonymous]

I don't think you could still call that charity then.

[Highsxhoolstudent15]

Yes, they have too much money when they don’t do actually do anything. (Selena Gomez)

[LadyJade007]

Nope. That’s not charitable. Charity is about giving not forcing someone to give

[zagor]

That is pretty much what taxes are, at least a portion of them.

[vald9inches]

what do you mean charity?

[Nandor]

Nope nope nope nope nope

[CuriousMufuxka]

No. That would defeat the purpose of charity.

[Anonymous]

Only if they willingly want to.
Not forcefully.

[Anonymous]

No, but pay a lot more taxes.

[LegateLanius]

That's not charity.

[BronzedAdonis]

no..

[F7777]

no maybe

[jon28805]

No they shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

I don't