donates $100,000 to family of kansas city shooting victim
share
A nice gesture
share+1
share
MovieChat Forums > Taylor Swift Discussion > donates $100,000 to family of kansas cit...
Nice of her even if it does amount to pocket change for a billionaire.
Are you suggesting she should have given more? How much more and how much did you donate?
shareIf you had 100 dollars and you donated 100 dollars you would be a very generous person with a giant heart.
If you are a billionaire, which she is, donating $100K is still generous, but that is the sort of money does not matter to her at all, it is more like tip money. And in the same article she gave $5 million tips to truckers worked on her tour.
Anyway she is still a generous person, those people will benefit from her generosity, I don't think anyone else was giving financial help to that family.
i would be surprised adn disappointed if she does not give more. If I was a biliionaire I would have a whole charity program. I would assume that this 100k, is IN ADDITION to her already established giving.
shareLook at the pattern she gives. She gives to the family because they were shot at her boyfriend's game. She gives to tornado victims of her hometown. She gives to the truckers worked for her.
She only gives because it is related to her somehow.
But look at the other billionaires, most of them established personal or family charities, and majority of the time you have no idea where those money go, it was really charity or tax evasion? We know Trump and Hilary used the charity under their names to pay for personal expenses, and yes, that is totally legal, at least you don't see them charged.
And a lot of those personal or family charities give to NGOs and PACs and most of those money were for some political purposes or politicians.
Compare to them I think she did OK.
And you don't want to give too much, it is the money to get the family on their feet, not for their retirement.
share
I did make a donation thank you and it was a higher percentage of my net worth than $100K is to her I'm sure.
And even percentages don't tell the story - if I was a billionaire, I could give away 90 percent of my money and still have 100 million dollars which is about 100X what I'm worth now. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.
It's the thought that counts
sharePublicized celebrity donations are done solely for pr benefits.
sharestill a nice thing to do
shareNice is donating with no thought of personal benefit. This is exactly what people from around the country have done.
shareWhat do you mean by "thought of personal benefit"? When did you become privy to Taylor Swift's "thought" about contributing that money?
So what you're saying is that rich people shouldn't make contributions because it makes them look good and they can afford it? They should keep all their money since it won't matter to them anyway, and to avoid looking good. "Well I could help those people. They could use it. And I won't notice it. But what if it makes me look good? OK that settles it. Now that I've thought that it might make me look good, I'd better keep the money and release a statement explaining that I want to avoid looking good and not give away money I don't need."
By that logic, capitalists shouldn't open businesses and create jobs that provide income for people. It will benefit them through profits. And they will look good if it succeeds.
Governments shouldn't provide infrastructure, welfare etc for those that need it. There will just be more taxpayers paying more taxes into the treasury and it will look good.
No one should benefit from tragedy. If Taylor Swift didn't wish to personally benefit from this tragedy then she would have donated anonymously.
shareI don't recall Swift announcing it.
How exactly has she personally benefited anyway? Just seems like a thing that people react with because they know deep down inside that someone they dislike is doing something good and you're annoyed that having knowledge of her support for innocent victims undermines your dislike for her.
It's been publicized by all the media just like they did for months because she's dating some football player. All intentionally done by her PR. It's not so much of a donation as an investment with a guaranteed return in contrast to those people across the country who gave for selfless reasons.
shareSo what you're saying is, the biggest pop star in the world right now is exceptionally famous and has a lot of scrutiny on whatever she does?
shareI said no one should benefit from tragedy.
shareYou've got a funny way of saying it.
What happens if you give money anonymously and it inevitably makes you feel better about yourself? Feeling better about yourself internally leads to you being outwardly more attractive, and endearing yourself to others.
Should you take that money back then in order to not get that benefit?
There's a difference between selfless and self benefitting.
shareYeah ! right on , she should also slap herself around the head with a fish just to make doubly sure she didnt benefit in any way from it .
Otherwise that family might as well flush the 100k down the toilet , who would want money that people know which celebrity donated it?
🙄
shareShe would have paid that $100,000 in taxes if she didn't donate that money anyway. Celebrities do this for positive publicity and the public congrats them because they don't know any better. And of course behind closed doors, all these celebrities laugh at the working class that worships them
sharei don't think it's deductible. it's not a registered charity
sharetax deductible does not mean free.
Correct, but in her tax bracket it's like giving away more like $60K.
Haha, it is cute you think billionaires actually pay taxes. Corporate tax revenues are usually only around 10% of the overall tax revenue.
And I asked AI "How much do billionaires pay in taxes in USA?"
Following is the answer:
The average effective tax rate paid by the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers was 8.2% between 2010 and 2018, according to a 2021 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
I bet that is lower than your tax rate.
Corporate tax rates are not the same as individual income rates - nor should they be.
You did see the second part of my reply, right?
I covered the corporate tax rate just in case people say:"but they paid a lot more in corporate tax", which they don't.
Your response didn't give the splits.
In any case, deductions serve a purpose, and it's not to further enrich the rich.
That is a surprise. People are usually outraged when they found out how little the billionaires pay in taxes.
But I guess there are always people who are OK with it.
In 2020, the latest year with available data, the top 5 percent of income earners in the U.S. earned 38 percent of all income and paid 62 percent of all federal income. The top 1 percent earned 22 percent of the income and paid 42 percent of all the taxes.
But yes, I'm OK with the rich paying a higher share than I am.
Ah, a common misconception. In Australia top 3% of income earners also pays about 45% of overall income tax.
But, those are not billionaires, those are not owners, those are the top workers.
We live in a capitalist world, where capital is taxed less than incomes, at least in most liberal democratic countries, which is generally ruled by capitalists.
You probably noticed they control the political parties and politicians, they also control the media. I am not just saying it, I have research to back it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&t=94s
I also watched this yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWcdB58cmc0
It also contains some numbers and graphics that says what is the result of the billionaires controlling political systems.
They are both quite watchable videos, might just be worth your time.
Anyway that was the reason I quit working at 41 about 10 years ago, because it was just not worth it.
Anyway that was the reason I quit working at 41 about 10 years ago, because it was just not worth it.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
share
Do you want the victim's to pay the tax then?
What's the solution? Tax people for money they give away to somebody who needs it more? Sounds pretty un-American.
A better idea would be taxing the rich a hell of a lot more, and lower incomes a hell of a lot less all the time. Meaning wealth could be distributed more fairly. Less low income people would be dependent on welfare or assistance. Infrastructure could be better maintained. And so on.
She just donated the money for publicity. If she were a better person she would be sitting at home and posting messages on a website forum that criticize people for doing things that help other people.
shareAnd while her boyfriend is talking about guns, she'd talk about how killing children isn't very nice.