Is it illegal to be generous ? It is just a personal choice.

What stops the haves from helping the have nots ? Why do they try and portray helping poor people as immoral? If the wealthy wanted to make life nice for everybody, it would happen. There is nothing immoral or illegal in making life nice for everybody. It just depends on the mood of the powerful.

:)

Actually I wouldn't. A good portion of my wealth is sheltered in a charity I chair.

A neighbor of mine is against health care reform because he's afraid his costs will go up. He honestly believes that there isn't enough care to go around if everyone got covered.

He hits his $3000 deductible every year on non-necessary procedures. (he's convinced he needs full blood work and a full body scan, and a heart stress test every year just to make sure there's nothing wrong.) His mother's was a nurse, so he know what to say to scare the doctors into running all the tests.

He lives alone and makes 6 figures, he has over 500k in the bank, and is worried he won't be able to retire in 15 years.

Money and his health is all he cares about.

The haves really believe they deserve what they have because they played the game the right way
or feel they are superior to ones that haven't reached their level. My whole family is in the trades including me, and I am laid off every 6 mos, my older brother (who got in because of my dad) has worked straight for 18 yrs, doesn't even acknowledge that fact, he truly believes he is a superior tradesman to me.
In fact he and his wife think despite the fact I am a woman in the trades I am a miserable failure. Funny thing is I am the happiest out of all of them, and have the least.
My sister-in law made a comment about my younger brother's girlfriend receiving food stamps after losing her job (downsizing) student loans confiscated her unemployment, that it was okay because it's not like she was making minimum wage, HUH??? So her logic if you were making minimum wage and lost your job you shouldn't get any help.

...a big red thing with a small penis was so enthralling.

:shrug:

Here's an experiment for you:

Part 1: Come up with a business plan or non-profit proposal, borrow a suit, and get an appointment to speak with the person in your town who has the most and oldest money, and lay out for them what you could do with a few million of their dollars.

Part 2: dress up in black jeans, t-shirt and bandanna and pound on their car windows as they leave their home.

See which method gets you further.

He said who has the gold makes the rules

because it makes them, the "haves", feel superior. (They're basically very insecure.)

I was forced to hobnob with some moderately wealthy people at a university affair (I was the token grad student). Some were snooty. Others weren't.

This one guy was on the resort-organized hay-ride expedition when the tractor died. The driver tried to fix it as some people stood around giving advice. Then the driver went to call for help and this potential donor was on his back under the tractor in no time. He had it up and running before the employee could get back from calling for help. Instead of waiting around, though, he decided he was hungry--so a few of us went with him to look over the little shopping area nearby. He sprang for sodas. The point is, he was really just an average person who was very good at what he did, which made him good at spotting others who were good at what he did, which made him good at expanding his business, opening more auto shops and more auto shops until he was finally invited on this fundraising retreat. Not only was his good at fixing things, he also knew how to judge people and to manage a business. He'd given something like $20 million to the university in the past, and they wanted another $5 million out of him. He and I talked a lot since I was one of the three people at this affair that *wasn't* a multimillionaire or vice-chancellor and one of the few who seemed truly uncomfortable. His attitude was he could lose it all tomorrow and wind up working as a mechanic; he seemed to be at ease with the idea, to be honest.

The alumni association president was aghast when he found out that one of the potential donors had fixed the tractor. I told him that the guy said it was the only fun he'd had so far on the entire retreat, he missed not fixing things himself.

If you're an American, you're most likely a "have" on the global scale. Why haven't you yet sold off everything you own to give to the poor?

The answer is that you appreciate your lifestyle, and either way you feel that there are richer people than you who could better afford charity. Which is the case, of course, for every human being on Earth save whoever is at the absolute top of the list.

I am concerned about civil and human rights, and thousands of innocents are getting murdered in Darfur, Sudan and the Congo. I don't know what to do other than write on here and see if maybe some rich philanthropist can do something. I do give at least five dollars to every red light unfortunate when I have the money. I have been talking to some of my friends about a club for retirees that don't want to rust out. Go through the newspapers and deliver vigilante justice to anybody whose name shows up for child or wife abuse. There are a lot interested in this.

although I like Occam Bandage's answer a little bit. First, I would not say it is possible for the wealthy to make life nice for everybody. There is still things like cancer and skiing accidents after all. Second, there is a problem of co-ordination. Imagine that you were tremendously wealthy, had $20 million in assets and income of $500,000 a year (which some people are complaining is a ridiculously low cap on CEO salaries).

How much good do you think you could do with that? There are something like 288,000 poor people just in the state of Kansas, which is a fairly small state by population. If you divided your wealth among those poor people it would amount to just $69.44 per person.

Clearly, one wealthy person cannot do that much. True $20 billion would make it $69,440 per person, but that would only cover one state.

Wealthy people could do more if they all acted together in one accord, but it's kinda hard to get consensus like that.

Secondly, some people profit from the misfortune of other people (think of Potter charging rent for broken down shacks). Other people profit from the fear. As Marx said, there is a reserve army of the unemployed, and those people without jobs serve to discipline and motivate the rest of the working class.

I cannot really blame the employers though for wanting motivated and hard-working employees. Should they want to pay people even minimum wage to screw around?

Thirdly, wealthy people are 1) paying taxes which provide infrastructure as well as transfer payments, 2) donating to various causes and also political parties. Some are doing more than others, but the same is true of people in the upper middle class and the middle middle class who are better off than many of their fellow Americans.