Sunday Times Rich List

[Pleasedonate4mike]

AIBU to think that your very inclusion onto The Sunday Times Rich List should mean you have to put £1m of your tax avoided haul into a fund that pays for treatments like this:

www.gofundme.com/donate4mike

Mike's life has a £400,000 price on it, a drop in the ocean for anyone on this list! if you happen to know anyone on it, please send them the link

[TheCatsMeow]

I agree with you. It makes me sick that some people sit on piles of money while others like Mike can't even afford the treatment they need.

I'll share Mike's story by the way.

[witsender]

Yup, in complete agreement. I wouldn't be able not to tbh.

[mrgrouper]

People who have a lot of money will always try to maximise their cash using legal loopholes. I have run a successful business and the only thing I cared about was profit.
Do not be conned by the likes of Lord Sugar and Bannatyne doing a bit of philanthropic work. They do that for good PR which in turn generates them more cash. That is why I hated that Secret Millionaire programme. The millionaires on their were just trying to boost their public profile.
In a capitalist society the people who get to the top will always be the "dark triads" ie narcissistic, Machiavellian and psychopathic. That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of psychologists.
Those at the top are the least likely to give a shit about anyone but themselves.

[TheNaze73]

Without sounding heartless, I disagree. I think there should be no mandatory reason for anyone to give anything away they have earned. They should however choose, to that if it's an emotive cause for them. I'm sure they donate millions anyway, without wanting to broadcast it

[Theoretician]

What's the rule being proposed here? That people who have a lot more money than someone else should pay for their medical care? If the relatively rich person is you, and the someone else is in (say) Somalia, does the rule still apply? Or does it only apply to people richer than the person moralising?

Secondly, if the money is going to be redistributed, why would it go to Mike, when presumably the same money spent in (say) Somalia would save many more lives?

I would like to propose a rule for moralising about redistribution: you are only allowed to propose rules that would make your own life harder. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to do/feel good at someone else's expense. You don't deserve any points for that.

[Moulesvinrouge1]

I think on the whole wealthy people are very philanthropic. But how do (people? The govt? The NHS?) decide who gets the money and who doesn't? What's the criteria? There are so many worthy causes and individuals.

Thanks for sharing Mike's story.

[SimpleSimonThePieMan]

Why the hell should they? (And yes, I do know someone on the list!)

[Pleasedonate4mike]

TheCatsMeow - thank you

[woollytights]

SimpleSimon

If you had that sort of money spare that could save someone's life, could you look them in the eye and say "why the hell should I?" What a world we live in.

[thisismeusernameything]

This is going to sound horrible and it really isn't intended to mean how it sounds. However, I really take great issue with how you are trying to publicise the cause here.

I really admire you for trying to save the life of your friend/brother/husband...whatever he is to you. That said attacking another group of society to get publicity is actually quite shameful.

I wish Mike well.

[Pleasedonate4mike]

Theoretician the rule would be, if you are amongst the 1000 richest people in our already very rich country, you pay a tiny portion of your wealth into a fund that can be applied for by people facing life and death for whom cold hard £££ is the answer.

I completely agree that many, maybe even most of the families on this list are great philanthropists, (along with many people not on this list), and I am most definitely not trying to attack anyone.

It's more like paying to be part of an exclusive club that has the benefit of potentially saving lives.

[Fratelli]

Hmm you can't really dictate how people spend their money. But morally yes they absolutely should want to help people in need if they are good people. I'm sure most of them are. Unfortunately though some people are selfish arseholes!

[FurryMint]

People who have a lot of money will always try to maximise their cash using legal loopholes.

This is as ridiculous thing to say as saying something like all poor people try to defraud the benefit system.

We are well off but don't avoid paying tax and we make charitable donations both in cash and time. (And we NEVER tell people about what cash donations we make as we don't make them to impress other people)

[angelos02]

No-one that has tonnes of money (I am talking billions here) hasn't shafted and exploited a hell of a lot of people to get there.

[tremble]

I recall Paul McCartney once saying that when he gives money to charity, it is never enough in the eyes of the recipient. Because his wealth is so well known they always expect more, even when the donation is already a lot.

Whilst I abhor the idea of individuals sitting on untold billions when others are experiencing extreme poverty, I don't think it's fair to condemn anyone for not giving to your pet charitable causes. You don't know what they are donating privately or why they might choose to do anonymously.

[Samcro]

dont they already do that, they pay tax, they employ people.
why should they also pay for some strangers treatment,

[thisismeusernameything]

I actually dont think the OP cares any more than any of us do about who's on the list or what they give away. I do think that she was trying raise awareness for her cause.

I do think she's gone about it in the wrong way but if somebody I cared about was dying Id sell my sole to the devil if it raised the money I needed.

I dont know how to help you OP but I hope you raise the money you need.

[Sistersweet]

I disagree, firstly, people have complicated but legal tax affairs and secondly I don't think they should do as you request. I absolutely appreciate how desperate you feel but people should give to causes they feel strongly about and not to feel forced into a situation that they don't want to. Many very wealthy people are philanthropists, often quietly, and absolutely not in it for themselves but it is their choice who they give to and if they give at all

[Pleasedonate4mike]

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking or condemning anyone on the rich list and I'm in agreement that there are many wealthy philanthropists.

I'm also not saying that they have to pay into my pet cause. But that the creation of a £1b /year fund that people can apply to in times of dire need, be they here, Somalia, wherever would be amazing.