Are the rich and famous obligated to society?

[sunndoggy8]

I've heard an argument pretty often that Michael Jordan, while having had great influence in the past, should have been a stronger advocate in the black community than he actually was/is. Because of his position in society, a lot of people argue that he's obligated to do so.

Same goes for other celebrities...many are criticized for not being as giving to charities, or that they don't do enough for the community and nation as a whole.

My question...are celebrities or the rich obligated to do so? Should they assume of a role of prominence and use their fame and money for good things, or are they fine just doint whatever they want in their life...it is their life, fame, and money after all. Does being famous/rich obligate you to try to help society?

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<font color="#0F00CD">"I love a good nap. Sometimes it's the only thing getting me out of bed in the morning."</font color="#0F00CD">

[ag]

I think they have every right to not give to the community. People think just because someone is rich and famous that they should be an influence on the community, give to the poor, give give give!

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ag1247/images/angry2.jpg>
In vino veritas

There's a place in the world for the angry young man With his working class ties and his radical plansHe refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,He's always at home with his back to the wall.And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-And he likes to be knowns as the angry young man.

[seagullbeagle]

yes they are. we all are. I respect ag's opinion and right to not help society, i just disagree. we all could do more and i think we all know it would make a huge difference in the world. veterans, senior citizens, the homeless......
"A selfish choice can take its toll....A sacrifice might make the day...no regrets its time to change."IGNITE
<IMG SRC="http://www.seagullbeagle.50megs.com/images/rfnetseagullbeagle.jpg">
thanks to fallon and inkgrrrl
hey and one more thing.'click'

This message was edited by seagullbeagle on 3-25-02 @ 11:23 PM

[NewYorkDragons80]

I think you should give back to the community, but don't tout your political agenda like a Rosie O'Donnell or a Baldwin.

We live in the present, we dream of the future and we learn eternal truths from the past.
-Chiang Kai-Shek

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
-Senator John McCain

[A.J.]

They do give back -- every 15 April.

[HordeKing1]

SUNNY - This is an excellent question and one which is always a hot topic of contention among the various lobbying groups.

American social welfare programs such as social security, disability, unemployment, AFDC, TANF, SSI, etc are funded by tax dollars. The rich are taxed at the maximum rate of about 40%. There are 4 tiers below that with the lowest tax rate being about 12%

A person who makes a million dollars is taxed 400,000 which is used to distribute to the various welfare programs. Even entitlements like old age insurance (social security) are welfare programs which have drastically reduced the number of elderly poor since it's inception.

A person who makes 20,000 may (depending on family size) actually receive money back from the government in the form of EITC (Earned income tax credit.)

The rich are thus having their taxes used to redistribute wealth.

In addition to this many rich donate a lot of money in addition to this. Bill Gates a renowned philanthropist comes to mind.

Your question is best answered by realizing that the rich are already obligated to help society and that many undertake further voluntary contributions. Compelling additional obligations strikes me as being very unequitable.

http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking2