Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
If it came about that he donated exactly zero dollars to charity in 2007 wouldn't you think he's a cheapskate?
|
Nope. But that's just me.
But I'll give you another story. . . . . in one of my old inherited National Geographic magazines, one from about 1964, on a story about Pittsburgh if I recall correctly, there is a picture of the president of Coca-Cola at the time and the notation that he was known locally as "Mr. Anonymous Donor."
I've always thought that would be a rather fantastic nickname to have, although somewhat self-defeating if you've acquired it.
This is more in line with what I was getting at. Put it this way: those with the means to give extravagantly who are not doing so are contributing more to what is wrong with this world than they are to fixing it.
I disagree . . . . as per above. I place no expectation on anyone to contribute back to society. But that's just me.
As a sidebar to a thread hijack, you could belong to the 50% club, those who give away at least 50% of their wealth or their income to charitable works.
http://www.boston.com/business/globe...begins_at_50_/
EDIT: Who contributed more to society . . . Mother Theresa or Bill Gates: The Moral Instinct
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/ma...e0a&ei=5087%0A
Cowperson