The greediest blog on the net.
Monday, March 01, 2004
I find this article quite unpersuasive. This paragraph alone is so mathematically inept that it defeats the whole argument in my mind:
So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.
Someone making $100k pays $35k in federal taxes alone, leaving $65k. Perhaps they should take out a loan in order to cut their $70k check.
I'm also not impressed by this (half) sentence:
[W]e can't decide moral issues by taking opinion polls.
Then how should we decide moral issues? Perhaps five judges can tell us what is "moral."
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how poor Americans, and US children, will become if 100% of disposable income, and even some indisposable income since we are apparently supposed to live like paupers until everyone in the world is healthy, is sent overseas.
I haven't read "Animal Liberation" but I'd assume it's filled with, umm, illogic.
Posted by Gel 8:06 PM Post a Comment
Real Friends' Blogs