HorrorMovieFans.com

Was talking to a friend about this....

We all pay big money to see movies, to be entertain. Movies make millions, sometimes billions of dollars to make, but where does that money go? To make more movies. Where should it go? Helping people. Homeless, hungry, the less fortunate. Do stars really need million dollar houses? The lifestyle for working 3-6 months "acting"? We have empty buildings all over the country just sitting empty. Why not house people? We could do more. I titled this hypocrisy, because I am guilty of not doing enough, more, but then again, I live paycheck to paycheck. I have cushions, if I have disasters, but if I had their kind of money, studio money, I'd do a lot more with it. Stay humble, grounded, support myself and family, but shed excess.

Thoughts?

i don't want to see making art deemed to be frivolous spending, personally. i think that movies and entertainment have a lot of value for the culture and society.

People should be free to spend their money as they see fit. You can't force someone to be charitable.

Most wealthy people, like athletes and such, are incredibly charitable. It's just never talked about because it is the norm.

Tim Tebow lives to be a charitable person, but you don't see him in the news anymore.

Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

How about not waste 20 trillion dollars of money the government takes from the entire country?

We're not entitled to a gratuity of someone else's money, Jig.

Jason wrote:How about not waste 20 trillion dollars of money the government takes from the entire country?

We're not entitled to a gratuity of someone else's money, Jig.

I agree, government wastes far too much money (military funding has to be cut by at least 50%, likely much more). Ideally, though, we can trust the government (once it's made up by the working people) to accurately distribute needed funds.

I disagree. But I'm a socialist, and you're a capitalist, so I think we both saw that coming.

It would be nice to see the movie industry have an Islamic approach. Could work wonders for society.

showa58taro wrote:It would be nice to see the movie industry have an Islamic approach. Could work wonders for society.

Budget wouldn't cover all the planes they'd need to destroy in the movie.

Sell your dvds to help the homeless and take the money you spend on entertainment to feed the hungry.

You don't get to give someone money for a product or service and then tell them where it should go after you got the value from it. Just like your boss can't pay you and then tell you where to spend it.

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

The false premise is how you view the relationship between homeless people and the ultra-wealthy. The top 0.00001% compiling more and more wealth in the last 30 years has been at the expense of the middle class, not the poor. You can raise the floor without touching the ceiling. Feels like more of a pointless statement than effective policy.

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

The false premise is how you view the relationship between homeless people and the ultra-wealthy. The top 0.00001% compiling more and more wealth in the last 30 years has been at the expense of the middle class, not the poor. You can raise the floor without touching the ceiling. Feels like more of a pointless statement than effective policy.

I feel it's been at the expense of everyone, just simply the middle class, though certainly they've suffered also.

Could we raise the floor without touching the ceiling? Feasibly. But why bother when the wealthy are amassing needlessly large piles of money that could be used better on people who need it then sitting in their banks on the Caymans?

Raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending heavily, and instituting a tax cap all seem strong policies to me, not pointless statements.

At the same time, I doubt this is something we'd ever agree on, and I didn't get back on HMF to argue about politics. I just take it as a given that everyone would think I'm wrong, so it strikes me as utterly pointless.

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

The false premise is how you view the relationship between homeless people and the ultra-wealthy. The top 0.00001% compiling more and more wealth in the last 30 years has been at the expense of the middle class, not the poor. You can raise the floor without touching the ceiling. Feels like more of a pointless statement than effective policy.

I feel it's been at the expense of everyone, just simply the middle class, though certainly they've suffered also.

Could we raise the floor without touching the ceiling? Feasibly. But why bother when the wealthy are amassing needlessly large piles of money that could be used better on people who need it then sitting in their banks on the Caymans?

Raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending heavily, and instituting a tax cap all seem strong policies to me, not pointless statements.

At the same time, I doubt this is something we'd ever agree on, and I didn't get back on HMF to argue about politics. I just take it as a given that everyone would think I'm wrong, so it strikes me as utterly pointless.

There's a saying that you shouldn't count another man's money. It may seem needless to you, but it isn't your place to decide that's the case. It should be noted that the philanthropic endeavors of a lot of these people have historically been more effective than crippled, inefficient federal programs. It's really putting the cart before the horse suggesting we sink allllllll the money into federal programs that are not functioning as they should.

I said the tax cap functioned as a pointless statement. Don't think it's fair for that to be lumped in with the first two, which I think the majority of people would actually agree with.

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

Stop coasting and start busting your ass and your opinion on these matters will change, I promise.

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Easy solution - a wealth cap.

Past a certain point, 100% of an income should come to the government for redistribution to those who actually need it.

It's a fantastic idea, but I have a feel that most, if not everyone, here would hate it.

Now this is just being radical for the sake of being radical. Why would this ever be necessary?

In a country where some are homeless and others have ten yachts, I don't see how ensuring the homeless have what they need at the expense of some wealthy persons' yachts is radical.

I'm not joking when I say I believe in a wealth cap. Have for a while now, and nothing I've seen or read has convinced me otherwise.

The false premise is how you view the relationship between homeless people and the ultra-wealthy. The top 0.00001% compiling more and more wealth in the last 30 years has been at the expense of the middle class, not the poor. You can raise the floor without touching the ceiling. Feels like more of a pointless statement than effective policy.

I feel it's been at the expense of everyone, just simply the middle class, though certainly they've suffered also.

Could we raise the floor without touching the ceiling? Feasibly. But why bother when the wealthy are amassing needlessly large piles of money that could be used better on people who need it then sitting in their banks on the Caymans?

Raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending heavily, and instituting a tax cap all seem strong policies to me, not pointless statements.

At the same time, I doubt this is something we'd ever agree on, and I didn't get back on HMF to argue about politics. I just take it as a given that everyone would think I'm wrong, so it strikes me as utterly pointless.

Don't you find value in me totally dismissing your ideas?! :p Has to be more interesting than shouting into the socialist echo chamber, as it least I have my moments of being mildly clever.

I'm in a few groups where it's not uncommon to be told to 'vote blue no matter who,' so they're not all socialist circle-jerks, thank you very much.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It would be nice to see the movie industry have an Islamic approach. Could work wonders for society.

Budget wouldn't cover all the planes they'd need to destroy in the movie.

Wow. . . Really?