If it's so difficult, maybe they could take the easy option and, you know, properly fund the government to build the shared infrastructure on which we all rely by paying tax proportional to their wealth.
You mean fund ICE and build some more concentration camps?
Approximately 1% of the federal budget is infrastructure. There are huge advantages to donating to a charity that actually does something productive instead of the federal waste machine.
Or maybe, just maybe, a system that doesn't create massive concentration of wealth won't try to divert people's focus by pitting people against each other and building concentration camps. Governments aren't fundamentally wasteful. In fact, an effective government is an absolute requirement for functioning healthcare, fair wages, consumer protection, and actual public safety that protects all people equally.
This isn't to diminish all the good things charities have done, but charities are fundamentally band-aid solutions to a dysfunctional society. Leaving welfare at the mercy of wealthy individuals as the wealth gap keeps getting bigger and bigger is a losing strategy. It shouldn't be the state of things people should be aiming for.
Fixing government and taxing the rich is the only solution that addresses the core of the issue. Charities can't close wealth gaps, because they lack the power to enforce laws that ensure fair labor and trade practices. Charities can't stop the healthcare industry from bankrupting sick or injured people, because that too requires enforcing the law. Charities can't stop concentration camps.
Charities do have a place in society and they can do enormous good, but can't compensate for a poor government.
Frankly, the notion that government is fundamentally ineffective and only the private sector can fix things is billionaire propaganda. Billionaires undermine government so they can exploit working-class people with fewer constraints. Then they'd use charity to launder their reputation while pushing their own agenda.
Deriding calls for fair taxes and claiming charities will fix things is wishful thinking at best.
Although it uses the same technology as gambling, it's for a different purpose. You aren't hoping to die, you are doing risk management for your family.
I binged watched it and loved it. A humanoid robot like that would be amazing to have when I get older, certainly better than having a son like Michael
That's a pretty broad question. If you could be more specific in terms of the test results, recommended medical intervention, and patient profile (location, age, income, disability status) then I might be able to point you in the right direction.
Agree, that advice seems to be targeting folks who have had a 401K since they were 22. Also, I think it is basically saying the point where you start adjusting your stock/bond ratio down. At 40, maybe you have 80% in stocks, and change it to 75% when you turn 45.
Yeah, none to the African, South American, or Asian nations who contribute many of the best players though. And they don't share it around their own countries that well either with all the revenue going to the big 5 and the rest can just go sing.
reply