[quote name='gunm']Apologies, but on the other hand it will be my last OT on this: if millionaires were really doing this right, there wouldn't be hungry people all over the world. Let's be honest, most of the world's wealth are in the hands of a relative few and whatever they donate to charitable causes doesn't 100% end up in the hands of the people who need them for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying millionaires don't donate a lot of money to charitable causes, I'm saying when rich people spend lavishly on themselves (i.e. a $500 rare game or a multi-million dollar space flight), it's still a selfish indulgence. I'd do it too, if I had that kind of money, but is it right?
Yes, I'm cynical.
[/QUOTE]
If Rich Guy A gives $1M to a homeless shelter, it would probably allow them to feed, clothes, and provide shelter for (pulling numbers out of ass) 250 people for a year (assuming a cost of $11/person/day). None of this money is going to contribute to the wealth of the country or of any person, and none is going to help the homeless improve themselves.
If Rich Guy B spends $1M to travel around in orbit for a little while, this money is probably used to (a) develop new technologies (b) pay employees (c) fund the building of new spaceships (d) pay for fuel. With the exception of (d), each of these items is adding to the wealth of the nation and the knowledge of mankind.
I am not necessarily endorsing one over the other, but merely trying to show that it is not nearly as black and white as your post makes it sound. People spending money to get other people to do and create useful things is what makes life easier and more enjoyable as time goes on, wheras spending money to allow people to be idle does not contribute anything to anyone.
Obviously, some people are incapacitated and cannot work, and it is the best interests of society to do what we can to help them realize whatever potential can be realized from these people, but I think you can appreciate my arguments.
