Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!

Child Labor: The Ten (self-made) Richest Kids

The list makes me feel old, since I'm not familiar with a lot of the names of wealthy young singers and actors -but my kids know them! Find out who the richest working teenagers are at Socyberty. Pictured is Vanessa Anne Hudgens, star of High School Musical. Link -Thanks, RJ!

How come the world admires people (in this case children), that have been financially successul, instead of those who have been successful in a humanitarian way (of who no one reports)?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The link doesn't come thru. I assume Miss Cellania would suggest they should have all been taxed to bring them back down to give others a chance? You can bitch about this comment, but not without bitching about her. She hasn't been unopinionated at all. She has been downright forthcoming about it, I can't even exagerate. The article may say other than I think but this comment stands regardless.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I do not comprehend how anyone can think real humanitarians are not ever honored. They "almost" always are. And it is reported. Nobel, sainthood, etc.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
mav, I assume they are all paying taxes. I don't want to bring anyone down, but yes, those who have more than they need should chip in a little to make sure no child starves or goes without learning to read. We all benefit from helping out the weakest members of society.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Miss Cellania: But should people be forced to give to others? Bill Gates is fantastically rich, and he has given more in a single donation than you will give in your lifetime. Should the government also force him to give more money to "spread the wealth"?

It all sounds a little too communistic to me.

Forcing people to give to charity is never a good idea.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
People have been forced to pay taxes for a long time. I suppose you could find a country that doesn't levy taxes to move to, but you wouldn't have police protection, public schools, roads, or medical facilities.

Bill Gates has also probably paid more taxes in one year than I will in a lifetime. Neither of us are in any danger of starving.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I am by no means against taxes. I am against making 'the rich' pay a higher percentage than 'the poor'. Everyone should pay the same percent. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

So if the government shouldn't be able to force people to give to charity, why then is it ok for it to force people to support the military? By your logic I shouldn't have to pay taxes because some of my money might be paying for the war and since I don't want to pay for it, they shouldn't force me to.

Wealthy people and corporations paying a mildly higher tax rate than poor people is not a new practice, and it's certainly not communism. We have a progressive tax code that already puts people into different tax brackets based on their income. There's no "spreading the wealth", no one is having their assets seized and given to the poor. All that has been proposed is a modification of our current tax code to ease the tax burden off the people who can not afford it to the ones that can. Can you honestly tell me that someone who works hard to barely make ends meet, who come the end of the year maybe has a few hundred dollars left in the bank should have to pay as much (percentage wise) of their salary as someone who at the end of the year has millions left? Especially considering that multimillionaire probably doesn't put the majority of their annual income back into the economy.

Don't trash government because you don't like how it's run. The Government isn't some Godzilla like monster that stomps around polluting the environment, invading countries and stealing from rich people. This is a democratic republic, the citizenry elects people to represent their needs. The problem is that the citizenry doesn't have the best track record for electing the right people. They have the opportunity to decide where their tax dollars go and what public policies get made by voting for the people who make the decisions on how tax dollars get spent. If you don't like what it'll get spent on vote for the other guy, if your guy loses, try again next time or better yet get out and run for office and if you're lucky make the decisions yourself. But since too few people want to take the responsibility to run for office we are forced to choose from the group that seeks the power, and as I see it very few people seek power for the right reasons.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
HollywoodBob: actually it was more that she said that those who have more than they need should chip in to help those who have less.

It sounded a little too much like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

"Can you honestly tell me that someone who works hard ...":
Yes. Yes I can.

And I don't believe I trashed my government. I love America, and I think the America is the best and most generous country in the world.

I only responded to Miss Cellania (who i respect, and whose post I almost always enjoy) because it sounded like she was saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I have nothing against her, and I hope she post more videos :-)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
My far left politics are pretty well known. I try not to beat anyone over the head with them in my posts (just in comments).

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a great adage in theory. In reality, it only works for very small communities, like a family or maybe a small tribe. When you apply it to societies large enough to have people who don’t know or care about each other, it falls apart. Human nature. You’ll get greedy people on both ends who won’t contribute, either by exploiting others for riches or by avoiding work even though they are able. And either feeds into the case of the other.

A better phrase would be “A society will be judged by how it treats it weakest members.” I don’t begrudge people their wealth. I would like to be a wealthy person someday. But I also hope that money never becomes more important to me than freedom, justice, and giving children a decent start in life.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I was going to leave a comment suggesting that only one out of ten of these kids is going to be a millionaire ten years from now. Instead I run into a Socialist-baiting troll and a defensive redistributor.

Let me combine all this and say that the ultimate redistribution of wealth is to spend and invest it. If these children follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, they will do the former all too well and later none too wisely.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
And I am sorry if i was trolling... I am just argumentative by nature. (The last person I would want to make mad is Miss Cellania.... because I love her posts :) )
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 14 comments

Email This Post to a Friend
"Child Labor: The Ten (self-made) Richest Kids"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More