Does that title look angry? Yeah, he's pretty wound up here.
King points out that most rich do not really give much of their income to charity. King writes,"My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough."
King says that giving to charity is not enough because it overlooks things like the Gulf spill or the need for improved education in Mississippi and Alabama. King also addresses the argument that money saved by the rich results in jobs.
King writes,
"I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy."While I enjoy Kings points and think he makes sharp arguments, I think he loses ground by being personal and derogatory. Taking digs at Chris Christie's weight cheapens his arguments and turns politics into -- literally -- a food fight; but food fights are fun to watch.
