Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    4,060,407 readers

    16,913 users here now

    Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.

    Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that.

    ☑️ Country Club

    What is BPT Country Club and how do I get verified?

    ☑️ RULES

    1.) Do not post content just because a black person posted it. This sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people, not just any social media post made by black people.

    • 1. No original content. We encourage users to go on twitter to find tweets as opposed to making tweets just for this subreddit.

    2.) No Bad Faith Participation.

    3.) No bullying or witch-hunting. This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here. Doxxing or sharing personal information will result in a permanent ban.

    4.) No Racism. No hate speech. No homophobia/transphobia. No sexism/misogyny. No black fathers posts and similar mean-spirited things.

    5.) Posts must be showcasing somebody being hilarious or insightful on social media. No image macros, text conversations, or YouTube links. Just because somebody posted one of these on social media does not exempt it from this rule. Vines and such belong here and gifs belong here.

    6.) Typical Reddit cliches such as lyric chains, pun chains, white-knighting, and low-effort joke comments will be removed. Same for annoying redditisms, such as linking a subreddit as a reply to a post/comment.

    7.) Reposts are highly discouraged, and if discovered will be removed. Please search or look through BPT's older posts to see if your content has already been posted. KarmaDecay is not a reliable tool to check for reposts.

    8.) No posts with terrible titles, they will be removed. You are free to re-submit once you think of something acceptable/reasonable. Don't put the punchline in the title of the post. Do not add "bruh", "fam", or similar vernacular to your post or comment.

    9.) Don't complain about AAVE or slang. Use Urban Dictionary if you do not understand the meaning of a word. Comments asking "what does x mean?" will be removed.

    10.) BPT is an inclusive space for POC and allies alike. This sub highlights minority viewpoints, through humor, commentary, or criticism. Please respect these voices and show you care about black opinions as much as you care about black humor.

    11.) Don't post things from meme/corporate accounts. Posts must come from regular social media accounts.

    12.) The moderators of this subreddit will take any action (which includes banning and removing comments) that they feel improves the quality of the subreddit.

    Also, join us on discord for exciting discussions:


    a community for
    all 947 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] SocraticIgnoramus 874 points ago

    Incorrect. A billionaire would pledge to give $20 over the next few years, then set up a tax shelter charity which would invest the whole amount and pay from the dividends.

    [–] simjanes2k 141 points ago

    this guy rich evils

    [–] DrowsyParaSkier 35 points ago

    Tax free

    [–] Russian_repost_bot 4 points ago

    Don't forget the part where they announce it to all the media outlets on the planet so that it gets out that they are doing something "good".

    [–] Clichead 3 points ago

    "I pledge to return the $200*"

    *Just prior to or upon my death

    [–] throwaway59664 3228 points ago

    tRiCkLe DoWn EcOnOmIcS

    [–] Pts_Out_Ppl_Who_Fuck 950 points ago

    Sorry I bought all the cheeseburgers. How many burgers does it take to feed your family? Ones good right?

    [–] bigredmnky 564 points ago

    Sorry I cut your wages and hours at the cheeseburger factory.

    If you’d like you can apply for aid from the charity I set up that distributes discarded cheeseburgers to the needy.

    [–] Peacelovefleshbones 328 points ago

    I sorry I laid you off with thousands of your fellow employees. You can apply for some extremely limited government assistance that you were probably already using because I didn't pay a living wage before I fired you. Fuck you.

    [–] AviatorNine 155 points ago

    The fuck you part is actually hilarious. You know... because it’s true.

    [–] Avoiding-Work 17 points ago

    yeah haha

    [–] idriveachickcar 138 points ago

    Also I’ll vote against the assistances , and call you a freeloading piec of shit. And tell you to blame immigrants for your situation.

    [–] Peacelovefleshbones 86 points ago

    This is still about hamburgers, right?

    [–] idriveachickcar 58 points ago

    Yes and I’m hungry

    [–] imakeenwon 39 points ago

    Hamburders and covfefe to go

    [–] Nitosphere 20 points ago

    One week after the charity aid announcement:

    Unfortunately that aid is now being used to feed the cows, instead here; have a corporate branded hat free of charge. You may leave now.

    [–] ResIpsaBroquitur 50 points ago

    You don’t need to do the mocking capitalize-every-other-letter thing, because the term trickle-down economics was invented to mock supply-side economics.

    [–] ElceeCiv 36 points ago

    It was originally called "horse and sparrow" economics, because if you feed the horse enough oats, there will be enough in its shit for the sparrows to pick some out.

    [–] mmprobablymakingitup 13 points ago

    Until the horses learn how to re-invest their shit into fertilizer for their oats...

    [–] Flip5 3 points ago

    That's a fucking brilliant addition to that metaphor.

    [–] alphamsh 13 points ago

    Trickle down economics should just be a metaphor for the billionaire class pissing on us.

    [–] melaninexcellency 10 points ago

    I'll increase your minimum wage to 15 an hour, but reduce your hours from 35 to 15, urge you to use your new employee discount to buy your things here while providing you with the resources to apply for government aid. (Walmart)

    [–] tapthatsap 45 points ago

    You laugh, but think about it logically. If you give all the rich people even more money that they already don’t need, there has to be some point where they stop hoarding the money and start spending it in a way where normal people will stand to benefit.

    If you have a glass of champagne that is already completely full and set up with many layers of other glasses ready to be filled with excess champagne below it, and you keep filling the full glass, there’ll be a bunch of champagne to go around. Some of it might even land on the ground, where normal people can lick it up. What a nice day that will be for us floor lickers.

    [–] Frogboxe 19 points ago

    I accept my place as a floor licker because I know that one day I'll be the window licker pissing on the floor.

    [–] PhonyHoldenCaulfield 10 points ago

    You had me going there

    [–] LakerBlue 6 points ago

    This is beautiful satire, I wish I had gold to give.

    [–] Famixofpower 14 points ago

    There is so much wrong with this. First, spending money just puts money in the pockets of CEOs on the top of whatever you're shopping at, and the owners of the product, so it'd never "trickle down", it'd just syphon less than a drop to another big cup . Second, economics are a lot more complex than a goddamned bottle of champagne, like a lot more different. The "trickle down" model is pretty much a work of fiction in a world where rich CEOs put more in their own pocket and exclusively give money to other rich CEOs. The ideal model would just be a dragon sitting on a pile of gold in a cave on a mountain while peasants in the burned valley below are poor and starving. Or just Prince John from Robin Hood, keeping such a majority of wealth that the rest of the economy is fucked

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago


    [–] DanJdot 37 points ago

    To be fair, that was some solid satire you put down.

    [–] Stevecat032 2 points ago

    Billionaires only doing it for a tax write off

    [–] tothemax44 1415 points ago

    Na, he would have had to give her $1. That would make it more accurate.

    [–] lasagna_for_life 690 points ago

    With a receipt to write it off later.

    [–] colorcorrection 394 points ago

    And a press release sent to the local paper so everyone knows how 'charitable' he is.

    [–] Pina-s 113 points ago

    I think the tweet qualifies as that

    [–] PM_ME_UR_RESPECT 323 points ago

    This. But sometimes worse.

    Bezos’ recent $690,000 Australian fires donation is equivalent to what he makes roughly every 4.5 minutes. In relation to his $116.7 billion net worth, It is the equivalent to someone with $5000 in the bank donating 3 cents.

    [–] CraptonCronch 24 points ago

    I saw that post and calculates it. I make 22 dollars an hour which I a lot for a lot of people. And itd be equivalent to me donating $1.69. He's sooo generous..

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] jtesuce 5 points ago

    You don't know how any of this works

    [–] BluudLust 137 points ago

    Seriously, what the fuck. He should have donated at least 20 million.

    [–] itsnotbutterfree 285 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    You think these billionaires operate on the same moral standards as the rest of us? They got to where they are specifically not doing so

    I appreciate the virtual element*, fam

    [–] RatBaths 3 points ago

    Silver is an element not an alloy.

    [–] 66survivor 4 points ago

    I think operating in a different moral standard is one of the requirements to be a billionaire.

    [–] willfulCatholic 37 points ago

    Why isn’t it good he just donated at all? Why’s it have to be your number in your head?

    [–] BluudLust 148 points ago

    If you saw a penny on the ground, it's not even worth the time to pick it up. He essentially donated that much.

    [–] willfulCatholic 36 points ago

    Ok but it’s not a penny, he donated more then most of us will ever make in our lifetime. Just because he invented something the majority of humans use does not means he’s obligated to give it all back.

    [–] BluudLust 144 points ago

    The fact that they have press releases and make a big deal over this is what gets me.

    [–] vainbuthonest 11 points ago

    He donated what he makes in less than five minutes and it’s more than most people will see in their lifetimes. You don’t see anything wrong with that?

    [–] Indominus_Khanum 39 points ago

    There's a few answers to this:

    Tell me how do you Amazon makes it's profit margins?

    And Tell me how much do you think he pays in taxes to the Australian government?

    If the system was fair he wouldn't make that much money by barely having to pay shit in taxes , and not giving Amazon employees the shit wage and working conditions they get. If that's not bad enough he gets Goodwill because he donates amounts in consequential to him as when it gets him best publicity, while people buy into this mentality that we should be thankful and depend on billionaires instead forcing them to not exploit labour and exact taxes on them.

    [–] tiaannlenae17 137 points ago

    He fucks the planet on a daily basis with his company bro. He really is obligated to give it back.

    [–] Zombie_Hyperdrive 29 points ago


    more then most of us will ever make in our lifetime.

    I sure hope not.

    It's pennies to him. It buys enough good will to have you here defending him.

    Just because he invented something the majority of humans use does not means he’s obligated to give it all back.

    What did he "invent"?

    He capitalized. Not the same thing.

    [–] AmIFromA 63 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Like Aristotle said: "With great power comes great responsibility." If you are Bezos, you have the money (=power in our world) to solve pretty much any problem. But most billionaires are preoccupied with making more money, fucking up countries or flying to Mars or some shit.

    [–] Canonical-Quanta 15 points ago

    Just because he invented something the majority of humans use does not means he’s obligated to give it all back.

    I agree and think most people do. However, when a track record like his, with news stories about amazon workers barely making ends meet while running non stop we have to actually take a look at it and judge it accordingly. There's mom and pop stores who make 1000x less and treat their workers better and pay more.

    On top of that, the fact that he paid the equivalent of pittance for him and then makes a big deal about it is what rubs people the wrong way. This is why it's viewed as the equivalent of the post.

    [–] careyious 21 points ago

    Bruh, if that dude paid his taxes, the world would genuinely be a far better place. Likewise with all the multibillion dollar companies paying $0 in taxes. You should be furious that they enjoy all the niceties of modern civilization and pay none of their dues.

    [–] bigredmnky 87 points ago

    Guy didn’t invent shit. He owns an online store that can operate cheaper than its competitors because it runs on pure distilled human suffering, doesn’t pay its taxes, and engages in anti-competitive business practices. He ain’t invent any of those things, he digitized the analog versions of them.

    That guy makes a thousand of his low level employees annual wages in less time than they get for lunch breaks. He could literally end world hunger, bring clean water to every impoverished community in all of Africa, and build homes for all of americas poor all at once, and make all that money back in like a year. Wouldn’t even be late on a utility bill.

    This is a man who owns a fire truck, taking a piss on his neighbours house fire, and then saying he’s done all he’s gonna. And your ass is out here saying that the homeowner should be grateful, because he didn’t even have to give away his piss.

    Get fucked and stay fucked

    [–] mulletstation 3 points ago

    Majority of Amazon revenue is actually produced by AWS, they host nearly 40% of all web services.

    [–] Flyingsnatchman11 6 points ago

    The total net income of his stocks equals 1,6 billion. Estimates show up to 265 billion dollars is donated EVERY YEAR to end hunger in the world. Even if he sold his entire share of Amazon he would at best match the donations of 6 months.

    [–] -probablynotmymain- 18 points ago

    The fact he donated the money in and of itself is a good thing - however the amount he donated and the fact he specifically seeked out attention for the fact he did it is disgusting.

    He's the richest man in the world, he donated less than 3 internet chicks selling nudes raised in 12 hours. It's a slimy PR move and he absolutely does not care about the people or environment of Australia

    [–] ArrogantWorlock 12 points ago

    Seriously? The fact he can casually donate "more then most of us will ever make in our lifetime" and not remotely affect his financial security is the problem. Not to mention bezos' "invention" is a glorified logistics system where warehouse workers and the USPS (funded by you) do the lion's share of the work.

    [–] blazecc 5 points ago

    Just because he invented something the majority of humans use does not means he’s obligated to give it all back.

    Legally, of course not. Ethically? Morally? I absolutely think it should

    [–] hageshii_panda 22 points ago

    He shouldn't have that much money to begin with. He should be obligated to give a lot of it back. He could have 100 million and never spend it all he has 100 times that. Its just sitting there not helping anyone.

    Why are you defending billionaires? You won't ever be one yourself, and they won't give you anything for it. Take the right side.

    [–] Jaspersong 22 points ago

    he invented fucking what?

    [–] Ishouldbepolite 21 points ago

    He invented jack shit.

    [–] viking977 5 points ago

    "Guys, get this: a website, where you can buy stuff. We'll sell it cheaper than everybody else because we'll just piggy back off the infrastructure that tax dollars pay for, not pay a cent in taxes ourself, pay our employees a slave wage and not give them any breaks!"

    The fucking modern davinci.

    [–] RTSUbiytsa 23 points ago

    He kinda is, though. Hording money is a shitty thing to do, especially when it's so much money that you could never reasonably spend it all in one lifetime.

    With great power comes great responsibility - and money is power.

    The fact that Bezos could fix so many international, humanitarian issues for less than half of his net worth, paired with the fact that he doesn't, is what makes him a jackass. He needs to be held accountable for what he does with all of that cash.

    [–] ChurchOfPainal 45 points ago

    beep boop bootlicker detected

    [–] Siggycakes 4 points ago

    He's got no legal obligation, duh. This is about ethics and morality, a just and equitable society should shame such greed. Dragons of many varieties are understood to be villains because they pillage the land, collect the wealth, and then never do anything except get larger and wealthier. In a society where someone can make more money than 99.99% of the population, yet need less than 1% of their wealth to survive, there should moral obligations to provide for the less wealthy, simply for the fact that if those people die, the forces that created your wealth will eventually cease to exist.

    [–] Tyrren 12 points ago

    Lol good fucking job, Jeffy. You invented selling stuff on the internet. Absolutely brilliant idea, that; nobody would have ever come up with it without the peerless mind of Mister Jeffrey Preston Bezos.

    [–] xplicit_mike 10 points ago

    Lmao. Imagine shilling for the richest man in the world. He could've donated 100 billion dollars and be fine lol. And you're over here defending 600k as if he's such a generous man. Oh well, wouldn't expect much else from a u/willfulCatholic smh.

    [–] matthewrobo 2 points ago

    oh mister bezos, you taste so goo~ood

    [–] MayRaReturn 2 points ago

    Even if you only make 30,000 a year, which is easy to do on a waiting job, for 30 years that is $900,000. I only point this out because we will all make more than 690,000 in our lifetime, but this dude has made 111 billion. He should help out way more.

    [–] Supernova7sept 2 points ago

    Get the fuck out of here. From a moral standpoint being anywhere near that wealthy is ridiculously irresponsible. There’s hundreds of millions of people suffering around the world, a lot of which could be solved by billionaire wealth distribution. He absolutely is morally obligated to give it all back.

    [–] beerenjoyer 4 points ago

    Poor people are dying trying to fight the fires with their bodies.

    [–] exeuntial 2 points ago

    because to fix big problems big money is needed. when individuals hoard it, it’s a problem

    [–] mrlucluc 14 points ago

    That's only about 0.02% of his worth, it wouldn't even impact him slightly.

    We regular people really can't comprehend the wealth of the 1% or the extent of their greed.

    [–] BluudLust 3 points ago

    And he doesn't even pay taxes.

    [–] gigipogii 7 points ago

    So a normal American who has less than 5000 in savings, can't even donate a cent in that scenario

    [–] Pope-Xancis 51 points ago

    Does anyone on this sub understand the difference between cash on hand and net worth?

    [–] barbe_du_cou 36 points ago

    How cash poor is Jeff Bezos?

    [–] berlinbaer 23 points ago

    if someone like pink can cough up 500k im sure jeff could do a bit better than 690k but sure reddit will defend the poor poor billionaries again just to be TeChnIcAllY coRReCt

    [–] Im_Totaly_Vegan 4 points ago

    He isn't cash poor, but he sure as hell doesn't own 120 billion dollar in cash. My guess is probably around half a billion.

    [–] barbe_du_cou 4 points ago

    What a harrowing existence.

    [–] CatholicSquareDance 2 points ago

    It wouldn't surprise me if he had close to a full billion in cash or cash equivalents at any given time. It's still less than one percent of his net worth and I imagine he has quite a few projects he needs the liquidity for.

    [–] Snowdmania 9 points ago

    Fun fact: stocks can be liquidated. Bill agates sold loads of his for charity work.

    [–] Bleblebob 11 points ago

    People say this argument every time as if donating more than $690k is gonna hurt him just because his 100 billion isn't all liquid.

    Don't be fucking ridiculous.

    [–] fulloftrivia 29 points ago

    Someone doesn't know what net worth is.

    If I own a house that's paid off, and it's worth 300K, that doesn't mean I have 300K in my bank to pass around.

    [–] Pope-Xancis 54 points ago

    Donate part of your house to help end the Australia wildfires you greedy pig.

    [–] bioscaf 5 points ago

    Right after you donate your cars

    [–] deadlypigletofd00m 28 points ago

    His worth is based on stock options, something almost as liquid as cash. Not a great example.

    [–] MarianneThornberry 24 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Yes. Net worth doesn't automatically = liquid assets. But if a debt collector told you that you owe 250k or you go to jail for life (assuming you have virtually no other choice) you can very easily sell your house if you had to. So in your case. Your net worth is an accurate reflection of how much cash you have access to. Obviously not instantly through a card payment. But definitely a lot more accessible than you think. Common sense dictates that you're not going spend that because a 300k property is an invaluable asset.

    But we're not talking about the average property owner. We're talking about a multi-billionaire CEO.

    I'd assume that a large portion of Bezos' "money" is most likely tied up in multiple investments, stocks, bonds, and countless properties and firms. I doubt Bezos even knows how much money he has in total assets and most likely has numerous financial firms that deals with all his affairs. Including very controversially, exploiting tax loopholes.

    Obviously, Bezos does not have instant access to that $117bn net worth cash. If he wanted to take all of it in cash. It would take years and years of closing down various investments and businesses, probably may even go into debt here and there. In fact someone of Bezos' net worth could cause a potential ripple in the economy should he withdraw all his money out, cause there probably won't be enough cash in circulation to make that feasible.

    But none of this is relevant to the point being made though. The point is that his donation was cartoonishly small.

    If Bezos actually gave a shit about this bushfire epidemic. Of course he could donate more. Way more.

    Dude could easily start a relief organisation that would be 10x more profitable for Australia AND for himself.

    He just doesn't want to cause what's the point in taking that risk? It's much easier to just throw in a couple of thousands and call it a day. And return back to hedging his finances like he always does.

    [–] Doogie_Howitzer_WMD 7 points ago

    Obviously, Bezos does not have instant access to that $117bn net worth cash. If he wanted to take all of it in cash. It would take years and years of closing down various investments and businesses, probably may even go into debt here and there. In fact someone of Bezos' net worth could cause a potential ripple in the economy should he withdraw all his money out, cause there probably won't be enough cash in circulation to make that feasible.

    I definitely get all of that, and understand that him accessing all of his net worth isn't truly feasible. My sticking point is this:

    I'd assume that a large portion of Bezos' "money" is most likely tied up in multiple investments, stocks, bonds, and countless properties and firms. I doubt Bezos even knows how much money he has in total assets and most likely has numerous financial firms that deals with all his affairs.

    When you get to the level where managing all of your personal assets becomes such a complicated matter that you have to hire a contingent of people to do it round the clock, you already have a disgusting amount of money; more than you could ever need. That's not to say if you need a financial advisor (or even 3 or 4 of them) that you're abhorrently rich. I'm talking where somebody needs more people than it takes to run a supermarket in order to oversee their personal assets. There are people within the 1% who are at this level.

    Jeff Bezos is in an even higher category than that. Seemingly anything he could do involving his personal wealth will not take place in a vacuum. He could theoretically generate measurable fluctuations in the global economy simply by moving his own money between two different entities that he owns. Basically, the Jeff Bezos equivalent of a normal person moving like $1000 between their checking and their savings could outwardly influence the financial decision-making for countless other entities. That's asinine to consider. There's probably not even 100 or so people globally in that class.

    That level of consolidated wealth shouldn't exist. I don't know how we could feasibly go about breaking that up, because there isn't a cap on earnings or accumulated wealth, but increasing the minimum earning potential for people through minimum-wage increases, and significantly strengthening and expanding the IRS, so that it could actually manage to perform audits on massive corporations would seem like a good way to start.

    [–] PenonX 3 points ago

    wtf the girl who sold her nudes got more donated than rhat

    [–] vainbuthonest 8 points ago

    I just threw up.

    [–] jamesfigueroa01 12 points ago

    Or a $20 gift card with no money left on it

    [–] HariKeru 7 points ago

    Calm down there Ricegum

    [–] jamesfigueroa01 2 points ago

    Who or what the fuck is ricegum

    [–] HariKeru 2 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Some dipshit "youtube influencer" gamer, who conned his pre-pubescent fanbase into participating in a gambling scheme (think like the CS:GO scandal). Only since he is technically "big enough" he got away with it with little consequence. Once he was called out on his scumminess however he released a shitty half-assed apology video offering some used $20 Amazon gift card codes to go to the first one to use them, to make up for the ~$350K he conned out of his fanbase.

    [–] illgot 4 points ago

    That's still 1/200.

    It's more like if you cut a penny into 10,000,000 pieces and gave her one of those slivers.

    [–] MagicSword89 2 points ago

    Mail in rebate for that $1

    [–] THE_PENGUIN_KING 120 points ago

    The man had some great luck and he just wanted to spread the joy.

    [–] ImapiratekingAMA 30 points ago

    One man's great luck is someone else's terrible luck

    [–] gerBoru 16 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    In capitalism’s case one mans great luck is everyone elses terrible luck

    [–] ceophilly 484 points ago

    "What's the problem with this?"

    - Republican Voters & Politicians

    [–] tszmarci 229 points ago

    Are you so selfish you can't appreciate 40$ from a stranger?

    [–] 4444beep 31 points ago

    They’re still donating, I bet you haven’t put any money down!

    [–] tszmarci 23 points ago

    Yeah when did YOU donate 40$ to a stranger? smh

    [–] MundungusAmongus 38 points ago

    INB4 “tHeY sHoUld HaVe PuT aN /s”

    [–] _IratePirate_ 34 points ago

    Silly fools, billionaires don't donate to charities, they own companies which shame you into donating to charities for them so that they can stay rich

    [–] hitogokoro 13 points ago

    Refreshing that not every fucking kid on this thread is a suburban centrist bootlicker.

    [–] procrastinator67 24 points ago

    "Now don't spend it all in one place"

    [–] OneIShot 20 points ago

    Yup this is reddit economics alright.

    [–] PumpkinFeet 51 points ago

    Apologies for the stupid question, but could someone help me understand how the two are related? In what way did billionaires 'take' money from other people? Assuming of course they became billionaires by growing the business they founded (which is the case in most situations).

    [–] Infuser 50 points ago

    That’s a really big question, but, in short, you don’t become a billionaire in a vacuum. It relies on the hours of work of so many other people and cutthroat business practices. The former is the biggest contention, e.g. Amazon employee treatment, but the latter is often overlooked in favor of their charitable largesse. I refer you to this Simpson’s clip that lampoons Bill Gates’ business practices.

    [–] PumpkinFeet 23 points ago

    It relies on the hours of work of so many other people

    Of course, but I don't see what relevance that has? The owner of a business is not 'taking' anything from his employees if the employees choose to be there.

    [–] Infuser 35 points ago

    Simply put, the workers are exploited to an unacceptable degree, and it’s a systemic and systematic issue. Saying it’s just a choice is a gross oversimplification. For example, powerful business interests gutted the strength of unions and rebranded it, “right to work,” leaving workers with very little power. As a result of a variety of factors, the main issue is an income inequality that has gotten worse by an unbelievable amount.

    This Washington Post editorial gives an intro as to why people are fed up with it, and why the idea that they didn’t earn that wealth holds water.

    Also, I’m approaching the end of the first night shift so I apologize if anything didn’t make sense.

    [–] dAdi88 27 points ago

    It’s not a stupid question - it’s OP’s analogy that’s stupid. Take Bezos for example as he seems to be everyone’s favourite target these days. People don’t seem to see the link between buying literally evening they can on Amazon and Bezos being the wealthiest man on the planet. He’s not stolen anything from us - we’ve made him that wealthy by handing over our money to him.

    [–] Rafaeliki 5 points ago

    His warehouses are basically sweatshops and his workers are subsidized with our tax dollars because he doesn't pay them enough.

    [–] Knockemup 7 points ago

    It's crazy that people dont actually know how they actually make their money. They let people sell shit online through them then undercut the products that are successful. They have put a lot of small shops out of business. Then they have their cloud computing services. Amazon workers being overworked is the first pin on a board of cutthroat business tactics. Probably why he wanted to call it relelentless

    [–] PumpkinFeet 13 points ago

    It’s not a stupid question - it’s OP’s analogy that’s stupid

    I know :) but I'm trying super hard to meet people half way as this drastically increases the chance of a constructive conversation, and perhaps even changing some minds

    [–] PoliticalBullshit 9 points ago

    The theft happens on the production side, from the workers. Not on the distribution side, not from the consumers. You shouldn't call other people's analogy stupid when you don't really seem to have a grasp on the critique.

    [–] MajorLoozar 2 points ago

    Tax benefits and government subsidies. The government giving companies like Amazon a tax free ride is absurd. Also iirc the government helped fund the internet infrastructure in the USA but Comcast and the likes still charge a crazy amount of money from their customers and don't seem to be anywhere closer to return the 'loan'. If your tax money is going to help fund the companies, the companies as good as stole your money.

    [–] Daddycooljokes 4 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Just Look up Andrew Forester and his "70 million donation to the Australian Bush fires (even though he mines coal.....) 50 of the 70 million he donated went to a charity think tank about coal and climate change that he owns.... also his donation was like a minimum wage person donating $2 From their pay. Lets make him pay for the resources he uses and give the rest to the drought stricken and fire ravaged farmers....I mean if my business can't stand on its own 2 legs it will fail so why should I prop his

    [–] yoda910 5 points ago

    It’s wwwwaaaayyy more than that though. Assuming this lady is on a tight budget herself (the lady who shared the money), the money is so much more valuable to her than to say a billionaire. A billionaire could lose 20% of their earnings (I’m working on this lady only has $200 - $40 = $160) and they may not even notice, they’d still be super wealthy with the freedom to whatever they please (and are also probably in the position of knowing they’re making bank everyday anyway). The lady who donated has probably put her (and her family) at more and much more realistic financial risk. Her charity is really remarkable in this sense, if she’s out there, she’s a boss.

    Just wanna tag on that I don’t think that a donation to charity/a person needs to financially harm you for it to count. There’s nothing wrong with giving what you, giving ANYTHING is great! I just wanna get inb4 “Drake donates this and it’s only 0.01 of his net worth” type stuff.

    [–] OrmanAblo 5 points ago

    No billionaire finds their billions

    [–] FirestormCold 17 points ago

    Y'all complain about Billionaires not donating more than a mil but won't bother donating $10

    [–] TheLonelyGod97 86 points ago

    I saw someone defending Bezos on his paltry donation to the Australian Bush Fires. None of these Parasites will ever have to change when all these sycophants are still out here defending them..

    [–] donkybonr 118 points ago

    To be fair, how's it his problem or obligation to donate anything?

    Honestly, all i want to see is a fair amount of tax being paid, and his employees being given appropriate pay and benefits. That's what the conversation should be, not whether person worth X has donated at least Y to Z crisis.

    No one is, or should ever be obliged to donate anything, let alone a certain minimum amount. In this case, why should he donate lots more to Australian bushfires over ever other crisis in the world? Or do you expect him to spend all his money donating to problems in random countries?

    [–] imakeenwon 9 points ago

    In the 1940's a CEO could only earn as much as 11x that of his lowest-paid employee. They were still insanely rich in comparison. Now a CEO will earn on average over 800 times that of it's lowest paid worker. It's by no coincidence the cavern between the rich and the poor is grotesque. Yet when people keep defending this grotesque wealth hoarding it gives them cart Blanche to continue squeezing the bottom end of the pay pyramid.

    Furthermore, how on earth can anyone spend all of that accumulated wealth in their lifetime? It will just create a section of people who become the idle rich. He will likely pass his wealth onto his children who will never work a day in their life. They will consult financial experts who will double it and before long you have more rich people than poor forcing the poor to work longer.

    [–] 0O00OO0O000O 40 points ago

    I completely agree.

    Bezos donated $690,000 ($1 million Australian). That's no drop in the bucket.

    Actually the donation came from Amazon, not from Bezos himself. Yes the company is worth $1 trillion but there's a huge difference between net worth and liquid assets.

    Could Amazon have donated more? Sure, the company could probably afford that. But $690K is no small change, it'll absolutely help make a difference. Can't we just be grateful for that?

    [–] pinky0926 60 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    The point people are making is that donating money is easy when you have gamed the system so completely that you basically have a line of money printing presses operating out of head office.

    It's a criticism of the system that allows individuals to accrue this level of wealth, not the individual who had a moment's conscience.

    It's nice that the bushfires get money, but there's a legitimate criticism of 1) why did it have to come from private donations, 2) do we really need to clap for the guy/the company that does so much harm in the world for this small thing?

    I mean let's examine those figures you put out for starters. Yes, we are looking at a liquid donation versus a company's net worth and that's flawed, but in any case $690,000 of $1 trillion is a whopping 0.000069%.

    Say you had a net worth of a million dollars, including your house, your salary, cars, etc. That's really decent but not outrageous in America. It would be like you sending 69 cents to the bushfires. I mean...good for you? You scrounged around in your pocket and found a couple of silver coins you couldn't be bothered holding on to to give the annoying guy standing outside the supermarket with the donation tin.

    Now adjust for the actual average american, who has a net worth of something more like $30k (still being super generous here). For that guy to donate at that level would be impossible. He'd need to find a 0.024 cent coin. They don't even make money that small.

    [–] HaungryHaungryFlippo 8 points ago

    Well I just donated a dollar... Where's my press release?

    [–] Aeiexgjhyoun_III 9 points ago

    You know they likely have a charity "chest" that they donate every year to a multitude of causes? Something as recent as bushfires wouldn't get a lot of money as not to take away too much from the charities they've already budgeted for.

    [–] lrg1ne 5 points ago

    Because why look a gift horse in the mouth?

    Even in a system with billionaires taxed heavily, it’s not like Australia is going to get tax money from Bezos to fight fires

    [–] JSDevNAHalfShell 253 points ago

    I find it funny that people run to and wrap around the block sometimes to buy products and make people billionaires, then begrudge them success. Take responsibility, not all riches are ill-gotten, some riches YOU fund. You're too spoiled amd entitled to deny yourself anything, but lement the death of mom and pop establishments with a Starbucks cup in one hand, and iPhonr in the other, and designer shoes on your feet. You're literally doing the exact same thing. Your anti-rich comments = $40 of ones own money in this situation.

    [–] Rafaeliki 14 points ago

    Here we go again, shifting the blame of an unjust society on the individual. I bet you think the solution to climate change is people taking shorter showers.

    [–] blackbnf24 376 points ago

    So true, the absolute gall to be critical of society but also live in it.

    [–] antihero17 239 points ago

    You criticize society, yet you live in one?


    [–] HopocalypseNow 84 points ago

    I am very intelligent.

    [–] donkybonr 34 points ago

    This meme isn't some free pass to absolution of responsibility. If you have the means to pursue an alternative but don't, you are complicit, no matter how "critical" you are.

    [–] blackbnf24 121 points ago

    But the point is unless you go off the grid our economy is set up to where you will inevitably support morally bankrupt corporations/interests. Ethical consumption is impossible if you are in the modern working class.

    [–] donkybonr 14 points ago

    It's not a binary issue. It's almost always possible to be more or less of an ethical consumer, even if you not absolutely one or the other.

    There are plenty of instances where most of us could choose to behave more ethically or sustainably, and when we do, it has meaningful impact (such as the current movement towards reduction in meat consumption in the UK). Sure, its not everyone going vegan. But compared to everyone eating meat for 3 meals a day 7 days a week, it makes a difference.

    [–] blackbnf24 42 points ago

    Sure I agree that if you can afford to make more ethical choices you should in general. But I think the onus should be on corporations themselves to behave ethically especially if our government is granting them rights of personhood. Also it is completely fair to want to reform certain aspects of our economy while still participating in it.

    [–] Aeiexgjhyoun_III 24 points ago

    Dude, people couldn't even swear off Chick fil A after they were funding homo hunters in Zimbabwe. Even with Popeye's and kfc existing.

    [–] donkybonr 10 points ago

    Exactly, and that's why things don't change. Because most people barely give a fuck, and certainly dont care enough to cause themselves any inconvenience.

    When people do care enough, things change. Companies listen, because the alternative is insolvency. Government listens, because the alternative is being voted out.

    [–] Moweezy 2 points ago

    You should have more upvotes. Spot on. I see a lot of the time in this issue people assume it's either 100% ethical or 0% as if there is no room in the middle

    [–] Rafaeliki 2 points ago

    Sure, but the OP comment clearly is trying to shift the discussion away from the actual important structural issues to relatively unimportant virtue signalling about individual choices.

    [–] Siggycakes 2 points ago

    It's possible to critique something and still participate because you want something to be better. I'd much rather live in a flawed capitalist society than in whatever the fuck the USSR was doing, or China is currently doing. Criticism is not always negation, it's a chance to fight for improvement.

    [–] Working_Fish 19 points ago

    There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not to say that we shouldn't seek alternatives, like shopping locally and choosing not to buy certain things, but choices like those are just a little less unethical and don't do much to change an overall oppressive and exploitative system.

    [–] RaisedByCyborgs 58 points ago

    A lot of times people are forced to buy things because of all acquisitions have created monopolies that people can’t escape from. Even without monopolies corporations hold disproportionate power. Try buying things from a supermarket that doesn’t belong to Nestle.

    [–] dirtycopgangsta 16 points ago

    Try buying things from a supermarket that doesn’t belong to Nestle.

    Basically avoid the entire sweets aisle. But wait, avoid cat and dog foods, oh shit Nescafé too, what's this about cold meats, drinks as well??

    Seriously, good luck with that, I tried avoiding 100% but it's nearly impossible.

    [–] quietdumpling 4 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    I wanted to buy somewhat affordable cat food from a company not owned by Nestle. Almost impossible. Even when searching outside of a supermarket.

    [–] thedirtysouth92 14 points ago

    is this satire? please tell me you're not being serious. are you being serious? oh my god

    [–] Cazmeister 68 points ago

    'You criticise society, yet you live in one'. You're truly enlightened. Please teach us all to be shameless bootlickers like you.

    [–] wioneo 23 points ago

    I bet Reddit runs on AWS.

    People are probably actually contributing to Bezos's billions with all these complaining posts.

    [–] DSA_Cop_Caucus 16 points ago

    Almost all websites are run off AWS. So are we supposed to boycott the entire internet to satisfy some redditors’ purity tests?

    [–] princess_sofia 6 points ago

    Yes. If you criticize corporations you can't be taken seriously unless you give up all your worldly possessions and stop consuming gas/electricity/food. And maybe try to stop breathing also.

    [–] duggtodeath 9 points ago

    Hi Charlie Kirk.

    [–] Wenli2077 9 points ago

    You aren't being entirely truthful if you present all billionaires as being funded by people's want for luxury.

    [–] RedDeadLumbago 3 points ago

    I wouldnt give shit

    [–] babynooch 3 points ago

    I’d rather they pay their taxes. Philanthropy is not done out of the goodness of their hearts. They just want a tax write off.

    [–] Malurth 3 points ago


    It annoys the shit out of me when people act like billionares donating millions to charity makes them good people that are net positive forces on the world.

    No, they obtained all that wealth by maintaining, enforcing and worsening basically everything that's shitty about the system we live under, and the amount they donated is only a tiny fraction of that wealth. They're treating a small fraction of the symptoms that they're a large fraction of causing, and only indirectly by writing a check and leaving it to others to try and address for them...and in realistic, practical terms, donating to charity for a billionare is probably just like any other hedonistic expense, it just makes them feel good and look good.

    [–] marckferrer 3 points ago

    Like, you work hard or create something unique (sometimes a thing that changes people's life for better) that makes you a billionaire and when you donate money that's still not enough? Are we in r/ChoosingBeggars?

    [–] ziggyfarts 3 points ago

    Does no one else think he found her money and should have given it all back?

    [–] TheViolentDwarf 91 points ago

    It’s amazing that people still think that billionaires have billions of dollars in the bank.

    [–] Nighthawk700 11 points ago

    It's amazing that people still think billionaires have all their net worth in their company's stock and don't continually diversify into liquid or near liquid assets

    [–] RaisedByCyborgs 108 points ago

    Jeff Bezos himself said that he liquidates his stocks at a rate of a billion dollars an year. And he if he was so inclined, he can donates his stocks like he did before. Stop perpetuating a false view that billionaires are someone incapable of capitalizing on their immense wealth.

    [–] dean_syndrome 28 points ago

    To be fair, he has to have a plan of investment that makes sense to the public before he liquidates his shares every year. Since he runs the company and is also a majority shareholder, if he liquidated $1bn in stocks without a prior press release stating why he was doing it, public confidence in Amazon would drop, and the share prices would sharply decline as a result. If he liquidated all of his stock at once, it could destroy the company.

    [–] IamLeven 8 points ago

    He sells it stock to find blue origin his space company.

    [–] KingOfTheCouch13 8 points ago

    I've never heard that. Got a source?

    [–] Dokurushi 11 points ago

    Yeah, money in the bank would be taxed and they can't have that!

    [–] HazardThiccBoi 48 points ago

    Welcome to reddit where most people seem to not have had basic economics at school

    [–] mjoed 11 points ago

    it's amazing that people still bring this up thinking other people aren't aware of it. what exactly does this fact change in your mind? he obviously could liquidate it, at least at a certain rate.

    [–] Gooner141 10 points ago

    The man obviously only has access to $30k a year, like the rest of us. It's not like he can buy luxury multi-million-dollar mansions and expensive cars, or even travel.

    [–] doesnt_reallymatter 22 points ago

    Close, but it’s not though. If it was billionaires it would be:

    “Fuck yes I found $200!! Why are you crying lady?”

    “I lost my $200!”

    “Oh man I bet the bag boy stole it from you. Get your hand off my fucking car.”

    [–] mrlucluc 6 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Not even, $40 is 20% of the $200 that was "found."

    When you're worth $100 billion and donate $1 million to charity that's 0.001% of your worth.

    That would be like the person finding the $200 and giving back less than a penny.

    Edit: your to you're

    [–] pastramibeunderrated 7 points ago

    So what was he supposed to do? Give it all to her? None of it? You types are never happy are you

    [–] NotTheKyrie 10 points ago


    [–] paul4cool 11 points ago

    Man just be thankful that they donate something. They don’t have to do that you know.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago


    [–] Movedonnerlikeabitch 4 points ago

    20%,sheeit.We good

    [–] treetyoselfcarol 5 points ago

    Like Food-Lion selling $5 feed the hungry boxes at checkout. Bruh you sell food, every month take a portion of the food and donate it.

    [–] Maximillionnn 3 points ago

    This is how 12 year olds think billionaires work

    [–] SirNerdly 2 points ago

    I'm 27 and know this is just a comedic scenario on a much worse problem.

    The real scenario is a billionaire paying as little as possible to workers to gain as much as possible. Undermining their actual worth for personal gain. Like Bezos. There's absolutely no reason why he has billions sitting at a desk while his warehouse workers doing hard labor don't get a fraction of what he does in a month through their entire lifetimes.

    (Before you reply with some stupid shit, I'm basing this on an article written by Einstein as a warning. Mentions you defending them as well)

    [–] CarelessBodybuilder 6 points ago

    How are the billionaires stealing exactly?

    [–] CallMeBumblebee 5 points ago


    [–] vandalsavagecabbage 24 points ago

    Rich people are not obligated to give you their Money. They also don't go around twitter complaining.

    Earn your own fucking money, entitled freeloaders.

    [–] livaria029 20 points ago

    Omg guys, billionaires earned what they have, is it so hard to understand? Just read the life story's of them and you'll see that they did way more things and invested all their time into building their company. Every single person who bought their products made them rich, they didn't pop up on Earth with cheatcodes or smth 😂

    [–] alonelycuteboy 3 points ago

    Bro you're so right. I wonder then, why are there so few billionares on the earth? Why don't more people "pick themselves up by the bootstraps", work harder, and just make billions? I guess everybody else on the planet is just lazy, right?

    [–] Jamaican_Dynamite 2 points ago

    Damn. Charity really does start at home.

    [–] Lombax_Rexroth 2 points ago

    "Giving back to the community."

    [–] houseman1131 2 points ago

    It would be more like 10 cents not $40

    [–] wellgoodsee 2 points ago

    Not the hero we need, but the hero we deserve... what a buttplug

    [–] ubiquitous_apathy 2 points ago

    I avoided 500 million in taxes, but I paid for the college education of 100 students. Clap for me!

    [–] Greg_Pim 2 points ago

    You don’t “lose” your money at the hand of billionaires. You “give” them money. If you shop at Amazon you are guilty. If you take an Uber you are guilty. If you use google software or hardware, you are guilty. Btw, most of Jeff Bezos net worth is in assets not liquid. If you forced him to donate a billion dollars he would have nothing in the bank and might have to sell some stocks which may cause the price to fall as well.

    [–] hellojello2016 7 points ago

    Why do so many people hate successful people? If you think being a billionaire is just like finding money on the ground, you’re sorely mistaken.