Kim Kardashian only donates 10% to typhoon victims

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by deeliman (3545 posts) -

Link

I think this is pretty disgusting, using this tragedy to make money.

#2 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

What a parasite.

#3 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9246 posts) -

That is a lot more than I donated.

#4 Posted by Master_Live (15893 posts) -

And that is that.

#5 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8618 posts) -

@-TheSecondSign-: it's not 10% of income it's 10% of a charity auction proceeds. That's pretty bad if it's true.

#6 Edited by JML897 (33133 posts) -

This sort of thing happens with a lot more charities than you might realize.

Alex Rodriguez's charity gave only 1% of proceeds to an actual charity

#7 Posted by sonicare (53676 posts) -

A lot of charities are poorly run. They have these huge administrative costs. The actual namesake of the charity may not see any of that money. It may go to those who run it, but I agree that they are very deceptive. I remember reading some site that gave tips on how to evaluate which charities are best.

#8 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

She worships Satan so no surprises here.

#9 Edited by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

#10 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

It's because she is profiting from the suffering of typhoon victims, and the generosity of idiots.

but good on her for donating some of that money.

#11 Edited by one_plum (6366 posts) -

I'm certainly no fan of the Kardashians, but regardless of the amount, she still donated some money.

#12 Posted by Solaryellow (953 posts) -

Celebrities are not a concern to me in the least but some people make it sound as if she was obligated to donate money just because she is wealthy.

BTW, why is she famous? It can't be a result of her looks.

#13 Posted by JML897 (33133 posts) -
@SirWander said:

It's because she is profiting from the suffering of typhoon victims, and the generosity of idiots.

but good on her for donating some of that money.

I have a feeling that the people bidding on these items didn't really care whether or not the money was going to typhoon victims, they just wanted some clothes that a celebrity used to own. If they really wanted to just donate to typhoon victims there are easier/better ways to do it.

After reading the article I don't think Kim Kardashian did anything wrong. She's just an internet punching bag so people are piling on. Apparently she's been selling off her old clothes for a while now and the letter she wrote simply stated "a portion of this auction will go to victims".

#14 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

@JML897 said:
@SirWander said:

It's because she is profiting from the suffering of typhoon victims, and the generosity of idiots.

but good on her for donating some of that money.

I have a feeling that the people bidding on these items didn't really care whether or not the money was going to typhoon victims, they just wanted some clothes that a celebrity used to own. If they really wanted to just donate to typhoon victims there are easier/better ways to do it.

After reading the article I don't think Kim Kardashian did anything wrong. She's just an internet punching bag so people are piling on. Apparently she's been selling off her old clothes for a while now and the letter she wrote simply stated "a portion of this auction will go to victims".

I'm sure they did want the items, but usually in these charity auctions, people still donate way more than they normally would because of the cause.

#15 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

I assumed too much on the nature of those that participated; now that I consider what they were bidding for, they are clearly subhuman.

#16 Edited by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

@Solaryellow:

She is part of a species called "Snooki." But yes, it's her looks that made her famous as well as her tv reality show and sex tape.

#17 Posted by Flubbbs (3760 posts) -

shes not obligated to donate anything

#18 Posted by GazaAli (24082 posts) -

What a bimbo, all butt and no heart.

That aside, I'm not all that infuriated given how the nonprofit organization at hand is International Medical Corps. I've always been baffled how they spend the money on what one would think to be luxuries to the anguished people in distress while completely ignoring the fact that these people disparately need the money for something else, something much more crucial and indispensable. We're talking about basic needs here: housing, food, medicine...etc. I've seen them gathering people in serious need of these things and start offering them "psycho-social therapy", wasting the money on therapists, logistics, niceties like offering the sessions in hotels...etc. Also their employees' wages are outrageous for a nonprofit humanitarian organization.

#19 Posted by lamprey263 (26178 posts) -

Non-profits I think can keep 95% of their revenues for administrative costs, like paying the head spokesman, so I can form a non-profit raise food for Africa and I can earn $1 million but only have to pay $50K on Campell's Soup and shipping, and I can keep the other $950K for my troubles of raising that money.

#20 Posted by foxhound_fox (91188 posts) -
@ultimate-k said:

She worships Satan so no surprises here.

Don't insult Satan by associating him with such a terrible person.

Anonymous charity is the only way to properly give money to the needy.

#21 Posted by GazaAli (24082 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@ultimate-k said:

She worships Satan so no surprises here.

Don't insult Satan by associating him with such a terrible person.

Anonymous charity is the only way to properly give money to the needy.

kudos to you.

#22 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23433 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.


#23 Edited by foxhound_fox (91188 posts) -
@GazaAli said:

kudos to you.

I need no kudos. It's the only way to give. Giving with expectation of recognition, praise or some kind of reward isn't giving.

#25 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.

No.

She's not making a new clothing line and then saying "profits will go to charity" and only giving 10% to charity.
She's selling her old clothes, and saying "a portion will go to charity".

It's doubtful it will even be HER selling the clothes, which means she'll be paying someone to sell them for her.

It's no different than your local thrift-shops, they collect donations of clothes/furniture, sell it, and only after paying staff/rent/utilities etc does any money end up going to help the needy.

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

#26 Edited by Jimn_tonic (913 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

my thoughts exactly.

it's scrutiny like this that is going to make her not want to donate a dime to the next natural disaster relief

#27 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

Maybe instead of talking about some incredibly rich woman being cheap we should focus on the people who are flying out, on their own dime, to directly help those in need.

#28 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14662 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

Celebrities are not a concern to me in the least but some people make it sound as if she was obligated to donate money just because she is wealthy.

BTW, why is she famous? It can't be a result of her looks.

My guess is that the family managed to milk the Kardashian name. Like someone posted earlier, not only did she had that sex tape, Her father Robert, was part of the "Dream Team" of lawyers who defended O.J. Simpson during his murder trial back in 1995.

#29 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

Uh... so? She's selling clothes on ebay. Why should she be expected to give all the money to the victims? It's not like she's advertising a charity, she just said that part of the money she makes will be going to them.

#30 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Holy shit, that pig is fatter than I remembered.

#31 Posted by GazaAli (24082 posts) -

@coolbeans90 said:

Holy shit, that pig is fatter than I remembered.

I wonder if this gigantic ass is flabby and cottage cheese-like or firm and smooth. Its huge it can't be firm, no way.

#32 Edited by dominer (3316 posts) -

Not the most noble thing to do, but she's not obligated to donate money to charity.

#33 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23433 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.

No.

She's not making a new clothing line and then saying "profits will go to charity" and only giving 10% to charity.

She's selling her old clothes, and saying "a portion will go to charity".

It's doubtful it will even be HER selling the clothes, which means she'll be paying someone to sell them for her.

It's no different than your local thrift-shops, they collect donations of clothes/furniture, sell it, and only after paying staff/rent/utilities etc does any money end up going to help the needy.

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

How can you say no? 10% is going to charity. That leaves 90%. Do you think the other 90% is going to the person she is paying to sell the clothes?

Use your brain man.

#34 Posted by deeliman (3545 posts) -

Guys, I'm not saying she's obligated to give anything, but if you're going to sell your stuff under the guise of charity, at least give them a substantial amount of the money that is made, otherwise you're tricking people into thinking they're helping victims with this, but instead they're only helping her to get a new Porsche or whatever.

#35 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Guys, I'm not saying she's obligated to give anything, but if you're going to sell your stuff under the guise of charity, at least give them a substantial amount of the money that is made, otherwise you're tricking people into thinking they're helping victims with this, but instead they're only helping her to get a new Porsche or whatever.

She's not selling it under the guise of charity though. She just said in an announcement thing on twitter or whatever that 10% of the money will go to victims. Which is actually a pretty standard thing to do.

#36 Edited by Jimn_tonic (913 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Guys, I'm not saying she's obligated to give anything, but if you're going to sell your stuff under the guise of charity, at least give them a substantial amount of the money that is made, otherwise you're tricking people into thinking they're helping victims with this, but instead they're only helping her to get a new Porsche or whatever.

since when is the clothing section on e-bay "charity"?

#37 Posted by thegerg (16262 posts) -

TC, how much of your income do you donate?

#38 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

I'm sure 10% is more than what you've donated so be thankful.

#39 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.

No.

She's not making a new clothing line and then saying "profits will go to charity" and only giving 10% to charity.

She's selling her old clothes, and saying "a portion will go to charity".

It's doubtful it will even be HER selling the clothes, which means she'll be paying someone to sell them for her.

It's no different than your local thrift-shops, they collect donations of clothes/furniture, sell it, and only after paying staff/rent/utilities etc does any money end up going to help the needy.

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

How can you say no? 10% is going to charity. That leaves 90%. Do you think the other 90% is going to the person she is paying to sell the clothes?

Use your brain man.

>Has 50 million

>Spend 10 million on clothes

>Auctions off clothes for 5 million

>Donates 10% of that 5 million to charity.

How's she making money in the long term?

Are you suggesting she made these clothes by hand?

#40 Edited by BranKetra (50234 posts) -

Kim Kardashian was not obligated to give large portion of her profits from that auction. Considering the reasons for her fame, is it really any surprise that she is not the most generous celebrity in the world?

#41 Edited by -TheSecondSign- (9246 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn said:

@-TheSecondSign-: it's not 10% of income it's 10% of a charity auction proceeds. That's pretty bad if it's true.

I did not donate any money.

So, she still donated more money than I did.

#42 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10408 posts) -

i too never understood why are some folks convinced that wealthy people owe something to them.

#43 Edited by deeliman (3545 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.

No.

She's not making a new clothing line and then saying "profits will go to charity" and only giving 10% to charity.

She's selling her old clothes, and saying "a portion will go to charity".

It's doubtful it will even be HER selling the clothes, which means she'll be paying someone to sell them for her.

It's no different than your local thrift-shops, they collect donations of clothes/furniture, sell it, and only after paying staff/rent/utilities etc does any money end up going to help the needy.

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

How can you say no? 10% is going to charity. That leaves 90%. Do you think the other 90% is going to the person she is paying to sell the clothes?

Use your brain man.

>Has 50 million

>Spend 10 million on clothes

>Auctions off clothes for 5 million

>Donates 10% of that 5 million to charity.

How's she making money in the long term?

Are you suggesting she made these clothes by hand?

She got all those clothes as gifts...

#44 Edited by deeliman (3545 posts) -

Wow, people aren't getting the point at all...

#45 Posted by supa_badman (16666 posts) -

@-TheSecondSign- said:

That is a lot more than any of you donated.

#46 Edited by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Ninja-Hippo said:

@Pirate700 said:

So what? She didn't have to donate anything. The fact that she sold some of her possessions and donated some of it is a lot more than most people did, I'm sure. Why do some people think wealthy people have to empty their bank accounts for every cause?

Because she's not emptying her bank account, she is MAKING MONEY. A person with a net worth of $40 million is doing a 'charity auction' which will see her wealthier than she was before.

No.

She's not making a new clothing line and then saying "profits will go to charity" and only giving 10% to charity.

She's selling her old clothes, and saying "a portion will go to charity".

It's doubtful it will even be HER selling the clothes, which means she'll be paying someone to sell them for her.

It's no different than your local thrift-shops, they collect donations of clothes/furniture, sell it, and only after paying staff/rent/utilities etc does any money end up going to help the needy.

10% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 0%.

How can you say no? 10% is going to charity. That leaves 90%. Do you think the other 90% is going to the person she is paying to sell the clothes?

Use your brain man.

>Has 50 million

>Spend 10 million on clothes

>Auctions off clothes for 5 million

>Donates 10% of that 5 million to charity.

How's she making money in the long term?

Are you suggesting she made these clothes by hand?

She got all those clothes as gifts...

She got them ALL as gifts?
Where did you read this? I just read she was auctioning off her "old" clothes and donating a portion to charity.

#47 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

So what? It's not like she deceived anyone here. The listings are up-front about what percentage is going to the charity.

@GazaAli said:

What a bimbo, all butt and no heart.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

#48 Edited by TacticaI (954 posts) -

@deeliman: You have no point. People don't have to buy her old clothes and she doesn't have to donate anything.

#49 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17224 posts) -

What a surprise, a rich person whose name rhymes with "Jim Farcashian" is a shitty person.

Although this can't be the only charity this happens with.

#50 Posted by ferrari2001 (17414 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

shes not obligated to donate anything

She's not obligated but she's using a tragedy and charity auction to make money for herself. She knows that by saying she's donating proceeds to the Philippines, her profits from the auctions will be significantly greater. Much higher than the 10%, meaning she turns tragedy into profit. It's despicable.