You seem to have some “issues” that not only range from tangential to unrelated to the comic, but are also contradicted by the story.

ON Charity: You talk about business and autonomy. That is exactly what the women’s villages provide.

ON Investment: Yes, money invested grows. Guess what Anna is doing? Investing it in charity early! Invested wisely, she’ll have a much larger positive impact on the the world. Also, under your model, she could die of cancer herself because she waited 30 years before considering charity work.

On Mr. Tyler: As I said earlier, I partly agree with some of Mr. Tyler’s claims and views. Others do not. But he is also overbearing and may be dealing with his own issues, as well. (I’m still curious how much an effect his wife’s death and Anna’s charity work for a cure has affected him.)

But it is nice to see someone who is always working for the better world rather than being a robber barron today and buying absolution much later.

Or, worse, being a complete ditz who blows her money up her nose, gets knocked up repeatedly, spends more time in rehab than out, spends the rest of her time suing and getting sued by her family and friends, and then wonders why everyone hates her, her homes are being repossessed, and her sex tapes are all over the internet.

NOTE: I think everything else in your post has no relationship with the comic. I’ll address some, but they’re tangential to the story.

You seem to stereotype Africans and somehow claim charity causes them to keep their children near starvation. Poverty is complex, and the power brokers whom you worship are sometimes a major factor. World bank schemes that have farmers deforest the land and grow cash crops unsuited for the region rather than self-sufficiency food crops for local consumption and export have been a problem in many countries.

ON The Rich: They can be good. They can be bad. They are important. But it is the middle of the country that is the vitality of the country. If you only have rich and poor, there is no vested interest in the country.

ON Socialism: Europe is closer to socialist. The so-called Communist state of China is not. And Mexico is your counter-example. You have possibly the wealthiest man in the world combined with great poverty. China itself has increasing economic disparity as well as local corruption, ecological devastation, pollution, worker exploitation, and growing regional rifts. China is a growing power, but it will pay a large price for its corruption and failure to represent the interests of the middle of the nation.

ON the US: Yes, the rebates are stupid. Infrastructure is where the money should be spent. Ideally, you only want to borrow money for investments rather than consumption. And, yes, the country has problems. But what the heck does that have to do with tax rates (not at issue in the story) and savings?

On Anna: First, you’re pulling 98% out of nowhere, so please stop that. Second, I agree the percentage is high and Mr. Tyler has some good points, but there is a full disconnect between your claim of wealth being a scarlet letter and Anna’s world. Her father specifically had her biography say “over half” rather than the actual number because he feared people would consider her crazy if they knew the real number.

What is the best way to help on a grand scale? It’s not by creating a socialist state where the people get hand outs and never better themselves. This just doesn’t work. Never has never will. Have you looked at how some Africans treat the charity they are given?

I was quite disturbed to find that the parents let their children starve while the parents eat the majority of the food they have. They can do so because they can just go to a charity bank and get them fed. Enough so they can continue living anyway. They then stay in this cycle of poverty. This is the culture of dependence and simply giving them more money will not solve it. From what I can see, it just mkaes it worse because they will then just have more children. Just directing it to supplying the basics of life don’t fly.

You need a capitalist model (along with chaging some of the basic attidudes prevalent in Africa that are harmful. An education campaign would be helpful. An example of an unhelpful attitude is the way they see irrigation. Men farm, women handle the water. Since irrigation involves both aspects no one touches it. This stops farms from reaching full potential).

You help create that by growing its economy. It’s done, not by charity (though it does serve an important role, I don’t deny it) but by INVESTING in business. It’s not enough to feed the hungry masses. You have to create an environment where they can get jobs. Make their OWN way. You can’t have them begging for handouts the rest of their lives. You can’t have jobs that are dependent on someone else’s largeness.

Rich people (and rich companies) are the most vital, VITAL aspect of a country. They are the drivers of the real economy. A society of nothing but spenders always collapses and we are witnissing that now in the US. A nation that was once the biggest source of savers in the world spent all their money and for the last few years has been, instead, a nation with a negative savings rate due to all the debt they have piled up. This will end. It IS ending as we speak. It’s taken decades to get to this sorry state but it’s here not and the concequences are likely to be profound. Especially as we watch China take up the mantel the nation of savings.

The idea that all the super wealthy should just give all their money away is selfish. Plain and simple. You look to them and think to yourselves “Why can’t I have more of what they got?” and when you do get it by things such as the USA rebate checks for 600 a person that have been going out recently. You spend it! Even if you donate it, that particular money is still gone and never coming back.

It is a net detriment over time. It’s socialism. If no one allows themselves to become more then comfortable then how can they make the really big, long term, investments our society really needs? Show me one case where a society with a 90%+ tax rate on the wealthy made any goverment better. Russia communist model collapsed while China prospers because China GETS IT. They know that by allowing people to keep their money their society at large betters itself.

They are the ones that invest in the businesses that create the jobs and infrastructure that rises the boat for ALL people, not just the poorest. As more people become wealthy, they give a reasonable portion of their salaries to go to the needy, to furthering culture, for all the things that there remains a persistent need for. By donating just a portion of your money while investing the rest you do more over the long run. This is fact and has proven over and over again in society.

Stasia is wrong to give 98% to charity. Just plain wrong. Not as wrong as she would have been spending it on status symbols but still wrong for the purposes of doing the most good for all people. If she took the majority that money instead and invested it, she would make more money and then would be able to keep funding her projects regardless of how her career went. There IS a time when giving the majority of your money is appropriate on an individual basis but not this early. You wait 20, 30, 50 years down the road. You’ve finished your earning years, it’s time to leave you legacy now.

Think of Bill Gates, think of Warren Buffett. They are now at this stage and are handing over massive, MASSIVE amounts to charity. If they had given 98% of all the money they earned during their formative years do you think they would have been able to give so much? What about all the jobs that would have never happened without their investments? What about the advancements they created through their wealth?

How can we grow as a society if profits are treated like a scarlet letter and are disposed of as soon as they are received? Profits, properly invested, are the engine that drives everything foreward.

I like Stasia’s dad. He’s being gritty and decisive and not as controlling as some people think, at least in these last few pages (I was put off by him trying to set Stasia up with the loser ex-bf). If he was he never would have allowed all this charity. He’s mainly doing what a good manager should right now by trying to manage her public image.

His idea is also saving the money is closer to the mark then Stasia’s idea of donating it all. True, he’s overly focused on familly wealth but he’s not the idiot that some people seem to think he is. I really don’t like this comic page title.

Ah, thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.

I’m still curious if Mr. Tyler and Christian will run into each other. It’s not necessary, but Mr. Tyler’s reaction would be interesting. (And seeing Christian explain the assault would be a distraction, but a hilarious one… “He hit me.” “Why?” “The little one was strangling me, so I punched her.” “You hit a woman?” “She was going to beat me up!” “Why?” “I don’t know. She just attacked me after I fired all the charity workers you asked me to hire.” “Why did you fire them?” “Because she married the big one.” “You’re an idiot.”)

By knowing people who had money and then lost most or all of it through medical problems or investment mishaps, I appreciate the desire to be conservative with a good nestegg. One day a couple is fine; the next day, both have chronic medical problems, neither has a job, and an investment gone bad nearly bankrupted them. One day a family is fine; the next, the parents are killed in a car crash. And seeing people who spend more than they earn, I understand how it is possible to lose unimaginable sums of money. And I’ve also seen the stresses that debts place on a family. It’s not healthy.

[BOBBY: Anyone who says the numbers somehow “don’t match up” is an idiot — ... impossible to know what percentage that $2 million in the bank is of her current net worth]
Whew! I said, “don’t seem [to] work out”, so hopefully that escapes idiocy. Saying “seem” is an intentional hedge. And your clarification helps — thanks!

I am still wondering about part of Mr. Tyler’s character, though:

In the back story on Mr. Tyler, what effect did his wife’s death have on him? Does he approve of Anna’s charity work on breast cancer? Is he in any sense jealous or frustrated that Anna is doing something where he was powerless?

[STEF: it might be worthwhile pointing out that the Queen, or at least the Royal Family, are probably richer than Oprah...and Liliane Bettencourt.]

The wealthiest Brit has a title, but is not part of the Royal Family. The Duke of Westminister is doing so well because of … the cabbage farm (now prime London real estate) his ancestors married into centuries ago.

The British Royal Family either get a bad rap or manage to put up a really good show. Because they’re not as wealthy. Not even close. The palace and crown jewels are state property, so, unlike your fellow Scot J.K. Rowling, the Queen of Great Britain is not a billionaire. Her distant cousins in Holland are doing better thanks to oil (Dutch Shell, in particular).

It’s a neat statement about the UK today that one of the wealthiest in Britain is a self-made writer, whose career began when she was a single mother on welfare. And in the US, one of the wealthiest media moguls is also self-made and started life in rural Mississippi born to an unmarried teen mother. And both are very active in charity.

So, even without a trust fund, little Parker should do okay.

[PAT: 200 million a year ... is not really that much]

It actually is (only Oprah and JK Rowling do), but I’ll let it go. I like trivia, history, and research, so it was fun to look things up. And for all the people who decry welfare and single mothers and the so-called decline of society, it’s nice to be able to counter, “Hey, look at JK Rowling and Oprah Winfrey.”

listen “And your Oprah link is a year old. (= Forbes in 2008 claimed to have ignored the value of her brand and put her 2008 net worth at 2.5 billion:”

The piont is that Mr. Taylor said she earned (not is worth) 2 billion over the last 10 years. that means she earned about 200 million a year on avg. that is not really that much concerts, marketing, music sales. we don’t know if he means statia the bussiness or her personal income either. So please lets drop the whole money thing and get on with the story.

I thank you.