Stereotypemebecauseyouknow
Favorite Answer
Same reason they line up for tax breaks even though they oppose tax breaks for the rich.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/02/entertainment/la-et-ct-fiscal-cliff-tax-break-20130102
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/in-plot-twist-california-needs-tax-breaks-to-lure-film-crews-103007.html
It's "sharing for the little people" according to the elitist. What we really should question is how Nancy Pelosi managed to make $36,000,000 without ever holding a private sector job. It boggles the mind that she gets a free pass as long as she hands you someone else's wage. Why is this not front page? ever? The reporters benefit financially from her legislation. Something is seriously wrong with this arrangement. It's no different than an oil company paying for deregulation. Partisans are screwing us all.
Judith
How do you know they don't give money away? I'm betting that most give to charities and many have begun their own charities for specific events; e.g. Brad Pitt's involvement in the construction of homes in New Orleans after the flood. Not everyone brags about what they do or have given to the various charities but it's something we can read about time and time again in those magazines devoted to stars and their doings.
xpatinasia
There's no reason to give all of your money away, until you're dead.
Jeffrey
Standard liberalism.
Anonymous
For the same exact reason that the Tea party is against socialism but they all draw socialized medicare and social security benefits.
For the same exact reason that some football coaches who think that the extra point should be eliminated still take the extra point in professional games.
Wanting the rules to change is one thing. Voluntarily putting yourself at a disadvantage that nobody else faces is a totally different thing.
Wanting one but not the other is not hypocrisy, no matter how hard you imply that it is.