I never said they were bad nor do I think billionaires are inherently bad people. It's more that their excessive wealth has affected their minds so much they have a warped view of humanity and what it means to make an actual difference in the world.

That phenomenon doesn't happen at all for those of us who are making under a certain amount (Studies have found that threshold to be $75,000 a year. Anything beyond that and money no longer contributes to a person's overall mental wellbeing and physical health). It's easy for me, you, or any non-billionaire to say we'll donate to charity or do some good for humanity because we have a better grasp on reality.

I'm also not saying we have to look at everyone's hidden motives under a microscope and pick it all apart. It goes back to what I mentioned above and also throughout the article. If the cause isn't very specific and their foundation is building up assets and only using a bit for the actual cause, is that really benefiting people? Is that making a difference in someone's life? Or is it costing them more?

I'm not so much complaining about the free car. If someone can't afford it, they can sell it off to someone the point is moot. But when it's offered by someone who makes billions of dollars and can effortlessly afford years of coverage for the car, it sounds more appealing than just getting a free car. Again, it's about the impact relative to what someone can reasonably offer with the resources they have. In the case for billionaires who have insane levels of resources would you rather them give table scraps, or a nice and filling meal to people who need it?