So who do you feel deserves more money?
 

An actor or Teachers?

If I were to give you $10 million dollars, who would you give it to and why?

I'll explain in a minute, but I'd love to know how everyone feels on this before hand?

-E- Answered question now in thread

Me. I deserve all the money.

A single teacher might not deserve millions but at the same time nor does the actor.
I don't like the idea that one or the other should get millions when really the problem isn't that individual good actors get paid millions while remarkably good teachers barely get by. The problem is that no one person really should have a personal income of millions. Perhaps a company or business should, but there's no person on Earth that actually needs that much. So why not give the entire faculty of the school those millions, or every person working at the studio on that movie a larger cut of the millions they've helped their movie to earn.

Charities because really both the teacher and the actor really don't need it anymore then organization built on bettering mankind or saving those that need to be saved.

Neither of them deserves more money than the other. I believe in some disparity in wealth distribution as a means of making the economy work, but it's not the place of me, anybody, or any system, to go "Hey, you deserve a better standard of living than that fucker over there. They suck and you kick ass."

Every choice made by anybody in the world makes sense to them. They get squirted out of a vagina and then they bounce from place to place as informed by either their biological makeup or the places they've been previously, and none of them deserve what they get whether it's good or bad. That's why rewards and punishment should relate to nothing other than what will make society function better from that point on. It's why I'm against the death penalty, and it's why I despise conventional libertarianism.

I give it to the teachers to help improve the public image of the field as a viable career path.

Teachers because underfunded actors means some aspects of entertainment become less entertaining while underfunded teachers means a lot of children aren't getting as good a quality of education as they should be getting.

Trick question?
 

I'm not sure there's a single person on this forum who, answering seriously, would choose a single actor over however many teachers.

As a teacher, I long ago forgot what goals I had when originally getting into the profession.

I think...John Steinbeck? Something about John Steinbeck?

I pretty much do it for the pleasure of giving out detentions now.

And what if I told you Ben Stiller actually screwed over NY Teachers?

It would further my view that nothing good ever came of Ben Stiller.