In response to an article by a2ed “...At the end of the day, viewing philanthropy as 'philanthropy' helps people move on from questioning after the justification for the existence of the filthy rich by way of getting us to thank them for giving back part of the loot. It's a movement from, 'Isn't his taking for himself the fruits of everyone's labour wrong'? to, 'thank you for giving us a portion of the fruits of another's labour. What a great bloke you are'.
The rich people amass their wealth from the labour of those who work under them and from the consumers. In order for people like BG to become so rich, there is a wider issue about wealth distribution. If wealth were more equally distributed, do we still require philanthropy? If we need philanthropists, then society has failed in its duties!
Philanthropy is important to the world. People have grown accustomed to/accepted the disproportionate wealth distribution (if not the gap would not have existed till today). With the limited resources, we do need the rich people to give back (if not a portion of) what they have taken from the people.