Actor Michael Sheen has bought £1 million (C$1.86 million) of his neighbours’ debts and written them off using £100,000 (C$186,000) of his own money.
Sheen, best known for his roles in “The Queen,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Masters of Sex” and “Good Omens,” first embarked on his “debt heist” two years ago, with the twin aims of helping 900 people in his native South Wales and spotlighting the perils of a debt industry that demands sky-high interest rates on short-term loans.
“People’s debts get put into bundles and then debt-buying companies can buy those bundles and then they can sell it on to another debt-buying company at a lower price so … the people who own the debt can sell it for less and less money,” he explained in an interview on BBC TV’s “The One Show” last week.
“I was able to set up a company and for £100,000 of my own money, buy £1 million of debt because it had come down in value like that.”
They will survive without it. There are plenty of other people who have to survive with less, and plenty more who have even less and don’t survive.
That’s not what he’s getting praised for.
Watch your wording. I never said he shouldn’t have money. He shouldn’t have the excess that he has, though. Good job trying to change my argument with something that’s easier to argue against. It’s a tried-and-true tactic among the willful ignorance crowd.
He shouldn’t have that much money because the only reason why he, or anyone else, has those excesses is because others do not have enough. It really is that simple. But here you are praising him for “giving back” a minuscule amount of what he shouldn’t have in the first place.
This money is also going to end up in the hands of people who shouldn’t have it in the first place and the only reason others don’t have enough is because they have too much.
Yep.
Sounds more like you don’t want to understand how you’re supporting the problem and want to fit in with your peers. I know what I’ll put my money on.
Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.
Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: “Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have” followed by “I never said he shouldn’t have money.”.
If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.
But hey, if you’re the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?
Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.
Oh boy. Sorry I’m not going to read all that because I’ve been there before.
You people will legit stop at nothing to avoid admitting how you’re part of the problem. Once the snowball effect has taken hold and you’re just trying to fit in with your peers, it’s an unstoppable force.
My time on the internet has really taught me a lot about human psychology. I’m glad I can see you people and your tactics for what they are and give you the respect you deserve.
Goodbye. You may have the last word (because you will not stop until you get it.)