It's because the GP is discrediting MacKenzie Bezos that he or she is being discredited in response. If GP is going to find fault with someone donating $4 billion and ask "why not more," the question rightly comes back to "well what have you accomplished compared to her?"

The issue is GP has made sacrifice but MacKenzie doesn't have to scarify as much as GP. GP am not saying MacKenzie have to make sacrifice but he is just pointing the fact we live in society where richest people hoards money instead of using it for betterment society. And most of the donations are just plain PR strategy or some tax escape strategy.

You may argue they earned hard for that money but some people are just lucky and don't have to struggle and are so greedy they don't care about anyone else.

The Commentary is quite interesting here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite

The OP literally chose to make it a contest, complaining MacKenzie wasn’t doing as much as him percentage wise.

The used metric was "impressiveness", not raw percentages.

The OP argued, that assuming she had donated 59B out of the total of 60B, while this would (probably) be a higher percentage than the OP, it still would not be "impressive". She would retain 1B, which, I hope we can all agree, is more than enough to live a wealthy life, and certainly more than the 3k left on the account of OP.

Yeah this is what I meant, thanks for helping explaining it so well.

> and it's disheartening to see comments such as yours discrediting (passively as it may be) the help some people give

How is stating that his sacrifice is admirable a way to discredit the help he/she is giving?