People love to bring up this argument which was quite well developed by philosopher Peter Singer but every time I see it (in many contexts) they always fall sho

People love to bring up this argument which was quite well developed by philosopher Peter Singer but every time I see it (in many contexts) they always fall short of the continuation of it. There's a big difference between the richest man in the world letting their employees have 20 weeks of parental leave, than someone living on a salary giving away all their money to charity. The difference is in how much we are affected personally by the "giving" we are doing, and this is not a meaningless point. It's very narrow minded to think we ought to give everything we have at all times because where would you stop? There is always someone that's more in need. Ultimately we should be giving away as much as we can and this needs to take into consideration how much we have. Do you seriously think Musk is not in a position to give 20 weeks of parental leave to his employees? If the richest man couldn't do that, then wouldn't this mean it's so taxing no one could? But there's plenty of business owners around the world that do, and none of them are richer than Musk, so what gives?