61–70 of 225 posts
That doesn't seem like a bad trade to me, especially since rich people have fairly low marginal tax rates.
This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.
Congressmen are mostly rich people rented by richer ones, but a small amount of plebian influence is surely better than none at all if you're into that whole "democracy" thing.
There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .
Comments like this are bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.
> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.
There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .
Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow? SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day. Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democrat…
> I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual? Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands…
501c4s, aka SuperPACs are nonprofit "charitable" organizations. It's not like the government confiscates 100% of wealthy people's money as soon as they try to do good, it just taxes it like it does for mere mortals, whenever it changes hands. Using a legal construct to avoid personal tax liability, is quite literally depriving the government of funds it would otherwise be entitled to. I think both sides of this debat…
https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profit...