3 ms·
The reasons for this are quite simple. When the richest 1% make a very grand gesture like this, there will always be an element of analysis about how they plan
by christoph 11y ago
The reasons for this are quite simple. When the richest 1% make a very grand gesture like this, there will always be an element of analysis about how they plan to do it, for better or worse.
When it's somebody in the very top 1% who up until now has taken large measures to completely avoid and drastically minimise paying tax in numerous countries (which can have substantial benefits for the populace of said countries) at the levels they should be, questions will always be asked.
I also completely agree, he's fully within his rights to blow the lot - this also has a benefit for society anyway (more people working to build him yachts, supercars, mix him martini's, etc., therefore more collected in tax from said blowing of cash).
I don't have a view at the moment on this either way - the proof will be in the pudding as they say and I will reserve judgement till then. I will, however, say he's not actually given anything away - certainly not yet anyway.
- monochromatic 11y ago> minimise paying tax in numerous countries (which can have substantial benefits for the populace of said countries) I'm not sure there's a less efficient way of helping people than giving money to the government.
- kaonashi 11y agoThe bad thing about it is that you have a single person dictating how a large portion of economic activity is carried out. Very anti-democratic, and my intuition would say very inefficient.
- billmalarky 11y agoWell, anti-democratic and efficiency go hand in hand. For better or worse.
- kaonashi 11y agoSounds like talking past each other with different notions of democracy.