3 ms·
People are upset because it feels like another step in the shift of power from a democratically elected state to the oligarchs. You're right that it is fully w
by mtalantikite 11y ago
People are upset because it feels like another step in the shift of power from a democratically elected state to the oligarchs.
You're right that it is fully within his right to keep it, but then he would have had to do things like pay taxes on it. By doing this he can avoid estate tax and keep the power within his family or inner circle. He can be left to pursue his worldview without interruption.
I'm sure he'll do some great things with his foundation, and others I'll completely disagree with, but the point is it moves us further down this road of oligarchy and reliance on the extremely wealthy.
EDIT: Just wanted to add an example. The Gates foundation put something like $200 million towards Common Core education standards, which was rapidly pushed through and adopted after their funding. Regardless of whether you are for or against it, it goes to show that one extremely wealthy foundation was able to completely change national education policy in less than a decade to reflect their singular worldview. That to me is unacceptable in a democratic society.
- adventured 11y agoCan you explain how this moves us further down the road of oligarchy and what the alternative scenarios are that wouldn't have done that?
- xenihn 11y agoTaxing a portion of that money is the alternative scenario.
- dnautics 11y agoMoney aside, Isn't the government already an oligarchy too? I'd much rather be "reliant" on the extremely wealthy than the politically powerful: economic capital is not a zero sum game so it's fundamentally more easy to disrupt by a person less endowed with it than political capital.