6 ms·
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 ba
by Afforess 11y ago
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.
- HiLo 11y agoNo I mean if you read all of it, it talks about the nuance in a lot of detail.
- Afforess 11y agoNo, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a discussion and re-hash of other notable charities and comparison of charitable contributions per country, which is a side-tangent.
- HiLo 11y agoWhat are you talking about? It has much more than that?
- Afforess 11y agoPretty sure it doesn't. Feel free to provide quotes / evidence if you disagree.
- HiLo 11y agoDoes that discussion of his $100 million donation simply not count in your book? Did it not show up in your browser?
- Afforess 11y agoIt's not relevant because their current pledge is significantly different in how it is managed (previous was a 503c charitable contribution, current is an LLC-based corporation that will have stricter control over allocation of funds).
- HiLo 11y agoThe legal structure has nothing to do with the principal here, stop obfuscating the argument.
- Retric 11y ago"The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure." Asking for a quote misses the point. Look into it yourself and the first link is Where Zuckerberg's $100 million gift went wrong http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million-gift-went-wrong-pros.html http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million...
- marknutter 11y agoGovernment efforts never fail, on the other hand.
- knughit 11y agoNote that the $100m was a gift to the government, overseen by thr governor of NJ, so it is hard to say that was a failure of private philanthropy vs government.
- Chathamization 11y agoIt wasn't simply a gift, Zuckerberg directed it towards the reforms he thought were fit. According to Business Insider: >Zuckerberg envisioned the teacher contract reform to be a centerpiece of the reform and contributed $50 million — half of his total donation — to go to working on that cause. So he decided to throw $50 million at teacher contract reform around the same time that, according to the CNBC article, "the state cutting $56 million in school aid."
- guntars 11y agoThe explanation is that it's the government (or rather the people) that's subsidizing the charitable work of the billionaires via tax breaks, but giving up any say in how the money is used.
- mnx 11y agoIt's not giving up any say, just most of it - after all, there is some government process to be an approved tax-break eligible charity, no? [not familiar with US law on this]
- lloyddobbler 11y agoIf the money always belonged to the state, and the state simply allows its constituents to keep some of the money they earn, your logic stands. But if the money ever belonged to the individual, then the public cannot "subsidize" the individual keeping what he/she earned. Put another way: if I walk up to someone on the street and forcibly take their money - and if that wasn't mine to begin with - most people would call that 'stealing' (or at least 'coercion' of some sort). If I chose to not forcibly take their money, and they then give that money to the homeless person on the corner, I'm not "subsidizing" the person whose money I didn't forcibly take. It was theirs to begin with - not mine.
- learc83 11y agoThe taxation as theft argument implies that you believe that society (through the state) isn't entitled to a share of your money as payment for providing the system that allows you to become rich in the first place. Without the infrastructure provided by society as a whole, no large business would be possible.
- shaftoe 11y agoAnd without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism.
- jobu 11y agoAgreed. The article boils down to this: Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires." It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.
- HiLo 11y agoNo, it's a difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the power, as the quote said.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lloyddobbler 11y agoIt's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the billionaires' money - elected officials or billionaires. Fixed that for you.
- HiLo 11y agoActually, the Treasury funds itself by issuing bonds to the dealer banks or the Fed, where its account is then credited. Taxes are used as inflation control or to incentivize certain activities. What you're suggesting is that Treasury would have a cash flow problem if people payed less taxes, which isn't the case. Although you could start to see an inflation problem.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Actually, the Treasury funds itself by issuing bonds to the dealer banks or the Fed, where its account is then credited Its ability to sell bonds is controlled by the markets perception of its ability to pay those bonds, which is tied to a number of factors including, inter alia, its perceived ability, willingness, and track record of revenue sources with which to pay them. People paying less taxes directly effects that.
- thomnottom 11y agoThat'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.
- Afforess 11y ago> 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.
- maxmzd_ 11y agoWhile that is true, and a problem, it doesn't make the point of the article any less valid. If anything, you are agreeing with it now.
- username223 11y agoCongressmen 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.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dorfsmay 11y agoIn terms of how to spend "extra money", I would have agreed with you before Bill Gates' foundation delivered result few governments ever did. Heck, I'm in Alberta where we've had a government returning taxes when we had budget surplus... just before the election.
- deleted 11y ago
- Retric 11y agoPrivate charities have on average been terribly inefficient in the US. However, in terms of Conspicuous consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption) they are better than building ever larger boats.
- Afforess 11y agoI think the key question is whether private charities are more or less efficient relative to governments, not whether they are efficient in an absolute sense.
- Retric 11y agoYou’re assuming government spending would increase 1:1 which might be true, but is not guaranteed.
- moistgorilla 11y agodo you have a source for that statement and does that source take into account the basically fraudulent "charities" that exist to pay their ceos
- stillsut 11y agoIn fact, it would be declasse to be seen on a mega yacht except if it was for a charity gala. Yacht is of course owned by charity, which is owned by... well you know who. But you gotta spend money to give money!
- anon4 11y agoThere is no real explanation for why the article is "bad" except for the tired argument that private foundations imitating the state are good and the state is bad. There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Comments like this are bad.
- knughit 11y agoArticles that lead with a headline "Why", instead of just stating their thesis, are clickbait garbage.
- mmaunder 11y agoIt also implies that there are no taxes in the USA i.e. no revenue whatsoever for the government to dedicate to social programs. Total government revenue in the USA (Federal and state) for 2014 was $5.8 Trillion. The question arises: How would the government be able to "give" Zuckerberg's fortune rather than him giving it himself? Through extremely high taxation for the wealthy that would take away the lion's share of his billions so that the government can put it to work more effectively. So what? 90% tax rate on the megarich? Government isn't known for it's efficiency in spending or giving. I'm left leaning, but we don't need to give the government new ways to not spend money where it's needed.
- s73v3r 11y agoI have a say in what state agencies do. I have absolutely no say in what a private foundation does.