9 ms·

From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the boa

From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman, serving for 25 years. Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purposes. This "institute for medical research" - now Rockefeller University - was their way of guiding the development of medicine into a profitable industry for "investors". "The first director of laboratories was Simon Flexner" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University Simon Flexner's younger brother was Abraham Flexner, who helped the medical guild reduce the number of medical schools [2], thereby making sure that there's always been a shortage of doctors. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to medicine. Today D.O.s are more likely to take up Primary Care, where doctors take time to get to know their patients and figure out what's actually causing their complaints. See The Heroism of Incremental Care, [3] for example. [3] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-incremental-care http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-...

johansch 10y ago
> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flagship company, Standard Oil, was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but Rockefeller’s greatest legacy – his family – lives on, spanning more than 200 surviving individuals and possessing a collective net worth of about $10 billion" $900M out of $10B is 9%. Myself, living in Europe, I'm quite convinced I have paid a much higher percentage of my income than this towards state-governed philantrophy. Where's my trophy?
- habitue 10y ago
  > spanning more than 200 surviving individuals > collective net worth of about $10 billion You are taking his individual contribution as a percentage of the combined net worth of 200 individuals.
- dsacco 10y ago
  They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income. Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you think he should have donated more?
  - johansch 10y ago
    No, I prefer just to point out the hypocrisy surrounding getting acclaims for "philantrophy" in the US. Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical European country.
    - evgen 10y ago
      Then you should make yourself aware of the regular taxation laws in force at the time those fortunes were amassed. The difference I guess is that in the US the rich give away most of their money (often for favorable tax treatment on the remainder of their estate) and in Europe they just pass it along to their children to maintain the nominal level of Eurotrash the world seems to require. </s>
      - johansch 10y ago
        I wasn't claiming rich Europeans are any better. :) I'm simply claiming that this insanely rich american guy a) percentage-wise gave away quite a bit less of his fortune than e.g. myself has given away in taxes/wealth-distribution in Sweden. b) get's to be called a "philantrophist".
        brandonmenc 10y ago
intended 10y ago
>When Flexner researched his report, many American medical schools were "proprietary", namely small trade schools owned by one or more doctors, unaffiliated with a college or university, and run to make a profit. A degree was typically awarded after only two years of study. Laboratory work and dissection were not necessarily required. Many of the instructors were local doctors teaching part-time, whose own training left something to be desired. The regulation of the medical profession by state governments was minimal or nonexistent. American doctors varied enormously in their scientific understanding of human physiology, and the word "quack" flourished. Interesting Wikipedia article. And as I recall, the issue with medical colleges is more the residency, than the exams isn't it? I mean, that's why we trust doctors, because the bar is that high.
- nojvek 10y ago
  Is the bar really high though? I find doctors in US for common procedures use outdated methods and charge astronomical fees. My experience of going to Australian hospitals was 10x better. In US it feels like doctors want to get as much money as they can from you while proving the lowest level of service possible. A very capitalist view to human life.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    You might be interested in a Freakonomics episode[1] that covers this to some degree. There's a wide range in care based on many factors, but unless you have quite a bit of experience in the healthcare industry in both countries, for similar ailments, I'm not sure what you experienced falls outside the normal variation for the field. The TL;DL is that the medical field changes quite a bit in the years since Docters graduate, and depending on the types of work they are doing, it seems to be fairly easy for them to get behind with the latest consensus unless they make a concerted effort. To that effect, relatively new doctors often have better patient health outcomes than doctors that have been out of school for longer. This is, to some degree, obvious after stated, as any field that sees rapid change will have some percentage of practitioners that are out of date. 1: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-3-death-diagnosis/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-3-death-di...
kolanos 10y ago
Relevant video on the influence the Rockefeller family has on modern first-world healthcare systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw
hkmurakami 10y ago
In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similarly, people have visions for how the world should be. The young and of-less-means tend to give their time, engaging in grassroots efforts or marches. The old and rich tend to give their money. Both use their resources to shape the world towards what they believe in. Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it.
- reckoner2 10y ago
  In addition to this, there really is an almost fetish-like following behind the ideas that the Rockefeller's in particular secretly 'rule' or 'ruin' the world. John D. Rockefeller Sr. stated many times that he believed that it was God's plan for him to: (paraphrasing) 1) Acquire as mush wealth as he could through business. 2) Donate this money to help humanity in the best ways possible. And he did exactly that. And he did better than anyone else ever has. He didn't do much else. The Rockefeller's are fascinating people, but I think most of us would be surprised as to how little of the 'world-dominating' stuff is true. It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but "Titan: The Life Of John D. Rockefeller" goes into incredible detail on the family. You may not leave with a nice picture of the family, but definitely a different one than some of the comments in this thread. A lot of the private journals and business documents have actually been released to the public and it makes for a fascinating read.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- kingmanaz 10y ago
  >Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it. People by default seem to put their faith in a works-based salvation, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Catholicism, many-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy benefactors or societies, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory. Lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. Likewise, the works-based religion of today's Soroses, Rothschilds, and Rockefellers, while on the surface resembling the myopically raceless utopia of Star Trek, will likely violently unravel as has most movements led by uncritical men convinced of their own ability to earn salvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
valarauca1 10y ago
thereby making sure that there's always been a shortage of doctors [2] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report I'm sorry but I prefer the people operating one me are part of a well regulated profession guided by scientific research. The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to medicine. Yeah because Blood Letting, Leaches, Heroin, Electro-Shock, and Drinking Mercury were _so good_ for your health. Turn of the last century Osteopathy is the stuff of Nightmares. Today D.O.s are more likely to take up Primary Care, where doctors take time to get to know their patients and figure out what's actually causing their complaints Modern D.O.'s aren't _exactly_ descended from Osteopathic of the 1870-1900's. Really in philosophy only. The only real relation is that the "Philosphy" of Osteopathy is the body will try to heal itself, and medicine should compliment this... Not be the only process by-which the body can. Modern D.O.'s following the training and principles laid out in the Flexner Report. Their decisions are still based on research. There are _non-approved_ Osteopathic """Doctors""", but we commonly refer to them as faith healers.
reckoner2 10y ago
I finished "Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller" a few nights ago. It's a mammoth of a book and I believe the undisputed most accurate and comprehensive look at his life. I think that what you've written here is incredibly misleading when talking about John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy in particular. It is wrong to imply the Rockefeller's secretly controlled strings in order to make profits from their donations. Time and time again he gave away vast sums of money and did everything in his power to separate himself completely from the donation. His largest fear about donating was that the public would label his donation as tainted money. He wanted no influence over, and never visited with most of the receivers of his donations. His only concern was that institutions should not be wholly dependent on his philanthropy, and work to raise money from other sources as well. The Rockefeller institute for Medical Research is one of the most successful examples of philanthropy ever. And Rockefeller may only be eclipsed by Bill Gates as the greatest philanthropist ever. You can absolutely (and should) criticize his business practices, but Rockefeller literally created the model of what a successful philanthropist should do.
- ravitation 10y ago
  A question out of pure ignorance: the parent comment was speaking on David Rockefeller, did he (David Rockefeller) treat philanthropy in the same way (not just superficially) as his grandfather?
  - reckoner2 10y ago
    I'm ignorant about David Rockefeller as well. And it may be right to criticize David. But the parent comment was actually talking about events related to John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy, not David's. John D. Rockefeller did not pass on his wealth to his Son, let alone his grandson until after the events mentioned. edit: for example: David was not even born when the Flexner report was released.
    - ravitation 10y ago
      I'm not actually sure what the overall point of the parent comment actually is, since he start's with David's timeline and then cites the reduction in medical schools related to Simon and Abraham Flexner, but doesn't actually delve into why Osteopathic medicine survived the medical education reform, or into John D. Rockefeller's support for Osteopathic medicine in general. So, while I see the implication, the parent never actually makes that implication explicit. Either way, I think it's important to separate the actions of the grandson and grandfather.
melling 10y ago
"Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purposes" This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. Now others will need to waste their timé feeding the troll. This really is not a constructive or educational way for people to spend their afternoon.
- teslabox 10y ago
  > This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. There is criticism of the Gates Foundation too: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critiq... David Rockefeller certainly did some good things with his influence. But he was also a globalist, which has had the effect of allowing 1st world companies to replace expensive workers through offshoring. Some people do good work with their foundations. But a lot of it is cover for tax planning.
  - vithlani 10y ago
    Exactly. But try and get a mainstream journalist to write this. Or heck, even research deeply into the tax structures. A tiger does not change its stripes -- it is naive in the extreme to believe that somebody like Gates or Zuckerberg suddenly decided to give all this money away.
macspoofing 10y ago
>Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached.. Why not?
- thrillgore 10y ago
  Greed is a response to insecurity and doubt. They don't want to fear the idea of a life where their exceeds needs aren't met by wealth, so they retain it. This isn't meant to be calling out the "bourgeoisie" to put at best, but there is an emotional response to uncertainty here.
  - macspoofing 10y ago
    You're talking out of your ass, aren't you.
    - thrillgore 10y ago
      This is Hacker News, we all are.
da02 10y ago
There's also the Rockefellar medical drug connection: https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=rockefeller+drugs+medical https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=rockefeller+drugs+med...
teslaberry 10y ago
501c3 were a set of laws lobbied for so that wealthy people coudl give away their money tax free without government taxation of their income or property , thus creating permanent tax haven trusts on domestic shores. these tax havens dwarf anything offshore . they are now a systemically risky part of the economy , at least in so far as the private education industry is tax subsidized and regarded as 'public interest' even though there is nothign public whatsover about the fortunes of the ivy league educational institutions. the 501c3 scheme is about burden shifting taxes to working people, off the shoulders of the ultra wealthy so that they may create tax free institutions for funneling their profits into their projects. 501c3 should be entirely eliminated and churces and other institutions should be required to pay property taxes of all types and be subject to corporate taxes , while income taxes themselves have gotten out of control. for the ultra wealthy, tax simplification means they don't get to burden shift their taxes. it also means they, and everyone else in the workding classes would pay less taxes overall. it also means a whole lot of institutions would go bankrupt and in the wake of their collapse, one would see what social activity would be supported by the 'natural' amount of social organzing and donation. as it is-----the middle classes are being forced to support these instutions via the burden of their taxation. social security taxation itself a payroll tax is capped at 100k dollars of income. and this accounts for nearly a third of all taxes collected by the federal taxes. these taxes are not a form of pension, they are a form of working labor tax that raisies the cost of labor to employers while scalping a significant marginal fraction of food from the mouths of the working and even professional classes.

johansch 10y ago

> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flagship company, Standard Oil, was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but Rockefeller’s greatest legacy – his family – lives on, spanning more than 200 surviving individuals and possessing a collective net worth of about $10 billion" $900M out of $10B is 9%. Myself, living in Europe, I'm quite convinced I have paid a much higher percentage of my income than this towards state-governed philantrophy. Where's my trophy?

habitue 10y ago
> spanning more than 200 surviving individuals > collective net worth of about $10 billion You are taking his individual contribution as a percentage of the combined net worth of 200 individuals.
dsacco 10y ago
They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income. Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you think he should have donated more?
- johansch 10y ago
  No, I prefer just to point out the hypocrisy surrounding getting acclaims for "philantrophy" in the US. Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical European country.
  - evgen 10y ago
    Then you should make yourself aware of the regular taxation laws in force at the time those fortunes were amassed. The difference I guess is that in the US the rich give away most of their money (often for favorable tax treatment on the remainder of their estate) and in Europe they just pass it along to their children to maintain the nominal level of Eurotrash the world seems to require. </s>
    - johansch 10y ago
      I wasn't claiming rich Europeans are any better. :) I'm simply claiming that this insanely rich american guy a) percentage-wise gave away quite a bit less of his fortune than e.g. myself has given away in taxes/wealth-distribution in Sweden. b) get's to be called a "philantrophist".
      - brandonmenc 10y ago

intended 10y ago

>When Flexner researched his report, many American medical schools were "proprietary", namely small trade schools owned by one or more doctors, unaffiliated with a college or university, and run to make a profit. A degree was typically awarded after only two years of study. Laboratory work and dissection were not necessarily required. Many of the instructors were local doctors teaching part-time, whose own training left something to be desired. The regulation of the medical profession by state governments was minimal or nonexistent. American doctors varied enormously in their scientific understanding of human physiology, and the word "quack" flourished. Interesting Wikipedia article. And as I recall, the issue with medical colleges is more the residency, than the exams isn't it? I mean, that's why we trust doctors, because the bar is that high.

nojvek 10y ago
Is the bar really high though? I find doctors in US for common procedures use outdated methods and charge astronomical fees. My experience of going to Australian hospitals was 10x better. In US it feels like doctors want to get as much money as they can from you while proving the lowest level of service possible. A very capitalist view to human life.
- kbenson 10y ago
  You might be interested in a Freakonomics episode[1] that covers this to some degree. There's a wide range in care based on many factors, but unless you have quite a bit of experience in the healthcare industry in both countries, for similar ailments, I'm not sure what you experienced falls outside the normal variation for the field. The TL;DL is that the medical field changes quite a bit in the years since Docters graduate, and depending on the types of work they are doing, it seems to be fairly easy for them to get behind with the latest consensus unless they make a concerted effort. To that effect, relatively new doctors often have better patient health outcomes than doctors that have been out of school for longer. This is, to some degree, obvious after stated, as any field that sees rapid change will have some percentage of practitioners that are out of date. 1: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-3-death-diagnosis/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-3-death-di...

kolanos 10y ago

Relevant video on the influence the Rockefeller family has on modern first-world healthcare systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw

hkmurakami 10y ago

In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similarly, people have visions for how the world should be. The young and of-less-means tend to give their time, engaging in grassroots efforts or marches. The old and rich tend to give their money. Both use their resources to shape the world towards what they believe in. Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it.

reckoner2 10y ago
In addition to this, there really is an almost fetish-like following behind the ideas that the Rockefeller's in particular secretly 'rule' or 'ruin' the world. John D. Rockefeller Sr. stated many times that he believed that it was God's plan for him to: (paraphrasing) 1) Acquire as mush wealth as he could through business. 2) Donate this money to help humanity in the best ways possible. And he did exactly that. And he did better than anyone else ever has. He didn't do much else. The Rockefeller's are fascinating people, but I think most of us would be surprised as to how little of the 'world-dominating' stuff is true. It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but "Titan: The Life Of John D. Rockefeller" goes into incredible detail on the family. You may not leave with a nice picture of the family, but definitely a different one than some of the comments in this thread. A lot of the private journals and business documents have actually been released to the public and it makes for a fascinating read.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kingmanaz 10y ago
>Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it. People by default seem to put their faith in a works-based salvation, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Catholicism, many-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy benefactors or societies, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory. Lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. Likewise, the works-based religion of today's Soroses, Rothschilds, and Rockefellers, while on the surface resembling the myopically raceless utopia of Star Trek, will likely violently unravel as has most movements led by uncritical men convinced of their own ability to earn salvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

valarauca1 10y ago

thereby making sure that there's always been a shortage of doctors [2] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report I'm sorry but I prefer the people operating one me are part of a well regulated profession guided by scientific research. The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to medicine. Yeah because Blood Letting, Leaches, Heroin, Electro-Shock, and Drinking Mercury were _so good_ for your health. Turn of the last century Osteopathy is the stuff of Nightmares. Today D.O.s are more likely to take up Primary Care, where doctors take time to get to know their patients and figure out what's actually causing their complaints Modern D.O.'s aren't _exactly_ descended from Osteopathic of the 1870-1900's. Really in philosophy only. The only real relation is that the "Philosphy" of Osteopathy is the body will try to heal itself, and medicine should compliment this... Not be the only process by-which the body can. Modern D.O.'s following the training and principles laid out in the Flexner Report. Their decisions are still based on research. There are _non-approved_ Osteopathic """Doctors""", but we commonly refer to them as faith healers.

reckoner2 10y ago

I finished "Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller" a few nights ago. It's a mammoth of a book and I believe the undisputed most accurate and comprehensive look at his life. I think that what you've written here is incredibly misleading when talking about John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy in particular. It is wrong to imply the Rockefeller's secretly controlled strings in order to make profits from their donations. Time and time again he gave away vast sums of money and did everything in his power to separate himself completely from the donation. His largest fear about donating was that the public would label his donation as tainted money. He wanted no influence over, and never visited with most of the receivers of his donations. His only concern was that institutions should not be wholly dependent on his philanthropy, and work to raise money from other sources as well. The Rockefeller institute for Medical Research is one of the most successful examples of philanthropy ever. And Rockefeller may only be eclipsed by Bill Gates as the greatest philanthropist ever. You can absolutely (and should) criticize his business practices, but Rockefeller literally created the model of what a successful philanthropist should do.

ravitation 10y ago
A question out of pure ignorance: the parent comment was speaking on David Rockefeller, did he (David Rockefeller) treat philanthropy in the same way (not just superficially) as his grandfather?
- reckoner2 10y ago
  I'm ignorant about David Rockefeller as well. And it may be right to criticize David. But the parent comment was actually talking about events related to John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy, not David's. John D. Rockefeller did not pass on his wealth to his Son, let alone his grandson until after the events mentioned. edit: for example: David was not even born when the Flexner report was released.
  - ravitation 10y ago
    I'm not actually sure what the overall point of the parent comment actually is, since he start's with David's timeline and then cites the reduction in medical schools related to Simon and Abraham Flexner, but doesn't actually delve into why Osteopathic medicine survived the medical education reform, or into John D. Rockefeller's support for Osteopathic medicine in general. So, while I see the implication, the parent never actually makes that implication explicit. Either way, I think it's important to separate the actions of the grandson and grandfather.

melling 10y ago

"Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purposes" This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. Now others will need to waste their timé feeding the troll. This really is not a constructive or educational way for people to spend their afternoon.

teslabox 10y ago
> This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. There is criticism of the Gates Foundation too: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critiq... David Rockefeller certainly did some good things with his influence. But he was also a globalist, which has had the effect of allowing 1st world companies to replace expensive workers through offshoring. Some people do good work with their foundations. But a lot of it is cover for tax planning.
- vithlani 10y ago
  Exactly. But try and get a mainstream journalist to write this. Or heck, even research deeply into the tax structures. A tiger does not change its stripes -- it is naive in the extreme to believe that somebody like Gates or Zuckerberg suddenly decided to give all this money away.

macspoofing 10y ago

>Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached.. Why not?

thrillgore 10y ago
Greed is a response to insecurity and doubt. They don't want to fear the idea of a life where their exceeds needs aren't met by wealth, so they retain it. This isn't meant to be calling out the "bourgeoisie" to put at best, but there is an emotional response to uncertainty here.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  You're talking out of your ass, aren't you.
  - thrillgore 10y ago
    This is Hacker News, we all are.

da02 10y ago

There's also the Rockefellar medical drug connection: https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=rockefeller+drugs+medical https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=rockefeller+drugs+med...

teslaberry 10y ago

501c3 were a set of laws lobbied for so that wealthy people coudl give away their money tax free without government taxation of their income or property , thus creating permanent tax haven trusts on domestic shores. these tax havens dwarf anything offshore . they are now a systemically risky part of the economy , at least in so far as the private education industry is tax subsidized and regarded as 'public interest' even though there is nothign public whatsover about the fortunes of the ivy league educational institutions. the 501c3 scheme is about burden shifting taxes to working people, off the shoulders of the ultra wealthy so that they may create tax free institutions for funneling their profits into their projects. 501c3 should be entirely eliminated and churces and other institutions should be required to pay property taxes of all types and be subject to corporate taxes , while income taxes themselves have gotten out of control. for the ultra wealthy, tax simplification means they don't get to burden shift their taxes. it also means they, and everyone else in the workding classes would pay less taxes overall. it also means a whole lot of institutions would go bankrupt and in the wake of their collapse, one would see what social activity would be supported by the 'natural' amount of social organzing and donation. as it is-----the middle classes are being forced to support these instutions via the burden of their taxation. social security taxation itself a payroll tax is capped at 100k dollars of income. and this accounts for nearly a third of all taxes collected by the federal taxes. these taxes are not a form of pension, they are a form of working labor tax that raisies the cost of labor to employers while scalping a significant marginal fraction of food from the mouths of the working and even professional classes.