4 ms·

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 l

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
    The difference is that the money was given away willingly, was personally directed to beneficial causes, and was orders of magnitude more than you have "donated." You're not doing the same thing - and, while we can debate how the meaning of the word "philanthropist" has changed, this is the widely understood modern definition.
kelnos 10y ago
Depending on tax law throughout his life, and his ability to find loopholes, that $900M was _on top of_ what he paid in tax. So unless you have evidence that he paid no or very low taxes, what you're saying just doesn't hold water. Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M to David Rockefeller's net worth, not that and all his very-extended family.
- johansch 10y ago
  Anyone in the US is paying very low taxes compared to what "high-income" tax payers pay in e.g. Scandinavian countries like Sweden. The treshold for "high income" is (simplified) at about $80k per year. Stock option profits are taxed as income as well. (In Sweden we also have to pay social security fees on our stock option profits - the end result typically being at least a 62% taxation level on that income.).
  - kelnos 10y ago
    Gotcha. I still don't see any evidence for what you're saying, though. What was David Rockefeller's income during the period he worked and gave money to charitable causes? If you want to look at it mathematically: income * (tax rate + giving rate) = "total given" Obviously you have two important variables there that determine what the total percent of income ends up being. I don't see any evidence that the parenthetical totals above are less or greater than each other when you consider your average European vs. Rockefeller, so you can't really say anything about how much he gave out of his income in comparison to your average European. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but you automatically assuming it's less is a bit disingenuous. There's also the question of required vs. optional. If your average European had a tax rate similar to an American, would they then (on average) give the "savings" away as philanthropy? My guess would be it'd end up somewhere in the middle. Philanthropy is only philanthropy if it's voluntary and isn't forced by your government. That's pretty much its definition.
geezerjay 10y ago
> 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. You're somehow confusing money that someone intentionally gave away to philanthropic causes with money that a state takes away forcefully from anyone's income, as if everyone would wilfully give it away to charitable causes even if the state didn't took it from them, and also somehow assuming that Americans don't pay taxes as well. Tell me, when was the last time you gave away over 10% of your income to philanthropic causes?

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
  The difference is that the money was given away willingly, was personally directed to beneficial causes, and was orders of magnitude more than you have "donated." You're not doing the same thing - and, while we can debate how the meaning of the word "philanthropist" has changed, this is the widely understood modern definition.

kelnos 10y ago

Depending on tax law throughout his life, and his ability to find loopholes, that $900M was _on top of_ what he paid in tax. So unless you have evidence that he paid no or very low taxes, what you're saying just doesn't hold water. Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M to David Rockefeller's net worth, not that and all his very-extended family.

johansch 10y ago
Anyone in the US is paying very low taxes compared to what "high-income" tax payers pay in e.g. Scandinavian countries like Sweden. The treshold for "high income" is (simplified) at about $80k per year. Stock option profits are taxed as income as well. (In Sweden we also have to pay social security fees on our stock option profits - the end result typically being at least a 62% taxation level on that income.).
- kelnos 10y ago
  Gotcha. I still don't see any evidence for what you're saying, though. What was David Rockefeller's income during the period he worked and gave money to charitable causes? If you want to look at it mathematically: income * (tax rate + giving rate) = "total given" Obviously you have two important variables there that determine what the total percent of income ends up being. I don't see any evidence that the parenthetical totals above are less or greater than each other when you consider your average European vs. Rockefeller, so you can't really say anything about how much he gave out of his income in comparison to your average European. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but you automatically assuming it's less is a bit disingenuous. There's also the question of required vs. optional. If your average European had a tax rate similar to an American, would they then (on average) give the "savings" away as philanthropy? My guess would be it'd end up somewhere in the middle. Philanthropy is only philanthropy if it's voluntary and isn't forced by your government. That's pretty much its definition.

geezerjay 10y ago

> 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. You're somehow confusing money that someone intentionally gave away to philanthropic causes with money that a state takes away forcefully from anyone's income, as if everyone would wilfully give it away to charitable causes even if the state didn't took it from them, and also somehow assuming that Americans don't pay taxes as well. Tell me, when was the last time you gave away over 10% of your income to philanthropic causes?