5 ms·

If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich, publicly-finance political campaigns, comm

If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich, publicly-finance political campaigns, commit to real climate change policy, enact single-payer healthcare and address broken justice and mental healthcare systems with reform and compassion of investing in citizens and the public commonwealth. Sure his giving some capital to B&MGF seems like a noble deed, but it doesn't go far enough to change the world for the better in desperately vital ways given his assets, influence and capabilities. Buffett might live in a tiny house in Nebraska and try to seem a "good guy," but actions ultimately speak louder than words. That might seem harsh/entitled/demanding but a few people like him control trillions of dollars and the politics of many countries (which is also partly our fault for not opposing these conditions and demanding a fairer division of profits/labor/representation.), he's in a much better position to act instead of "standing around" as if he's stuck in an economic "bystander effect."

golergka 9y ago
> If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich Why the talk about "equality" always comes down to forcibly taking other people's money?
- linschn 9y ago
  I'll bite. Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism. The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there. If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...) Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.". So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society. Taxation is (or should be) such a shame. Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.
  - Baeocystin 9y ago
    I think you have salient points. That said, did you mean shame? Or scheme?
    - linschn 9y ago
      I meant scheme, as in mechanism, or process, thank you :) I can't edit the original post now.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Your logic is based on the assumption that > and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large which has nothing to do with "liberty" - it's about "efficiency" or may be "equality" (of outcomes), but not "liberty" in any way. (Also, there's a lot of valid criticism of Picketty that his supporters usually choose to completely ignore, but that's not the point of the argument anyway).
    - linschn 9y ago
      I don't understand your point about liberty. I did not talk about liberty. Could you please clarify ? As for Picketty, the only serious criticism I'm aware of had to do with his explanation about why wealth begets wealth, not on the fact that there is a preferential accretion mechanism for wealth inherent to capitalism. If you have any source or example where capital holders do not increase their share faster than non capital holders (say, e.g. workers) then I'd be happy to know about it.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Except that huge inequalities exist in socialistic economies as well, and capitalism means the middle class of today live as well or better than the richest people in the world did in the 1920s.
    - linschn 9y ago
      I am not advocating switching to a planned economy. I'm just pointing out that any capitalistic system has a tendency to concentrate wealth. I even acknowledge that the poor are getting richer. The problem is just that they are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich, and unless this problem is addressed through taxation, then it will lead to economic stagnation or worse.
- PostOnce 9y ago
  If you work, you pay a load of tax, but if your income isn't primarily from salary or wages, you pay less through a variety of circumstances set up specifically to give you even greater advantages than being rich alone would provide. So now you're rich AND tax advantaged over the poor. A double whammy. So the idea is that money creates even greater inequality, if you're born with money you have opportunities that poor people will never get even if they work their whole lives... because they're working. They'll never have the capital to exit that stage. The point of "equality" meaning to make taxation on the rich more equal (or as you put it "taking their money") is so that everyone has an opportunity, not so that everyone has the same amount of money. Further, in addition to there being advantages set up for the rich, we have built DISADVANTAGES into the system for the poor. A 100k job comes with medical insurance, but a min wage job does not. Minimum wage should mean the minimum needed to survive, not less. Not having to worry about medicine or a second job means you can spend some time working towards other opportunities.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > you pay less through a variety of circumstances set up specifically to give you even greater advantages than being rich alone would provide The reason for that is not because "evil rich control Congress". It's because capital is much more mobile than labour and can move from one country to another much easier. > is so that everyone has an opportunity Opportunity at what point? When does the starting gun fire? Birth? But that would only explain the inheritance tax. If me and you start from the similar families and backgrounds, why should I give my money to you if I'm more successful - didn't we have equal opportunity? Of course, people usually differ in their background. But this inequality comes from the greatest discrimination of all - all people in the world discriminating against people who're not their children or family. As long as this discrimination is allowed to exist, you _will_ have this sort of problems - and _equality_ of each individual's opportunity will always be at odds with his _liberty_ to pass over his resources (money, influence, relationships, status, education and intelligence) to his offspring. And people value this liberty to practice this particular discrimination very, very, very much. How do you define a boundary at which those two competing ideas should meet?
    - 9y ago

golergka 9y ago

> If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich Why the talk about "equality" always comes down to forcibly taking other people's money?

linschn 9y ago
I'll bite. Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism. The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there. If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...) Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.". So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society. Taxation is (or should be) such a shame. Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.
- Baeocystin 9y ago
  I think you have salient points. That said, did you mean shame? Or scheme?
  - linschn 9y ago
    I meant scheme, as in mechanism, or process, thank you :) I can't edit the original post now.
- golergka 9y ago
  Your logic is based on the assumption that > and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large which has nothing to do with "liberty" - it's about "efficiency" or may be "equality" (of outcomes), but not "liberty" in any way. (Also, there's a lot of valid criticism of Picketty that his supporters usually choose to completely ignore, but that's not the point of the argument anyway).
  - linschn 9y ago
    I don't understand your point about liberty. I did not talk about liberty. Could you please clarify ? As for Picketty, the only serious criticism I'm aware of had to do with his explanation about why wealth begets wealth, not on the fact that there is a preferential accretion mechanism for wealth inherent to capitalism. If you have any source or example where capital holders do not increase their share faster than non capital holders (say, e.g. workers) then I'd be happy to know about it.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Except that huge inequalities exist in socialistic economies as well, and capitalism means the middle class of today live as well or better than the richest people in the world did in the 1920s.
  - linschn 9y ago
    I am not advocating switching to a planned economy. I'm just pointing out that any capitalistic system has a tendency to concentrate wealth. I even acknowledge that the poor are getting richer. The problem is just that they are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich, and unless this problem is addressed through taxation, then it will lead to economic stagnation or worse.
PostOnce 9y ago
If you work, you pay a load of tax, but if your income isn't primarily from salary or wages, you pay less through a variety of circumstances set up specifically to give you even greater advantages than being rich alone would provide. So now you're rich AND tax advantaged over the poor. A double whammy. So the idea is that money creates even greater inequality, if you're born with money you have opportunities that poor people will never get even if they work their whole lives... because they're working. They'll never have the capital to exit that stage. The point of "equality" meaning to make taxation on the rich more equal (or as you put it "taking their money") is so that everyone has an opportunity, not so that everyone has the same amount of money. Further, in addition to there being advantages set up for the rich, we have built DISADVANTAGES into the system for the poor. A 100k job comes with medical insurance, but a min wage job does not. Minimum wage should mean the minimum needed to survive, not less. Not having to worry about medicine or a second job means you can spend some time working towards other opportunities.
- golergka 9y ago
  > you pay less through a variety of circumstances set up specifically to give you even greater advantages than being rich alone would provide The reason for that is not because "evil rich control Congress". It's because capital is much more mobile than labour and can move from one country to another much easier. > is so that everyone has an opportunity Opportunity at what point? When does the starting gun fire? Birth? But that would only explain the inheritance tax. If me and you start from the similar families and backgrounds, why should I give my money to you if I'm more successful - didn't we have equal opportunity? Of course, people usually differ in their background. But this inequality comes from the greatest discrimination of all - all people in the world discriminating against people who're not their children or family. As long as this discrimination is allowed to exist, you _will_ have this sort of problems - and _equality_ of each individual's opportunity will always be at odds with his _liberty_ to pass over his resources (money, influence, relationships, status, education and intelligence) to his offspring. And people value this liberty to practice this particular discrimination very, very, very much. How do you define a boundary at which those two competing ideas should meet?
  - 9y ago