4 ms·

WHY are you forcing your philosophy of "wealth should be used for the public good" on billionaires. If they accumulated wealth in a legal fashion, they aren't b

WHY are you forcing your philosophy of "wealth should be used for the public good" on billionaires. If they accumulated wealth in a legal fashion, they aren't beholden to doing ANY public good. On the contrary, of you requested billionaires to NOT cause harm by using their disproportionate wealth, that'd be a sound argument. For instance, Gawker's takeover by Thiel seems to border on the illegal.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
wasnt forcing my philosophy, just voicing my suspicion that its probably sub optimal to have billionaires if you are trying to maximize the greater good. not saying thats what you necessarily should do, though i do personally think that.
- mankash666 9y ago
  What greater good do you speak of? Regardless of how repugnant you find Theil, his investments have led to thousands of great paying jobs directly, and probably tens of thousands of indirect jobs. That my friend, is a great service to society. What you are suggesting is an ultra high tax rate on the wealthy and that's proven over and over to not work out. Italy, France and Spain for instance, have a pivoted to a socialistic society that punishingly taxes the rich to the point of driving the ambitious and successful out of the country. While these countries produced some of the most iconic companies and individuals in the early 1900s, it's no coincidence that a Google, Microsoft, etc hasn't emerged from there. The world's richest man (adjusted for inflation), Bill Gates has donated over $18B in philanthropy. His management of money that can potentially help the needy has been far superior to any elected political figure or government organisation. Don't enable politicians with power over (your) tax money, their only aim is to get reelected - not to serve society. Enables another Bill Gates it Zuckerberg, who've both pledged 99% of their wealth to charity. Heck, enable a Peter Theil to fund the next Facebook and create billions in wealth, jobs and taxes.
  - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    mate... look at the tax rates in america over the last 100 years. also, you still arent engaging with my argument, you are having a trite conversation with yourself about “socialism vs capitalism”. id also encourage you to stop thinking of “jobs” as universally good, and think about what the jobs actually do
    - mankash666 9y ago
      I think we've both made our cases. You believe increased taxation of the rich to be a social good. I don't believe taking more money as a percentage of income from the wealthy is fair. Also do not believe it actually helps the needy - it only empowers politicians who ultimately have dominion over how they get to spend said tax money.
emodendroket 9y ago
Some of us might say there is a moral challenge posed by a society where some of us are homeless, skip meals, or go without medical care, while others have so much money that they could spend a billion dollars on complete frivolities every year until dying and still have a tremendous estate left over. It's hard to see what you think is a logical fallacy here; it seems you simply reject the moral proposition underlying the argument.
- mankash666 9y ago
  You go from "this argument is based on logic" to "here's a moral stance regardless of logic". What you're proposing - an uber socialistic/communistic society has been proven again and again to not work out. Unless you consider maoist China and Soviet Russia (USSR) to be models you'd like to emulate, ethical capitalism is the only moral system that truly helps those who want to help themselves. Then there's the whole concept of community. The Mormon church, for instance, raises more in charity than the net worth of many billionaires. If you truly want to help the poor, enable them to help themselves. Or, collectively raise enough for charity, like the Mormon church. Taxing the fuck out of people, and enabling a lobbied-to-death politician to spend the said tax on any whimsical thing has NEVER worked out in history.
  - mankash666 9y ago
    TLDR - no one's stoppig you or any other non-billionaire from pledging 10% of your income, banding together and funding whatever program you want to. My guess is you've never really been active philanthropically, but, you feel entitled to take away Theil's money on taxes, though he earned his money in the exact same fashion as you earn yours. You've convinced yourself of false morality where punitively taxing the wealthy is completely ok
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Peter Thiel does not earn his money "in the exact same fashion" as me since my income, like most people, is almost entirely constituted of wages.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

wasnt forcing my philosophy, just voicing my suspicion that its probably sub optimal to have billionaires if you are trying to maximize the greater good. not saying thats what you necessarily should do, though i do personally think that.

mankash666 9y ago
What greater good do you speak of? Regardless of how repugnant you find Theil, his investments have led to thousands of great paying jobs directly, and probably tens of thousands of indirect jobs. That my friend, is a great service to society. What you are suggesting is an ultra high tax rate on the wealthy and that's proven over and over to not work out. Italy, France and Spain for instance, have a pivoted to a socialistic society that punishingly taxes the rich to the point of driving the ambitious and successful out of the country. While these countries produced some of the most iconic companies and individuals in the early 1900s, it's no coincidence that a Google, Microsoft, etc hasn't emerged from there. The world's richest man (adjusted for inflation), Bill Gates has donated over $18B in philanthropy. His management of money that can potentially help the needy has been far superior to any elected political figure or government organisation. Don't enable politicians with power over (your) tax money, their only aim is to get reelected - not to serve society. Enables another Bill Gates it Zuckerberg, who've both pledged 99% of their wealth to charity. Heck, enable a Peter Theil to fund the next Facebook and create billions in wealth, jobs and taxes.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  mate... look at the tax rates in america over the last 100 years. also, you still arent engaging with my argument, you are having a trite conversation with yourself about “socialism vs capitalism”. id also encourage you to stop thinking of “jobs” as universally good, and think about what the jobs actually do
  - mankash666 9y ago
    I think we've both made our cases. You believe increased taxation of the rich to be a social good. I don't believe taking more money as a percentage of income from the wealthy is fair. Also do not believe it actually helps the needy - it only empowers politicians who ultimately have dominion over how they get to spend said tax money.

emodendroket 9y ago

Some of us might say there is a moral challenge posed by a society where some of us are homeless, skip meals, or go without medical care, while others have so much money that they could spend a billion dollars on complete frivolities every year until dying and still have a tremendous estate left over. It's hard to see what you think is a logical fallacy here; it seems you simply reject the moral proposition underlying the argument.

mankash666 9y ago
You go from "this argument is based on logic" to "here's a moral stance regardless of logic". What you're proposing - an uber socialistic/communistic society has been proven again and again to not work out. Unless you consider maoist China and Soviet Russia (USSR) to be models you'd like to emulate, ethical capitalism is the only moral system that truly helps those who want to help themselves. Then there's the whole concept of community. The Mormon church, for instance, raises more in charity than the net worth of many billionaires. If you truly want to help the poor, enable them to help themselves. Or, collectively raise enough for charity, like the Mormon church. Taxing the fuck out of people, and enabling a lobbied-to-death politician to spend the said tax on any whimsical thing has NEVER worked out in history.
- mankash666 9y ago
  TLDR - no one's stoppig you or any other non-billionaire from pledging 10% of your income, banding together and funding whatever program you want to. My guess is you've never really been active philanthropically, but, you feel entitled to take away Theil's money on taxes, though he earned his money in the exact same fashion as you earn yours. You've convinced yourself of false morality where punitively taxing the wealthy is completely ok
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Peter Thiel does not earn his money "in the exact same fashion" as me since my income, like most people, is almost entirely constituted of wages.