4 ms·

One person should not choose where and to what social services need funding. That's why we have government and not kings and queens.

kowdermeister 8y ago
So we should put a gap on wealth and redistribute it beyond that in a fair way?
- onion2k 8y ago
  Yes. And we do exactly that through taxation. A portion of Jeff Bezos' fortune is derived from Amazon's ability to increase it's profits by (legal, and arguably justifiable) tax avoidance. That's part of global business these days, but it's not unreasonable for people in regions where Amazon minimizes it's tax costs to say Bezos is doing something bad for them.
  - point78 8y ago
    You mean how Amazon is being sued for hundreds of millions in the EU for dodging taxes? And the US is probably the worst example in the western world on how taxation should work. Case in point is this ridiculous idea that what Bezos is doing here should be applauded and not fixed for being broken.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    > arguably justifiable Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?
    - onion2k 8y ago
      How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy? The defence is more about remaining competitive in a global market than anything to do with how the owners spend their fortunes.
    - ti_ranger 8y ago
      > Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy? One topic (tax avoidance) is by one entity (AMZN) who has obligations and responsibilities towards shareholders (including most employees), where the other is by a different entity (Jeff Bezos) using his own wealth (that resulted from AMZN). Jeff Bezos can't use AMZN assets as he sees fit, otherwise the SEC will investigate him, but he can do so with his own assets. If you want the behaviour of companies to change, you need to have your politicians use their powers to do the right things ... Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism ...
      - lucideer 8y ago
        > Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism I completely agree in terms of how to practically go about fixing the problems, but we're not discussing that here. You're right that broken democracy fails to limit capitalism; this allows people without moral limits to exploit, and make large gains from said exploitation. And you're right that fixing that system is what's needed. But lauding those who have exploited that absence of limits, for their apparent morals, is what's being discussed in this thread.
Silhouette 8y ago
One person should not choose where and to what social services need funding. That's why we have government and not kings and queens. I think that would be a more compelling argument if our governments had a stronger democratic mandate and our political systems offered the people genuine choices in how money was being spent on their behalf. Looking at what's been happening in places like the US and UK recently, I'm not sure it's the best time to be arguing for big government and redistribution of wealth as a vehicle for social responsibility.
- point78 8y ago
  US and UK should be using other governments as examples that get it right. The answer to your problem is most definitely not to reduce taxes and Let billionares decide what goes where.

kowdermeister 8y ago

So we should put a gap on wealth and redistribute it beyond that in a fair way?

onion2k 8y ago
Yes. And we do exactly that through taxation. A portion of Jeff Bezos' fortune is derived from Amazon's ability to increase it's profits by (legal, and arguably justifiable) tax avoidance. That's part of global business these days, but it's not unreasonable for people in regions where Amazon minimizes it's tax costs to say Bezos is doing something bad for them.
- point78 8y ago
  You mean how Amazon is being sued for hundreds of millions in the EU for dodging taxes? And the US is probably the worst example in the western world on how taxation should work. Case in point is this ridiculous idea that what Bezos is doing here should be applauded and not fixed for being broken.
- lucideer 8y ago
  > arguably justifiable Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?
  - onion2k 8y ago
    How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy? The defence is more about remaining competitive in a global market than anything to do with how the owners spend their fortunes.
  - ti_ranger 8y ago
    > Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy? One topic (tax avoidance) is by one entity (AMZN) who has obligations and responsibilities towards shareholders (including most employees), where the other is by a different entity (Jeff Bezos) using his own wealth (that resulted from AMZN). Jeff Bezos can't use AMZN assets as he sees fit, otherwise the SEC will investigate him, but he can do so with his own assets. If you want the behaviour of companies to change, you need to have your politicians use their powers to do the right things ... Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism ...
    - lucideer 8y ago
      > Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism I completely agree in terms of how to practically go about fixing the problems, but we're not discussing that here. You're right that broken democracy fails to limit capitalism; this allows people without moral limits to exploit, and make large gains from said exploitation. And you're right that fixing that system is what's needed. But lauding those who have exploited that absence of limits, for their apparent morals, is what's being discussed in this thread.

Silhouette 8y ago

One person should not choose where and to what social services need funding. That's why we have government and not kings and queens. I think that would be a more compelling argument if our governments had a stronger democratic mandate and our political systems offered the people genuine choices in how money was being spent on their behalf. Looking at what's been happening in places like the US and UK recently, I'm not sure it's the best time to be arguing for big government and redistribution of wealth as a vehicle for social responsibility.

point78 8y ago
US and UK should be using other governments as examples that get it right. The answer to your problem is most definitely not to reduce taxes and Let billionares decide what goes where.