6 ms·

I've seen people calling him out the use of the word "sanctuary" and suggesting that this is really just sanctuary for taxes, not bees. As a pre-emptive counte

I've seen people calling him out the use of the word "sanctuary" and suggesting that this is really just sanctuary for taxes, not bees. As a pre-emptive counterargument, there's nothing saying that all 124 acres of his ranch can or should host bees. There are tons of arguments for not wanting the hives near the house, other outbuildings, or anywhere animals are kept, for example. It may be that only 26 acres or so (assuming a 1:1 hive:acreage ratio) have flowering plants etc. that are hospitable to bees, even.

weego 8y ago
I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing
- Radim 8y ago
  The typical argument is that "tax incentives", whether positive or negative, ultimately come from other people's hard work and money. And those people may not agree with you (the benevolent distributor of incentives) on what "good outcomes" are. TL;DR: People have their own, often highly idiosyncratic ideas about what's worthwhile and how they want to spend their money.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    >And those people may not agree with you (the benevolent distributor of incentives) I was under the impression that in a democracy there was no single BDFL.
    - Radim 8y ago
      And how does that change the explanation, "People have their own, often highly idiosyncratic ideas about what's worthwhile and how they want to spend their money.", one way or another?
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Because it can easily be corrupted since you can’t define “good outcome”, and it’s impossible to prosecute quid pro quo for a wink and nod deal since there isn’t sufficient evidence. In a democracy, the government exists to provide a set of services agreed upon by the people for the benefit of all the people, many times via their elected representatives. Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those expenses don’t disappear because someone decided to donate something. If you want tax dollars to support a cause, then vote for it. And there’s no reason tax deductions should be given to support your own little tribe.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those expenses don’t disappear because someone decided to donate something. They also wouldn't disappear if Morgan Freeman had decided to volunteer his labor for a foundation for free - thereby not earning any taxable income - yet the State would have to work it out. In this case, the labor donation was just done indirectly.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      The point is that you can't tell if it was a donation, or if it was something else. Just like a donation to a certain non profit organization isn't just a donation, but buying votes, or in exchange for some other favor. The incentive to donate should be wanting to donate, there doesn't need to be anything on top of that from the government.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        You can't tell if unpaid volunteer work is a donation either, yet it's not taxed.
  - peteradio 8y ago
    Wasn't this voted on? There must be some existing program he is enrolling into. That didn't come from nothing, it would have been developed and voted on by elected representatives.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  Maybe, in this scenario, if there were a tax on the insecticides that are killing off the bees in the first place, I would be more excited. Instead we have insecticides being made for profit killing bees, and I’m paying for the privilege as a spectator.
raubtier 8y ago
Well, Freeman seems to be a nice guy, maybe he doesn't want to contribute more than necessary to bombing third-world countries.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I remember a similar item about Bruce Springsteen calling his mansion a farm (to get lower tax rates.) The stories about Springsteen seemed credible. I hope Morgan Freeman is on the level, though.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  Michael Dell has a 'nature preserve' for deer that just so happens to be the few hundred acres surrounding his house. This of course qualifies for the agriculture exemption on Texas property taxes, so a piece of property that he spent $70M purchasing is paying taxes as if it's worth $290,000. Quite the system we have when the public subsidizes people like Michael Dell for $1m/year on this property alone: https://www.thenation.com/article/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-provide-massive-tax-shelter/ https://www.thenation.com/article/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-p...

weego 8y ago

I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing

Radim 8y ago
The typical argument is that "tax incentives", whether positive or negative, ultimately come from other people's hard work and money. And those people may not agree with you (the benevolent distributor of incentives) on what "good outcomes" are. TL;DR: People have their own, often highly idiosyncratic ideas about what's worthwhile and how they want to spend their money.
- andrepd 8y ago
  >And those people may not agree with you (the benevolent distributor of incentives) I was under the impression that in a democracy there was no single BDFL.
  - Radim 8y ago
    And how does that change the explanation, "People have their own, often highly idiosyncratic ideas about what's worthwhile and how they want to spend their money.", one way or another?
lotsofpulp 8y ago
Because it can easily be corrupted since you can’t define “good outcome”, and it’s impossible to prosecute quid pro quo for a wink and nod deal since there isn’t sufficient evidence. In a democracy, the government exists to provide a set of services agreed upon by the people for the benefit of all the people, many times via their elected representatives. Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those expenses don’t disappear because someone decided to donate something. If you want tax dollars to support a cause, then vote for it. And there’s no reason tax deductions should be given to support your own little tribe.
- icebraining 8y ago
  > Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those expenses don’t disappear because someone decided to donate something. They also wouldn't disappear if Morgan Freeman had decided to volunteer his labor for a foundation for free - thereby not earning any taxable income - yet the State would have to work it out. In this case, the labor donation was just done indirectly.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    The point is that you can't tell if it was a donation, or if it was something else. Just like a donation to a certain non profit organization isn't just a donation, but buying votes, or in exchange for some other favor. The incentive to donate should be wanting to donate, there doesn't need to be anything on top of that from the government.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You can't tell if unpaid volunteer work is a donation either, yet it's not taxed.
- peteradio 8y ago
  Wasn't this voted on? There must be some existing program he is enrolling into. That didn't come from nothing, it would have been developed and voted on by elected representatives.
ethagknight 8y ago
Maybe, in this scenario, if there were a tax on the insecticides that are killing off the bees in the first place, I would be more excited. Instead we have insecticides being made for profit killing bees, and I’m paying for the privilege as a spectator.

raubtier 8y ago

Well, Freeman seems to be a nice guy, maybe he doesn't want to contribute more than necessary to bombing third-world countries.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I remember a similar item about Bruce Springsteen calling his mansion a farm (to get lower tax rates.) The stories about Springsteen seemed credible. I hope Morgan Freeman is on the level, though.

mikeyouse 8y ago
Michael Dell has a 'nature preserve' for deer that just so happens to be the few hundred acres surrounding his house. This of course qualifies for the agriculture exemption on Texas property taxes, so a piece of property that he spent $70M purchasing is paying taxes as if it's worth $290,000. Quite the system we have when the public subsidizes people like Michael Dell for $1m/year on this property alone: https://www.thenation.com/article/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-provide-massive-tax-shelter/ https://www.thenation.com/article/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-p...