4 ms·

We (as US taxpayers) are subsidizing this donation. He's not just giving away his money -- he's giving away our money, too. It's totally fair to complain about

by smt88 5y ago

We (as US taxpayers) are subsidizing this donation. He's not just giving away his money -- he's giving away our money, too. It's totally fair to complain about one of the most powerful people in history transferring wealth from public, democratically-elected organizations to institutions that have far less transparency and no democratic oversight.

panax 5y ago
I am certain they will be able to deploy that capital far more effectively than the government would and will create much more value to society.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  I do not consider for instance, PARCC / Common Core, to be a great example of why we should let the richies run public things and decide where resources go.
tinco 5y ago
That's not how it works at all. Not levying taxes on something is not the same as subsidising something. It's not "our" money until he does something with that money that we as a society have deemed taxable. I fully agree that there is something criticise here, but it's definitely not that he is somehow taking "our" money. It's his money until he decides to spend it. It's money that could be hours, if we instructed our government to take it from him. But we haven't, so that's that. I like the idea of charitable foundations being able to receive tax free, though I would admit that is a matter of taste and not a clear right/wrong distinction. What I do object to is that his family has paid positions in those foundations. That just smells of tax loopholes. If those foundations manage to perpetually break-even, they would be able to fund his family with cushiony jobs forever. But, as far as I can tell they're not being paid egregious amounts, and the foundations are all actually spending their money on good things, so in this case there doesn't seem to be any shadowy business. Especially since most of it is going to the Gates Foundation anyway. But, if we're talking policy, I think it would be a good thing if there were restrictions on how much family members of philanthropes can earn at charity organisations, if anything at all.

by smt88 5y ago

panax 5y ago

I am certain they will be able to deploy that capital far more effectively than the government would and will create much more value to society.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
I do not consider for instance, PARCC / Common Core, to be a great example of why we should let the richies run public things and decide where resources go.

tinco 5y ago

That's not how it works at all. Not levying taxes on something is not the same as subsidising something. It's not "our" money until he does something with that money that we as a society have deemed taxable. I fully agree that there is something criticise here, but it's definitely not that he is somehow taking "our" money. It's his money until he decides to spend it. It's money that could be hours, if we instructed our government to take it from him. But we haven't, so that's that. I like the idea of charitable foundations being able to receive tax free, though I would admit that is a matter of taste and not a clear right/wrong distinction. What I do object to is that his family has paid positions in those foundations. That just smells of tax loopholes. If those foundations manage to perpetually break-even, they would be able to fund his family with cushiony jobs forever. But, as far as I can tell they're not being paid egregious amounts, and the foundations are all actually spending their money on good things, so in this case there doesn't seem to be any shadowy business. Especially since most of it is going to the Gates Foundation anyway. But, if we're talking policy, I think it would be a good thing if there were restrictions on how much family members of philanthropes can earn at charity organisations, if anything at all.