4 ms·
not sure if you're spectacularly missing the point, but if not: the point i'm making is, he wouldn't have to mention it, period. but will do so to reap the tax
by slater 5y ago
not sure if you're spectacularly missing the point, but if not: the point i'm making is, he wouldn't have to mention it, period. but will do so to reap the tax benefits.
- longerthoughts 5y agoyeah, i got it. and the point i’m making is i’m not getting outraged over it because it is a charitable contribution and he has an incentive to report it. does it feel a little gross and is this whole thing probably a PR stunt? sure. but i’ll settle for letting billionaires be charitable for the wrong reasons if it means they’re being charitable. i trust people to see this for what it is. i’m not sure why anybody feels obligated to leap into threads like this and strain to reframe neutral-to-positive events as profoundly negative. you don’t need to save us from possibly thinking a brief positive thought about a thing a billionaire did. we’re fine.
- slater 5y ago> i’m not sure why anybody feels obligated to leap into threads like this and strain to reframe neutral-to-positive events as profoundly negative. Have you seen the insane money-making by the rich over the last, I dunno, 30-40 years? The kind of money-making that thoroughly fucks/fucked the rest of us?
- longerthoughts 5y agoit’s possible to think extreme wealth disparity is a bad thing without needing every single action taken by its beneficiaries to be a bad thing.