5 ms·

Rich people spend money on charities they like. They change society the way they want it to change that does not necessarily make society a better place nor is

by DasIch 5y ago

Rich people spend money on charities they like. They change society the way they want it to change that does not necessarily make society a better place nor is it necessarily what most people want. If he had to pay all of this on taxes, society could decide how to use that money and it would be just as much, if not more "a better place".

golergka 5y ago
Society had already decided how to use that money when it's members were buying Apple products.
Invictus0 5y ago
Why this criticism? Is HIV research not a good enough cause for you? Much better than a 10 billion dollar airport or 15 billion dollar Olympics in my opinion.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  There’s no guarantee that Tim’s going to use his money for “good” causes, we’re entirely dependent on his good will. He may go down the evangelical Christian path and fund a war of sex, abortions, gays, trans and people’s reproductive rights. That’s not even a hypothetical outcome, there’s plenty of millionaires and billionaires (like David Green) already funding that war.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    Tim funding a war on "gays" would be .... very surprising. But also, there's no guarantee that _anyone_ including the government will use money for "good" causes. Bridges to nowhere, military adventurism, wars on drugs, personal enrichment of politicians and government employees, vanity projects of various sorts, the list of things governments mis-spend on is vast. And of course we don't all agree on the relative merits of different causes.
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      True, but at least you can vote a government out of power. Same can’t be said for billionaires.
      - bzbarsky 5y ago
        The practical distinction is often not there except for things that are so egregious there is a good chance billionaires would be crossing the boundaries of legality for doing them. But yes, government does have a slight edge on billionaires for accountability, I agree.
MikeLumos 5y ago
Why does everyone think that they know better how to spend other people's money than the people who have earned it? Somehow the people who didn't have the intelligence and discipline to spend decades successfully doing things that make them rich are so sure that they would be able to do better with their (totally hypothetical) wealth than the people who did. Everyone loves to claim some kind of moral superiority over the billionaires, but I don't see these critics spending a significant portion of their wealth on charity.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  I don’t ones a ability to make money is even vaguely correlated with once ability to spend well for the benefit of society. Hell the whole reason why democracy is thing is because monarchies of yesteryear have proven quite decisively that the ability to raise capital and spend well for society are not even remotely linked. We need to consider very carefully as a society what the impact of the billionaire class has on how our society develops, and the outsized impacts they can have on democratic processes. Personally I don’t think having such wealthy individuals is a good idea. Their wealth is so great it’s pretty much impossible for them not to get wealthier, and do it at a rate greater than than the vast majority of people. And their ability to deploy that capital to influence society is scary, effectively taking the role of government to provide social services, and placing it in the hands of a wealth few. We’ve already seen what more extreme individuals are prepared to do with that power, just a Hobbylobby and David Green’s continued vendetta against abortions and safe contraceptives.
  - MikeLumos 5y ago
    The alternative to a billionaire deciding how to spend the money they have earned is a politician deciding to spend the money they didn't earn. I trust a person who has generated billions of dollars worth of value over a buerocrat who won a popularity contest. Besides, I don't think it should matter whether or not these people spend their money optimally. They've made this money, it's theirs. Don't take other people's stuff. > We’ve already seen what more extreme individuals are prepared to do with that power. Until we leave in a featureless dystopia where all people are perfect clones brought up in an identical environment, there will be power disparity between people. It can be based on inheritance (like in monarchies), or ability to commit violence, or charisma, or political skill, or ability to create value. Between all these options, I'd much rather live in society where people get to keep the value they have created. It seems to me the most correlated with merit (not perfectly, but better than the alternatives), besides, it is morally right.

by DasIch 5y ago

golergka 5y ago

Society had already decided how to use that money when it's members were buying Apple products.

Invictus0 5y ago

Why this criticism? Is HIV research not a good enough cause for you? Much better than a 10 billion dollar airport or 15 billion dollar Olympics in my opinion.

avianlyric 5y ago
There’s no guarantee that Tim’s going to use his money for “good” causes, we’re entirely dependent on his good will. He may go down the evangelical Christian path and fund a war of sex, abortions, gays, trans and people’s reproductive rights. That’s not even a hypothetical outcome, there’s plenty of millionaires and billionaires (like David Green) already funding that war.
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  Tim funding a war on "gays" would be .... very surprising. But also, there's no guarantee that _anyone_ including the government will use money for "good" causes. Bridges to nowhere, military adventurism, wars on drugs, personal enrichment of politicians and government employees, vanity projects of various sorts, the list of things governments mis-spend on is vast. And of course we don't all agree on the relative merits of different causes.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    True, but at least you can vote a government out of power. Same can’t be said for billionaires.
    - bzbarsky 5y ago
      The practical distinction is often not there except for things that are so egregious there is a good chance billionaires would be crossing the boundaries of legality for doing them. But yes, government does have a slight edge on billionaires for accountability, I agree.

MikeLumos 5y ago

Why does everyone think that they know better how to spend other people's money than the people who have earned it? Somehow the people who didn't have the intelligence and discipline to spend decades successfully doing things that make them rich are so sure that they would be able to do better with their (totally hypothetical) wealth than the people who did. Everyone loves to claim some kind of moral superiority over the billionaires, but I don't see these critics spending a significant portion of their wealth on charity.

avianlyric 5y ago
I don’t ones a ability to make money is even vaguely correlated with once ability to spend well for the benefit of society. Hell the whole reason why democracy is thing is because monarchies of yesteryear have proven quite decisively that the ability to raise capital and spend well for society are not even remotely linked. We need to consider very carefully as a society what the impact of the billionaire class has on how our society develops, and the outsized impacts they can have on democratic processes. Personally I don’t think having such wealthy individuals is a good idea. Their wealth is so great it’s pretty much impossible for them not to get wealthier, and do it at a rate greater than than the vast majority of people. And their ability to deploy that capital to influence society is scary, effectively taking the role of government to provide social services, and placing it in the hands of a wealth few. We’ve already seen what more extreme individuals are prepared to do with that power, just a Hobbylobby and David Green’s continued vendetta against abortions and safe contraceptives.
- MikeLumos 5y ago
  The alternative to a billionaire deciding how to spend the money they have earned is a politician deciding to spend the money they didn't earn. I trust a person who has generated billions of dollars worth of value over a buerocrat who won a popularity contest. Besides, I don't think it should matter whether or not these people spend their money optimally. They've made this money, it's theirs. Don't take other people's stuff. > We’ve already seen what more extreme individuals are prepared to do with that power. Until we leave in a featureless dystopia where all people are perfect clones brought up in an identical environment, there will be power disparity between people. It can be based on inheritance (like in monarchies), or ability to commit violence, or charisma, or political skill, or ability to create value. Between all these options, I'd much rather live in society where people get to keep the value they have created. It seems to me the most correlated with merit (not perfectly, but better than the alternatives), besides, it is morally right.