3 ms·

> This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed. Not being snarky but heavily taxed and then wh

> This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed. Not being snarky but heavily taxed and then what? Expect the government to make the best decision on how to spend money?

DSingularity 5y ago
I think if we go heavy handed against wealth inequality then we should also legislate conservative spending by governments. This money can’t go to the fund next Afghanistan or to Israel to fund another settlement. It has to go to simple but surely-helpful efforts like: feeding the poor, improving education, and building infrastructure.
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  Both improving education and building infrastructure, as they are actually practiced, are not "simple" and questionably "surely-helpful". See also bridges to nowhere and schools with top-of-the-line computers but broken heating/cooling systems. Just throwing money at things does not mean it gets used to actually improve them, unfortunately... The question is when you have gotten to diminishing, or negative, returns.
  - DSingularity 5y ago
    So what’s the alternative? If you are unwilling to build schools for the poor. If you are unwilling to build water cleaning stations for the poor. If you are unwilling to build them libraries and parks. Then you are basically willing to let them live as third class citizens. We need to recognize this. In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse is not enough to justify maintaining status quo. Yes, I agree, governments are the worst at efficient spending. Wasted money. Unjustified spending. Corruption. Nonetheless, we have a problem that must be solved. If the wealthy have a better idea that involves no money being spent — great. But let’s not pretend like the human cost is going to go on pause while we debate this. Impoverished children will continue to live and grow in environments that do not help them to break out of poverty. What is worse is that the odds are getting worse for them because disparities are getting larger.
    - bzbarsky 5y ago
      > So what’s the alternative? To which? I think we should encourage/require government spending on things that are actually useful (and I acknowledge that there is wide-ranging disagreement on this criterion) and fund such spending adequately. At the same time we need to have reasonable accountability for governments doing stupid things with money, notice when it's happening, and make it stop, redirecting those funds to something productive. Whether that happens via lower government revenues or reallocated government spending depends on whether there is something productive the government can spend the money on. The things that you list, and many you don't (quality schools, both physical plant and teacher quality, libraries, parks, clean water, free school lunches, free preventative medical care, etc, etc ) generally pass the "is productive" smell test until proven otherwise; the burden of proof there should be on critics to prove that the investment is not being done in a useful way. That said, once that burden of proof is met, action needs to take place to remedy that. > In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse You're putting words in my mouth here. For a lot of these things, throwing money at them is a _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ condition for having a solution. If you don't fund your schools adequately they will be bad, but if you just throw money at them and it gets misused in ways that don't advance learning they will also be bad. The whole "there's a whole warehouse of unused computers in that school district" thing is not _common_, but it's also not unknown when it happens it's really bad and needs to be fixed. Both in terms of the immediate problem and the bad incentives that led to it. So just saying "allocate money to this" is not the end of the road. You have to then make sure the money gets used sanely.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Yes. I guess you want to live in a world where taxes are optional and we hope people like Tim Cook would charitably repair failing bridges and provide healthcare to communities.

DSingularity 5y ago

I think if we go heavy handed against wealth inequality then we should also legislate conservative spending by governments. This money can’t go to the fund next Afghanistan or to Israel to fund another settlement. It has to go to simple but surely-helpful efforts like: feeding the poor, improving education, and building infrastructure.

bzbarsky 5y ago
Both improving education and building infrastructure, as they are actually practiced, are not "simple" and questionably "surely-helpful". See also bridges to nowhere and schools with top-of-the-line computers but broken heating/cooling systems. Just throwing money at things does not mean it gets used to actually improve them, unfortunately... The question is when you have gotten to diminishing, or negative, returns.
- DSingularity 5y ago
  So what’s the alternative? If you are unwilling to build schools for the poor. If you are unwilling to build water cleaning stations for the poor. If you are unwilling to build them libraries and parks. Then you are basically willing to let them live as third class citizens. We need to recognize this. In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse is not enough to justify maintaining status quo. Yes, I agree, governments are the worst at efficient spending. Wasted money. Unjustified spending. Corruption. Nonetheless, we have a problem that must be solved. If the wealthy have a better idea that involves no money being spent — great. But let’s not pretend like the human cost is going to go on pause while we debate this. Impoverished children will continue to live and grow in environments that do not help them to break out of poverty. What is worse is that the odds are getting worse for them because disparities are getting larger.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    > So what’s the alternative? To which? I think we should encourage/require government spending on things that are actually useful (and I acknowledge that there is wide-ranging disagreement on this criterion) and fund such spending adequately. At the same time we need to have reasonable accountability for governments doing stupid things with money, notice when it's happening, and make it stop, redirecting those funds to something productive. Whether that happens via lower government revenues or reallocated government spending depends on whether there is something productive the government can spend the money on. The things that you list, and many you don't (quality schools, both physical plant and teacher quality, libraries, parks, clean water, free school lunches, free preventative medical care, etc, etc ) generally pass the "is productive" smell test until proven otherwise; the burden of proof there should be on critics to prove that the investment is not being done in a useful way. That said, once that burden of proof is met, action needs to take place to remedy that. > In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse You're putting words in my mouth here. For a lot of these things, throwing money at them is a _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ condition for having a solution. If you don't fund your schools adequately they will be bad, but if you just throw money at them and it gets misused in ways that don't advance learning they will also be bad. The whole "there's a whole warehouse of unused computers in that school district" thing is not _common_, but it's also not unknown when it happens it's really bad and needs to be fixed. Both in terms of the immediate problem and the bad incentives that led to it. So just saying "allocate money to this" is not the end of the road. You have to then make sure the money gets used sanely.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Yes. I guess you want to live in a world where taxes are optional and we hope people like Tim Cook would charitably repair failing bridges and provide healthcare to communities.