4 ms·

> Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when yo

> Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.

saghm 3y ago
So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
- everforward 3y ago
  I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
  - saghm 3y ago
    > I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". > Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. That's not "everybody though"; most people _don't_ attend elite institutions like that, and every spot that goes to a billionaires' kid means one less spot for a kid without wealthy parents able to work the system like that. The argument being made is that having taxes instead and using them for public goods that are accessible to a much wider swath of the population would be worth doing instead; I tend to think that the answer to this question is yes, it's worth the effort, but even I'm skeptical that "it's all going to suck anyways" or "anyone who doesn't go to an elite school is irrelevant to the question of how individual wealth can improve society as a whole" are the best counter-arguments to my point of view.

saghm 3y ago

So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.

kelnos 3y ago
Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
everforward 3y ago
I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
- saghm 3y ago
  > I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". > Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. That's not "everybody though"; most people _don't_ attend elite institutions like that, and every spot that goes to a billionaires' kid means one less spot for a kid without wealthy parents able to work the system like that. The argument being made is that having taxes instead and using them for public goods that are accessible to a much wider swath of the population would be worth doing instead; I tend to think that the answer to this question is yes, it's worth the effort, but even I'm skeptical that "it's all going to suck anyways" or "anyone who doesn't go to an elite school is irrelevant to the question of how individual wealth can improve society as a whole" are the best counter-arguments to my point of view.