> "Would the world be better off if the US government had $20b more and Bill Gates had $20b less?" It's not about what Gates personally gives or what Buffet mi

> "Would the world be better off if the US government had $20b more and Bill Gates had $20b less?" It's not about what Gates personally gives or what Buffet might personally write a check for, if he feels he isn't paying enough. The discussion is about the hundreds of billions in aggregate that corporations and the wealthy are not paying. And we certainly aren't seeing hundreds of billions in Gates-style charity from corporations and the other super-wealthy. Consider also that Gates fabulous charity is still small compared to the aggregate donation of Americans. His charity is notable only for having come from a single person and for his ability to therefore set priorities directly. It's not remotely clear that aggregated wealth, even if it were to always result in Gates'-style donations, results in more net charity than if it were taxed, spent and thus diffused back into the economy where the rest of America might earn it and donate to charity in smaller individual amounts. Government tax revenue, after all, does not get destroyed. It gets spent. Perhaps inefficiently, but spent nonetheless. And say what you will about cronyism, you'd quickly find yourself in the rhetorical weeds if you tried to argue that wealth generated off government inefficiency or misdirected priority is somehow tainted and thus can't be expected to produce charity from those who make their living from it. Not when a cursory glance over government revenue flows creates a list of the largest US government contractors and vendors that looks almost exactly like the list of corporations and wealthy individuals we're trying to excuse for their charity. (Edit: cleaned up some phrasing)