40 ms·
Billionaires should not exist.
by kevmo 2y ago
Billionaires should not exist.
- lifestyleguru 2y agoThey give back through their charities and foundations. How would you cope with your life without their charities?
- Clubber 2y agoIt's a tax dodge.
- ta1243 2y agoHow does this tax dodge work?
- Clubber 2y agohttps://www.axios.com/2022/09/17/the-ultimate-billionaire-tax-dodge https://www.axios.com/2022/09/17/the-ultimate-billionaire-ta... https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-criticized-avoiding-taxes-deserves-break-philanthropy-lifestyle-loopholes-2021-6-1030517316 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...
- ta1243 2y agoOK, so rather than giving $50m to the government they give $100m to charity? On the surface this seems reasonable. Give $50k gift to your local wildlife sancturary for example, and get invited to the annual fundraising meal. Looks like the big loopholes involve things like 501(c)(4)s Without spending too long trying to workout the loopholes, it seems the larger problem is with the definition of a charity in the first place?
- Clubber 2y ago>OK, so rather than giving $50m to the government they give $100m to charity? Any income the government doesn't collect is made up for by the middle and lower class and/or more debt which increases inflation, which is mainly a middle and lower class burden. For a guy who claims everyone should pay their fair share, he sure takes advantage of a lot of loopholes which he probably helped pay to have written. He's an OG corporate raider and should be thought of as such, rather than a benevolent capitalist.
- kevmo 2y agoBillionaire philanthropy is just another tax-free way oligarchs manipulate our society.
- gruez 2y agoHow dare they "manipulate our society by"... reducing malaria and fighting climate change. We'd be far better off if we relied on our ineffectual and corrupt (in case of malaria) governments to do it instead.
- tonyarkles 2y agoIf all charities were net-good I would tend to agree with you, but they’re not.
- gruez 2y agoHow do you define "net-good"? One man's YIMBY charity to make housing more affordable is another's astroturf operation to destroy neighborhoods so real estate developers can make a quick buck.
- exabrial 2y agoNo, they absolutely should exist. Capitalism raises everyone.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago> Capitalism raises everyone hopefully this is sarcasm
- vorpalhex 2y agoEvery major communist country has been left in the dust by capitalist ones. Poverty is at a historical low. We have gone from people dying from starvation to complaining that not everyone can buy a house. Nearly everyone has a universally connected borderline supercomputer in their pocket.
- betaby 2y agoThis is a ridiculous mix of statements! I don't care how many people have 'supercomputer' in their pockets. On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism.
- gruez 2y ago>On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism. Meanwhile in capitalist China[1], they're so great at building homes that there are entire cities with barely anyone living in them, "ghost cities". Insofar as a tight housing market contributes to homelessness, it's clear that it's caused by US/Canada specific factors (eg. NIMBYism, building codes, and environmental regulations) than capitalism. [1] Even though ostensibly it's "socialist with chinese characteristics", for all intents and purposes the real estate sector is capitalist.
- insane_dreamer 2y agothere isn't a problem with homelessness in China but you are right that the capitalist market does restrict the supply of housing because people buy them as investments also, the ghost cities is way overblown -- they just took time to fill up
- amelius 2y ago> Billionaires should not exist. I'm ok with them, but they should not use their money against the rest of us. Because when we pay for their wealth, then there is an accounting step missing somewhere.