4 ms·
1. He is not hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck in a vault. 2. If the government squanders tax payer money all over the world, isn't it morally bad to give that m
by cscurmudgeon 2y ago
1. He is not hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck in a vault.
2. If the government squanders tax payer money all over the world, isn't it morally bad to give that money to the govt. when you can legally keep it?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- awfulneutral 2y ago(deleted my previous reply as I wasn't happy with it.) 1. I'm not sure what the implication is here. 2. It sounds like he is attempting to create dynastic wealth by avoiding taxes owed after he dies. So, to me it does not seem like some protest against the US government. But if he was actively trying to do good with his wealth in the amount of billions of dollars, then maybe that could be defensible.
- hackeraccount 2y ago1. The implication is that this is a question of who can put the money to the greatest possible use. If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get paid something for that. It follows that the person taking the money thinks they can use my money and end up with more even after they've paid me back. Here's the question. Is every act of commerce an act of theft? If so then none of this means anything. If not, if a company borrowing money is making good and services (and jobs) that everyone benefits from then in theory my putting my money to work is making everyone better off. The alternative is that government will use the money more positively. On the upside they just spend it on the downside all they do is spend it - the feedback from "good" and "bad" spending is delayed.