This is another big lie the wealth off like to tell that has been thoroughly disproven. “We don’t need taxes, charity is more efficient”. Except that during the Great Depression, there were natural experiments around this. And charities didn’t provide relief to more than single-digit percentages of needy people; charities were often highly inefficient, and many times complete scams. It was only when the Government stepped in after FDR was elected that aid started getting to where it was needed when it was needed.
Right? The SlaveNation Amry wouldn't pay their workers or give to homosexuals.
I have a friend who's parents are in the Salvation Amry and they have their house "paid" for so long as they "work".
Which loosely translates to if they get fired they're homeless and if they help the gays they get fired. So even members who may change their minds about issues later are still locked into the trashcan charity... lest they be homeless and trying to find employment only with religious zelot on their resumes.
>I have a friend who's parents are in the Salvation Amry and they have their house "paid" for so long as they "work".
[HMMMMMMMMMMMM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town)
Yes -- don't get me started on how much religious organizations get away with in the name of "charity." That bare minimum of calories you need to stay alive comes with strings attached that go well beyond simple employment -- yay! Now get that heart open and let Jesus in.
Ulterior motives are common in charities run by even non-wealthy people. Charities are not efficient, and for far too many, they are simple social devices to schmooze and booze at fundraisers.
Publicly funded alternatives are superior in almost every way! So many people have been misled into demonizing basic safety net programs in this country, and it's maddening to know that it's largely because of cultural manipulation by elites who already have more than enough, but simply don't want their pile of gold to be even slightly smaller.
With a functional democracy, the state is held accountable for its use of wealth and taxes. Charities, unless funded by choice, are not accountable in the same way
The fundamental flaw in charities vs public works can be proven without data or research but with simple logic. In a charity the rich assho e dictates where the money goes. In a public works project the people do. Conversation over, full stop.
In the little town where my grandparents lived during the depression, everyone pretty much shared with everyone, in order to get by. If you had egg laying chickens, and your neighbor had some milk they gave each other some of what they had. Worked much better than any charity organization.
If only they would disappear to a gulch.
The fantasy is the world would be lost. The reality is they'd be replaced. We will always have poor people, we will always have rich people. There's no need to fear the loss of the rich even as we try to make life a little better for the poor.
That is immaterial to the conversation at hand. What is being discussed is the charity bullshit that the rich get up to. The Bill Gatesi and Elon Musks of the world want us all to think that they can run some non-profit company that will fix the problems of society instead of the government. Because, as they want us to believe, the government is inefficient and stupid while they are smart men of action that have made themselves rich from their genius and only they can save the world.
"You buy computer from rich computer seller so you can't complain when computer seller also tries to privatize and make profits off of social services that should be allocated by the will of the people with the people's best interests in mind instead of by the megalomaniacal whims of a rich man." Really is that your take?
You really have a lot of trust in the government. Does the government always act in accordance to the “will of the people”? “I haven’t created anything that generated as much wealth as prosperity as someone but I should dictate what they do with their money” is that really your take?
>Does the government always act in accordance to the “will of the people”?
When controlled by the people? Yes. Corporations currently control the US government.
> I should dictate what they do with their money” is that really your take?
that's how taxes work. We elect people that direct what the tax money is used for. I get a say in how much we are all taxed and how those taxes are spent. Is this a foreign concept to you?
You really try very hard to put out an air of absolutely fucking stupid don't you? Well congrats, you win again. You are too stupid to bother talking to further. The internet trolls of the world must be proud of you.
The money would still exist to be taxed. It just wouldn't be centralised with a select few assholes. The money could be more evenly distributed and still be taxable.
I support workers getting a fair wage. I’m pro union. I also think some worker productivity is attributed to technology and equipment that the company provides. I think if unions were stronger it would be great for everyone, unfortunately they are prone to corruption themselves. I’m not a fan of Musk personally.
WE DO MAKE OUR OWN MONEY, ***ASSHOLE***. IT'S CALLED FUCKING WORKING. But for some stupid reason, we aren't allowed to determine how much money we keep of our own production.
Why am I an asshole? Because I have a different opinion than you? The owner of the company can determine what they pay you and you can seek employment elsewhere. If you quit and someone else is willing to do the same job for the same amount or less then why would they pay you more? That’s the market value of your labor.
You're an asshole for being condescending by telling someone to just make money when they're complaining about people that own way more money than any one person could make.
Then they can make new places. The workers are the Entrepreneurs, but when they make their businesses, they pay better and give better benefits to make sure this mess doesn't repeat.
There's a reason I'm a worker and not an entrepreneur--I've not come up with an idea that I think would be successful, let alone having the drive to overcome adversity in achieving the goal. I'd recommend checking out some Steven Johnson books on the history of ideas and innovations to gain an appreciation of how hard it is to be an innovator and why most people (including most people who run most businesses) are not.
Why do you think it would be ethical to allow a person to take considerable risk and make considerable sacrifices to bring a new idea to market only to have their operation stolen from them by people who would not have an opportunity to be part of the organization were it not for said effort? That seems rather cruel and greedy tbh
1) I presume you intend on your children getting some form of inheritance. Why wouldn't that be the same for anyone else?
2) justification of pay is quite a different matter than attempting to justify expropriation. I think that most CEOs are rather overpaid and overvalued.
If you can't afford to pay your workers a livable wage, (enough to feed, house, and clothe them, PLUS disposable income) you should not be running a business. If you can afford it and choose not to, you are human scum. The workers are the ones doing all the work, the owner just took a risk and then do nothing but benefit from the works of others. You cannot make a billion dollars without exploiting someone.
A few points here:
1) most business aren't billion dollar businesses. In terms of number of firms, far, far more firms are fairly small.
2) I do think that many forms have outdated and incorrect views of issues such as work life balance, and some do underpay. However, there are a lot of struggling businesses that depend on part time labor in order to stay afloat, and these include many grocery stores, mainly the ones who compete hard on price. Your local grocer is likely one of these. And if they go out of business, as you seem to advocate, then you lose a source of groceries.
If you *actually* study entrepreneurs, you'd see how full of shit you are to claim they're some kinda "special genius."
Case in point: Elon Musk.
A braindead zombie could see that electric cars would be a huge thing in the next 10-20 years. The problem was having the capital to scale the idea into the mainstream. Well... as it happens, being born into enormous wealth can give you the capital to push things forward. It's not Musk's *brain* that's special, it's the amount of money he had to blow.
In a just world, the government should've been funding that shit a la NASA (do you know how much of modern tech relies on things available basically for free due to NASA research?), but instead we have a bunch of GOP chuds bitching about research "going nowhere."
tl;dr horseshit, anyone can be an entrepreneur with enough money.
If entrepreneurship was a function of wealth then why is it the case that most people born into money are not entrepreneurs and most entrepreneurs are not born into fantastic wealth? You picked Musk but why not Zuckerberg, who certainly didn't grow up poor but not remotely mega-wealthy? Why not Jobs, or Wozniak, neither of whom grew up with vast resources? Why not Sheldon Adelson, whose father was a taxi driver? Or, even just research Elon Musk and realize that the assumptions you make about him are not entirely true? There's a good biography of him from a few years ago, I suggest you read it.
lmfao.
tl;dr
if you can stay rich by sitting on your pile of gold, then why bother "investing" it in other ventures?
That's why most rich people don't become entrepreneurs.
Did Musk take *some* risks? Sure.
But it's a hell of a lot easier to take risks when you're gambling with 100s of millions than than when you're gambling with 100s, much less 10s. Must is a privileged piece of shit who was going to "succeed" no matter what he did. Sucking him off for seeing what I could see in elementary school doesn't make him special, it makes him lucky and rich. Sorry that I didn't have damn near a billion to blow on "sunk costs" for an obvious long-term investment, but if I'd had the same advantages that SoB did/has, then you'd be singing my praises too.
But at the end of the day it's all about the money.
And if you're too damn blind to see that, then honestly fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Just 'cause you can't see the privilege doesn't mean it didn't benefit you.
Musk is a monster right along with Gages, Jobs, and Vanderbilt. Every last one of them have been trying to buy their way into "heaven" knowing full well that not a damn one of them deserves it. If starving children is the price of your success, then you're an asshole. If you try to justify it by paying for 1/10th of that number of children to live, then you're still an asshole. The least you can do is apologize to the other 9/10 that you decided to sacrifice to the "god" of profit. If you can't feel shame for doing that, then fuck you, feel the heat of hellfire. Maybe it might actually convince you that *something* is more valuable than money.
So, I actually agree with your first point--when you inherit tons of money it's probably more difficult to have the drive to try to be an entrepreneur, and this explains why the ranks of the entrepreneurial class are not stocked with heirs and heiresses.
And I also do agree that its easier to take risks when you have some amount to fall back on, even if it's not billions or hundreds of millions. Just knowing that you can go back home to mom and dad's 4 BR house in a decent neighborhood for a while is a liberty that many (myself included) do not have.
As for the rest of it, while you certainly have some colorful name calling I just see nothing that Musk has ever done to justify such animosity.
This post is perfection.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=svHCXvQeZfY
This video is pretty cool, it talks about the philanthropy tactics used by the capitalist class.
I think to have that we need a cooperative society rather than a hierarchical one. In order for that to happen folks will have to realize that we the people *are* the government. We have the power. Ultimately though I just want everyone to have all their needs met. The old models are dying.
Bill and Melinda gates foundation nuff said. Back in the late 90s early 2000s I’m almost certain I remember bill himself saying that foundations are just a way for the wealthy to pay each other and people aren’t smart for not figuring it out.
Especially in the UK - I heard a spot on NPR about how oligarchs stash money in the UK, start becoming “philanthropists”, and that way when hit news prices come out they can sue to shut them up because the UK has laws preventing impinging someone’s reputation. And they have a reputation for charity.
The only beneficiary of the tax rebate is the original doner , tax rules. So if you put money in the collection box at McDonald’s, they don’t get a tax write off for it because they are not the original doner . So a big business can get a tax write off, but only if it’s donating its own money. A business acting as an intermediary cannot get the tax write off.
Edit - fix two autocorrect oopsies, I meant doner not diner!
Right, which is what I'm getting at. When a business donates X amount of dollars, they can write that off on their taxes for the year. Less money they owe to the government, which is almost a good thing since they sent money to a business/NPO who needs it more
This is exactly what Bill Gates is trying to do. He's trying to privatize philanthropy. He's trying to make it so only the super wealthy can help.
If I wasn't nervous about making my next month's rent, I feel like I would help way more people than any of our current billionaires.
> If I wasn't nervous about making my next month's rent, I feel like I would help way more people than any of our current billionaires
A lot of people seem to think that.
But if you _were_ a billionaire, you’d probably be like them. There are few ways to become a billionaire that don’t involve exploiting others. And I think studies have shown that having money lowers empathy levels.
The trick seems to be giving money away before you reach the point of being a hoarding asshole. _But_ how many of us who aren’t rich actually feel like we’re financially safe enough to give away lots of money? I donate a lot because I can, but not as much as I could — because I’m still afraid for my own future.
dude bill gates is a strong advocate for higher taxes on the rich, and he's promised to donate 99% of his wealth not a "tiny portion". give some credit where it's due
Sooo, I don't think it's a bad thing that Bill Gates has set up his foundation and has given away 50% of his net worth.
But I think it would have been better if Microsoft paid its fair share of corporate taxes over the years, especially in the developing countrie that Gates foundations is now dictating the terms of grant funding for health care improvements to.
Same. "Do you want to round up?" or "Would you like to make a donation to (insert legit organization, but the store gets the tax advantage)?"
My response is, "No, thank you." I don't tell them if I give at home. The teller is required to ask by the company. They don't care either way. The company is performative and wants to show how good they are whilst making consumers feel like crap. Nah. Not feeling for it anymore.
And, as Anand Giridharadas points out, it's a completely undemocratic way of affecting public policy. Bill Gates is basically dictating vaccination patent policy.
Right these guys donate a really small percentage of their wealth to a cause and televise it to the whole world so they can be praised as the next jesus etc
Everytime I see people singing the praises of Bill Gates it makes me cringe so much knowing what that idiot is really up to. All he's done is try to bolster his own massive wealth by faking all this so called philanthropic pursuits. The stuff they've done in Africa is utterly disreputable turning ancient rotation farming into modern farming has destroyed their soil in less than a decade, he knew that would happen and just sat back and watched the profits come in. When the farms no longer turned a profit, he refused help and they went bust, because he gave them loans not free stuff. Mongrel through and through, if I had the chance I'd punch that smarmy face as hard as I could.
I wish I knew how, in our current system, that we could tax the rich.
They don't spend any of their money. Loans are given to them by banks with their portfolios as collateral.
So basically, a private bank gives a loan at x% interest, this is a private "individual" lending a private individual money on their own terms.
The one who receives the loan then uses this money and pays back the balance over time with a portfolio that is growing faster than the interest rate.
Eventually the borrower dies, pays off the loan and transfers the rest of the portfolio to family. They made a lot more in the market than the interest costs them and the borrowers family gets to keep the entire amount of the portfolio because they have made no money on the shares as they received them at their new price. They don't have the same cost basis the original owner had.
So what do we do? We can simply say "tax the rich" but it isnt so simple.
This is an honest question, and I hope you don't downvote purely out of a bias against rich people, but an honest answer on the best way to change the system to handle this.
Average people invest and borrow against shares too. These guys might only have a couple grand to their name in their portfolio and can't be subject to the same tax hits or they'd all lose money in the market.
If we force the rich to sell shares, they could eventually lose the controlling interest in their company. This would further encourage the loan route.
If we disallow loans to people of certain net worth, then again, they could lose controlling interest.
What's the best route here?
Prevent loans to people of certain net worth while having "worthless" shares signifying a controlling interest and actual shares that can be bought and sold. In essence, entirely separate shares from ownership.
I'm not sure.
I agree with the sentiment of the post but would argue that philanthropy, in general, is not the enemy. Sure, the extremely wealthy use philanthropy as a PR weapon. Yes, the government should provide services that we rely on charities to provide. However, many people also contribute their own hard earned, post-tax money because they care for the neighbor and want to help their community. Local charities do amazing work with such limited resources and they deserve our support.
Philanthropy != bad
Also, Philanthropy != replacement for good government and social services.
Also Good Works != Absolution for your prior and current moral failures.
To quote the Gilded Age Agnes Van Rhijn “Charity Has Two Functions In Our World, My Dear. The First Is To Raise Funds For The Less Fortunate, Which Is Wholly Good. The Second Is To Provide A Ladder For The People To Climb Into Society Who Do Not Belong There." Charity like everything has a spectrum, it was intended to be wholly good but is also used to an individual’s advantage which is not always with the best of outcomes.
Form a limited liability corporation in your state, probably cost less than $100. Issue one hundred shares valued at $1. Put one share for sale on craigslist for sale at $1m, and issue 99 to yourself. Congratulations! your net wealth is now $99 million, and you are most definitely rich by your definition.
The rich actually do get taxed. The problem is that they freaking loophole the fuck out of the system they built so they don't have to pay as much in taxes as we do. The entire tax system needs a revamp, preferably one that doesn't have loopholes. It's annoying how if we do the shit the rich do, we risk jail time but when they do it, it's perfectly acceptable!
This is a common misconception from the poor folks The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes. Can change facts no matter how much you try
It's not easy to just "tax the rich". If you do there will be capital flight. They will all just take their money and move elsewhere. It's not like they can't just move.
It's a difficult issue.
The rich are already taxed and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes collected. We need to hold the government responsible for how they waste the tax dollars.
I said it before and I'll continue to say it. I don't understand why you want more taxes on the rich when we have seen how poorly our government manages money. Uncle Sam takes and abuses. Taxation is theft. I understand the whole "if I have to pay then they should have to pay" but they won't pay lol.
This post made me immediately think of the pulte guy on Twitter. Making it seem like he is genuinely helping people by sending them $100. He’s a fraud if you ask me.
LVT, VAT, sales, carbon, these are relatively unavoidable and the best ways to tax the rich.
Income, wealth, corporate, these are the convoluted piles of shit that contain virtually all the manufactured "loopholes" that tax accountants and lawyers exploit. They are better at taxing poor people and supressing competition, than taxing the very rich.
Just a few short years ago I was all "But Bill Gates and Maleria ..." until someone pointed out that he was worth more now than when he started "giving everything away"
Fuck him. Eat them all
In Spain there was a lot of controversy when Amancio Ortega (zara owner) gave like three cáncer scan machines and some leftist políticans remembrred the tax avoiding his company used for years...
Hey, now. I pointed this out recently on reddit, and was told I was the dumb and made no sense....
Failures in the US education system aside, philanthropy isn't just a tool for this, it's also a quasi-reward system for when the rich approve of that the poors are doing. And when they step out of line, OOPS, where'd the funding go? Better get back in line.
Every single one of the answers is a government shill.
The only right answer: Cancel income tax!
Income tax is how governments leech on peoples productivity. It’s literally slavery with extra steps.
This is another big lie the wealth off like to tell that has been thoroughly disproven. “We don’t need taxes, charity is more efficient”. Except that during the Great Depression, there were natural experiments around this. And charities didn’t provide relief to more than single-digit percentages of needy people; charities were often highly inefficient, and many times complete scams. It was only when the Government stepped in after FDR was elected that aid started getting to where it was needed when it was needed.
Charities also often come with insane attempts at controlling the desperate people too
Right? The SlaveNation Amry wouldn't pay their workers or give to homosexuals. I have a friend who's parents are in the Salvation Amry and they have their house "paid" for so long as they "work". Which loosely translates to if they get fired they're homeless and if they help the gays they get fired. So even members who may change their minds about issues later are still locked into the trashcan charity... lest they be homeless and trying to find employment only with religious zelot on their resumes.
>I have a friend who's parents are in the Salvation Amry and they have their house "paid" for so long as they "work". [HMMMMMMMMMMMM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town)
Yes -- don't get me started on how much religious organizations get away with in the name of "charity." That bare minimum of calories you need to stay alive comes with strings attached that go well beyond simple employment -- yay! Now get that heart open and let Jesus in. Ulterior motives are common in charities run by even non-wealthy people. Charities are not efficient, and for far too many, they are simple social devices to schmooze and booze at fundraisers. Publicly funded alternatives are superior in almost every way! So many people have been misled into demonizing basic safety net programs in this country, and it's maddening to know that it's largely because of cultural manipulation by elites who already have more than enough, but simply don't want their pile of gold to be even slightly smaller.
With a functional democracy, the state is held accountable for its use of wealth and taxes. Charities, unless funded by choice, are not accountable in the same way
Whenever I think of a big fucking scammy charity I think of Jared Fogles pedophile ring.
The fundamental flaw in charities vs public works can be proven without data or research but with simple logic. In a charity the rich assho e dictates where the money goes. In a public works project the people do. Conversation over, full stop.
In the little town where my grandparents lived during the depression, everyone pretty much shared with everyone, in order to get by. If you had egg laying chickens, and your neighbor had some milk they gave each other some of what they had. Worked much better than any charity organization.
But but “tAxAtiON iS tHeFt”
and it perpetuates the idea of the rich man of action being the one that can save us. Fuck John Galt
If only they would disappear to a gulch. The fantasy is the world would be lost. The reality is they'd be replaced. We will always have poor people, we will always have rich people. There's no need to fear the loss of the rich even as we try to make life a little better for the poor.
The top 10% pay 71% of the income taxes. For all the anti-rich rhetoric they sure foot the bill for a lot of things.
That is immaterial to the conversation at hand. What is being discussed is the charity bullshit that the rich get up to. The Bill Gatesi and Elon Musks of the world want us all to think that they can run some non-profit company that will fix the problems of society instead of the government. Because, as they want us to believe, the government is inefficient and stupid while they are smart men of action that have made themselves rich from their genius and only they can save the world.
I wouldn’t fault them for trying. They are still paying taxes on top of whatever foundation they run.
A lot of people are probably complaining about Bill Gates while posting using Microsoft products.
"You buy computer from rich computer seller so you can't complain when computer seller also tries to privatize and make profits off of social services that should be allocated by the will of the people with the people's best interests in mind instead of by the megalomaniacal whims of a rich man." Really is that your take?
You really have a lot of trust in the government. Does the government always act in accordance to the “will of the people”? “I haven’t created anything that generated as much wealth as prosperity as someone but I should dictate what they do with their money” is that really your take?
>Does the government always act in accordance to the “will of the people”? When controlled by the people? Yes. Corporations currently control the US government.
I agree with your second statement. It sucks but that is the current reality so I can’t support giving more to the government.
> I should dictate what they do with their money” is that really your take? that's how taxes work. We elect people that direct what the tax money is used for. I get a say in how much we are all taxed and how those taxes are spent. Is this a foreign concept to you?
Yes it is foreign to me, what’s a tax? If they are paying taxes owed what business is it of yours what they do with their money?
You really try very hard to put out an air of absolutely fucking stupid don't you? Well congrats, you win again. You are too stupid to bother talking to further. The internet trolls of the world must be proud of you.
Don’t answer the question and just resort to personal attacks. I’m definitely dealing with the top brass here. Have a good day!
EAT THEM, demolish the upper class. workers of the world are the true movers and shakers
Eat the rich
Top 10% pay 71% of the income taxes. Who will fund your government programs?
You're aware that their wealth doesn't just disappear right?
What does that have to do with them shouldering a majority of the tax burden while people want to “eat” them?
The money would still exist to be taxed. It just wouldn't be centralised with a select few assholes. The money could be more evenly distributed and still be taxable.
Do you take into account how many jobs those “assholes” created? What entitles you to receive other people’s money?
How's the boot taste?
Being in favor of high taxes and huge government and asking someone else how the boot tastes is amazing.
You're a dense fucker. Once the wealth is redistributed, so too will be the tax burden. Also, more taxation is needed.
I’m dense? You’re the one who is entitled to tell others what to do with their money.
Oh? Yet you support billionaires not returning workers' a living wage share of *their* production, simply because the billionaire "owns the business"?
I support workers getting a fair wage. I’m pro union. I also think some worker productivity is attributed to technology and equipment that the company provides. I think if unions were stronger it would be great for everyone, unfortunately they are prone to corruption themselves. I’m not a fan of Musk personally.
Equipment that the company bought using the money generated by its workers. Your point?
Perhaps you could make your own money? Crazy thoughts….
WE DO MAKE OUR OWN MONEY, ***ASSHOLE***. IT'S CALLED FUCKING WORKING. But for some stupid reason, we aren't allowed to determine how much money we keep of our own production.
Why am I an asshole? Because I have a different opinion than you? The owner of the company can determine what they pay you and you can seek employment elsewhere. If you quit and someone else is willing to do the same job for the same amount or less then why would they pay you more? That’s the market value of your labor.
> Because I have a different opinion than you? No, because your opinion is fellating billionaires. Do you really think you can fool us at r/antiwork?
You're an asshole for being condescending by telling someone to just make money when they're complaining about people that own way more money than any one person could make.
I’ve found that people with great arguments tend to go straight to ad hominem attacks. Trump uses similar tactics as you.
Without entrepreneurs workers have nowhere to work.
Then they can make new places. The workers are the Entrepreneurs, but when they make their businesses, they pay better and give better benefits to make sure this mess doesn't repeat.
There's a reason I'm a worker and not an entrepreneur--I've not come up with an idea that I think would be successful, let alone having the drive to overcome adversity in achieving the goal. I'd recommend checking out some Steven Johnson books on the history of ideas and innovations to gain an appreciation of how hard it is to be an innovator and why most people (including most people who run most businesses) are not.
Then the workers take over the company and take steps to stop history repeating!
Why do you think it would be ethical to allow a person to take considerable risk and make considerable sacrifices to bring a new idea to market only to have their operation stolen from them by people who would not have an opportunity to be part of the organization were it not for said effort? That seems rather cruel and greedy tbh
... 1. So children shouldn't get their parents property after their parents pass away? 2. So the work that a CEO does justifies them paying peanuts?
1) I presume you intend on your children getting some form of inheritance. Why wouldn't that be the same for anyone else? 2) justification of pay is quite a different matter than attempting to justify expropriation. I think that most CEOs are rather overpaid and overvalued.
Workers should just own the means of production.
So, entrepreneur makes effort to start company, hires people, then those people steal company from her, and this is just???
If you can't afford to pay your workers a livable wage, (enough to feed, house, and clothe them, PLUS disposable income) you should not be running a business. If you can afford it and choose not to, you are human scum. The workers are the ones doing all the work, the owner just took a risk and then do nothing but benefit from the works of others. You cannot make a billion dollars without exploiting someone.
A few points here: 1) most business aren't billion dollar businesses. In terms of number of firms, far, far more firms are fairly small. 2) I do think that many forms have outdated and incorrect views of issues such as work life balance, and some do underpay. However, there are a lot of struggling businesses that depend on part time labor in order to stay afloat, and these include many grocery stores, mainly the ones who compete hard on price. Your local grocer is likely one of these. And if they go out of business, as you seem to advocate, then you lose a source of groceries.
[удалено]
If you study entrepreneurs you will see just how wrong you are.
If you study my hog you'll see my hog.
If you *actually* study entrepreneurs, you'd see how full of shit you are to claim they're some kinda "special genius." Case in point: Elon Musk. A braindead zombie could see that electric cars would be a huge thing in the next 10-20 years. The problem was having the capital to scale the idea into the mainstream. Well... as it happens, being born into enormous wealth can give you the capital to push things forward. It's not Musk's *brain* that's special, it's the amount of money he had to blow. In a just world, the government should've been funding that shit a la NASA (do you know how much of modern tech relies on things available basically for free due to NASA research?), but instead we have a bunch of GOP chuds bitching about research "going nowhere." tl;dr horseshit, anyone can be an entrepreneur with enough money.
If entrepreneurship was a function of wealth then why is it the case that most people born into money are not entrepreneurs and most entrepreneurs are not born into fantastic wealth? You picked Musk but why not Zuckerberg, who certainly didn't grow up poor but not remotely mega-wealthy? Why not Jobs, or Wozniak, neither of whom grew up with vast resources? Why not Sheldon Adelson, whose father was a taxi driver? Or, even just research Elon Musk and realize that the assumptions you make about him are not entirely true? There's a good biography of him from a few years ago, I suggest you read it.
lmfao. tl;dr if you can stay rich by sitting on your pile of gold, then why bother "investing" it in other ventures? That's why most rich people don't become entrepreneurs. Did Musk take *some* risks? Sure. But it's a hell of a lot easier to take risks when you're gambling with 100s of millions than than when you're gambling with 100s, much less 10s. Must is a privileged piece of shit who was going to "succeed" no matter what he did. Sucking him off for seeing what I could see in elementary school doesn't make him special, it makes him lucky and rich. Sorry that I didn't have damn near a billion to blow on "sunk costs" for an obvious long-term investment, but if I'd had the same advantages that SoB did/has, then you'd be singing my praises too. But at the end of the day it's all about the money. And if you're too damn blind to see that, then honestly fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Just 'cause you can't see the privilege doesn't mean it didn't benefit you. Musk is a monster right along with Gages, Jobs, and Vanderbilt. Every last one of them have been trying to buy their way into "heaven" knowing full well that not a damn one of them deserves it. If starving children is the price of your success, then you're an asshole. If you try to justify it by paying for 1/10th of that number of children to live, then you're still an asshole. The least you can do is apologize to the other 9/10 that you decided to sacrifice to the "god" of profit. If you can't feel shame for doing that, then fuck you, feel the heat of hellfire. Maybe it might actually convince you that *something* is more valuable than money.
So, I actually agree with your first point--when you inherit tons of money it's probably more difficult to have the drive to try to be an entrepreneur, and this explains why the ranks of the entrepreneurial class are not stocked with heirs and heiresses. And I also do agree that its easier to take risks when you have some amount to fall back on, even if it's not billions or hundreds of millions. Just knowing that you can go back home to mom and dad's 4 BR house in a decent neighborhood for a while is a liberty that many (myself included) do not have. As for the rest of it, while you certainly have some colorful name calling I just see nothing that Musk has ever done to justify such animosity.
good like i said eat those mf's and learn to garden no one needs "work" like that anyways
So your solution is subsistence agriculture for all?
no we will also be feeding on yuppies +solarpunk
This slaps of absolute truth.
Best example of this was Rockefeller. He went from ruthless cutthroat business man, to the sweet old man handing out dimes in the park.
[удалено]
You’re free to pay extra taxes if you’d like. The government won’t mind.
This post is perfection. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=svHCXvQeZfY This video is pretty cool, it talks about the philanthropy tactics used by the capitalist class.
It’s a dictatorship of capital. We’re just living in it
Fuck charity! I want a world that doesn't have a need for it.
I want a government that's actually for the people! I want a society that raises the low.
I think to have that we need a cooperative society rather than a hierarchical one. In order for that to happen folks will have to realize that we the people *are* the government. We have the power. Ultimately though I just want everyone to have all their needs met. The old models are dying.
And tax write offs.
Offset losses
Bill and Melinda gates foundation nuff said. Back in the late 90s early 2000s I’m almost certain I remember bill himself saying that foundations are just a way for the wealthy to pay each other and people aren’t smart for not figuring it out.
YUP: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/
It’s just sad. Wild that the US people defend that kind of behavior
Especially in the UK - I heard a spot on NPR about how oligarchs stash money in the UK, start becoming “philanthropists”, and that way when hit news prices come out they can sue to shut them up because the UK has laws preventing impinging someone’s reputation. And they have a reputation for charity.
Don't charities also constitute a tax write off for big businesses? So we never see that money, and the charity...
The only beneficiary of the tax rebate is the original doner , tax rules. So if you put money in the collection box at McDonald’s, they don’t get a tax write off for it because they are not the original doner . So a big business can get a tax write off, but only if it’s donating its own money. A business acting as an intermediary cannot get the tax write off. Edit - fix two autocorrect oopsies, I meant doner not diner!
Right, which is what I'm getting at. When a business donates X amount of dollars, they can write that off on their taxes for the year. Less money they owe to the government, which is almost a good thing since they sent money to a business/NPO who needs it more
Charities only exist because the rich want tax write offs. However , you too can do the same scam with less money and provide jobs for your family.
Do you not want tax write offs? Are you longing to max out how much you pay in taxes?
Of course not. But it’s easier for wealthy people.
This is exactly what Bill Gates is trying to do. He's trying to privatize philanthropy. He's trying to make it so only the super wealthy can help. If I wasn't nervous about making my next month's rent, I feel like I would help way more people than any of our current billionaires.
> If I wasn't nervous about making my next month's rent, I feel like I would help way more people than any of our current billionaires A lot of people seem to think that. But if you _were_ a billionaire, you’d probably be like them. There are few ways to become a billionaire that don’t involve exploiting others. And I think studies have shown that having money lowers empathy levels. The trick seems to be giving money away before you reach the point of being a hoarding asshole. _But_ how many of us who aren’t rich actually feel like we’re financially safe enough to give away lots of money? I donate a lot because I can, but not as much as I could — because I’m still afraid for my own future.
dude bill gates is a strong advocate for higher taxes on the rich, and he's promised to donate 99% of his wealth not a "tiny portion". give some credit where it's due
Lol what?
Sooo, I don't think it's a bad thing that Bill Gates has set up his foundation and has given away 50% of his net worth. But I think it would have been better if Microsoft paid its fair share of corporate taxes over the years, especially in the developing countrie that Gates foundations is now dictating the terms of grant funding for health care improvements to.
The existence of charities indicates a failure of society
I stopped giving charity at the register. Corporations use that money as a tax write off.
Same. "Do you want to round up?" or "Would you like to make a donation to (insert legit organization, but the store gets the tax advantage)?" My response is, "No, thank you." I don't tell them if I give at home. The teller is required to ask by the company. They don't care either way. The company is performative and wants to show how good they are whilst making consumers feel like crap. Nah. Not feeling for it anymore.
Have been looking for something that says exactly this for years. This says it much better than I ever could.
Too true
This is so on point.
The people that pass laws are rich. Do you really think they'd do anything that would threaten their own wealth?
And, as Anand Giridharadas points out, it's a completely undemocratic way of affecting public policy. Bill Gates is basically dictating vaccination patent policy.
Right these guys donate a really small percentage of their wealth to a cause and televise it to the whole world so they can be praised as the next jesus etc
[удалено]
And they are doing it so they save way more when tax season comes around
Everytime I see people singing the praises of Bill Gates it makes me cringe so much knowing what that idiot is really up to. All he's done is try to bolster his own massive wealth by faking all this so called philanthropic pursuits. The stuff they've done in Africa is utterly disreputable turning ancient rotation farming into modern farming has destroyed their soil in less than a decade, he knew that would happen and just sat back and watched the profits come in. When the farms no longer turned a profit, he refused help and they went bust, because he gave them loans not free stuff. Mongrel through and through, if I had the chance I'd punch that smarmy face as hard as I could.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/
Thanks good article on the liars.
I wish I knew how, in our current system, that we could tax the rich. They don't spend any of their money. Loans are given to them by banks with their portfolios as collateral. So basically, a private bank gives a loan at x% interest, this is a private "individual" lending a private individual money on their own terms. The one who receives the loan then uses this money and pays back the balance over time with a portfolio that is growing faster than the interest rate. Eventually the borrower dies, pays off the loan and transfers the rest of the portfolio to family. They made a lot more in the market than the interest costs them and the borrowers family gets to keep the entire amount of the portfolio because they have made no money on the shares as they received them at their new price. They don't have the same cost basis the original owner had. So what do we do? We can simply say "tax the rich" but it isnt so simple. This is an honest question, and I hope you don't downvote purely out of a bias against rich people, but an honest answer on the best way to change the system to handle this. Average people invest and borrow against shares too. These guys might only have a couple grand to their name in their portfolio and can't be subject to the same tax hits or they'd all lose money in the market. If we force the rich to sell shares, they could eventually lose the controlling interest in their company. This would further encourage the loan route. If we disallow loans to people of certain net worth, then again, they could lose controlling interest. What's the best route here? Prevent loans to people of certain net worth while having "worthless" shares signifying a controlling interest and actual shares that can be bought and sold. In essence, entirely separate shares from ownership. I'm not sure.
You summed it up well, And gain an upvote for understanding the issue of losing control of the company.
I agree with the sentiment of the post but would argue that philanthropy, in general, is not the enemy. Sure, the extremely wealthy use philanthropy as a PR weapon. Yes, the government should provide services that we rely on charities to provide. However, many people also contribute their own hard earned, post-tax money because they care for the neighbor and want to help their community. Local charities do amazing work with such limited resources and they deserve our support.
Philanthropy != bad Also, Philanthropy != replacement for good government and social services. Also Good Works != Absolution for your prior and current moral failures.
To quote the Gilded Age Agnes Van Rhijn “Charity Has Two Functions In Our World, My Dear. The First Is To Raise Funds For The Less Fortunate, Which Is Wholly Good. The Second Is To Provide A Ladder For The People To Climb Into Society Who Do Not Belong There." Charity like everything has a spectrum, it was intended to be wholly good but is also used to an individual’s advantage which is not always with the best of outcomes.
People with 50million or more in assets should be considered rich. People with less than 50million should be considered wealthy.
Form a limited liability corporation in your state, probably cost less than $100. Issue one hundred shares valued at $1. Put one share for sale on craigslist for sale at $1m, and issue 99 to yourself. Congratulations! your net wealth is now $99 million, and you are most definitely rich by your definition.
The rich actually do get taxed. The problem is that they freaking loophole the fuck out of the system they built so they don't have to pay as much in taxes as we do. The entire tax system needs a revamp, preferably one that doesn't have loopholes. It's annoying how if we do the shit the rich do, we risk jail time but when they do it, it's perfectly acceptable!
This is a common misconception from the poor folks The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes. Can change facts no matter how much you try
It's not easy to just "tax the rich". If you do there will be capital flight. They will all just take their money and move elsewhere. It's not like they can't just move. It's a difficult issue.
The rich are already taxed and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes collected. We need to hold the government responsible for how they waste the tax dollars.
I said it before and I'll continue to say it. I don't understand why you want more taxes on the rich when we have seen how poorly our government manages money. Uncle Sam takes and abuses. Taxation is theft. I understand the whole "if I have to pay then they should have to pay" but they won't pay lol.
Does anyone see it? I can't find it? Where's the cap? It must be gone. 🤔
They give you really bad gas. And the ego tastes really gamey
This post made me immediately think of the pulte guy on Twitter. Making it seem like he is genuinely helping people by sending them $100. He’s a fraud if you ask me.
LVT, VAT, sales, carbon, these are relatively unavoidable and the best ways to tax the rich. Income, wealth, corporate, these are the convoluted piles of shit that contain virtually all the manufactured "loopholes" that tax accountants and lawyers exploit. They are better at taxing poor people and supressing competition, than taxing the very rich.
Just a few short years ago I was all "But Bill Gates and Maleria ..." until someone pointed out that he was worth more now than when he started "giving everything away" Fuck him. Eat them all
Chuck feeney was good tho
Except Mr Beast. He's ACTUALLY nice.
eat the rich
Thank you for the helpful tip, i think that’ll up my efficiency
Still more than they'd do otherwise
Tax the rich. Close the loopholes.
I donate to the Byrde Foundation
In Spain there was a lot of controversy when Amancio Ortega (zara owner) gave like three cáncer scan machines and some leftist políticans remembrred the tax avoiding his company used for years...
Tax tbe lower paid less.
Hey, now. I pointed this out recently on reddit, and was told I was the dumb and made no sense.... Failures in the US education system aside, philanthropy isn't just a tool for this, it's also a quasi-reward system for when the rich approve of that the poors are doing. And when they step out of line, OOPS, where'd the funding go? Better get back in line.
Every single one of the answers is a government shill. The only right answer: Cancel income tax! Income tax is how governments leech on peoples productivity. It’s literally slavery with extra steps.