100%
Charities are mostly shit and are a far less efficient than government programs that work towards the same ends (like food banks vs. food stamps). They're mostly a way for rich people to write off some money from their taxes.
Printable View
100%
Charities are mostly shit and are a far less efficient than government programs that work towards the same ends (like food banks vs. food stamps). They're mostly a way for rich people to write off some money from their taxes.
Don't forget it's also a way for charity administrators to get fat paychecks without actually being accountable to shareholders.
I have to wonder about people who are really aggressive about this shit, and spout numbers like 100%
what reasoning do you have for requiring the wealthy to give up 100% of their savings at death?
Just because it would make you feel better? Because you know it would get redistributed to all the right places?
That shit always strikes more along the lines of vengeance than anything that approaches justice or a rational argument.
It would probably be better if the government just burnt it. What would it do to the value of a dollar if the 1% money just reentered the market? Does supply/demand not impact money? Wouldn't it become worth less if there was more of it circulating?
Maybe I need to go to bed, I don't know.
@Cheeks: There is a certain amount of money being held in savings to be dispersed for creating new businesses that is optimal for an economy. Believe it or not, last I checked we were saving too little! So there is certainly a benefit to money being saved and lent out. The question is where should the profits go from that lending of money. I contest it should not be consolidated with the already rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Government burning it is almost identical to them taking it, because they can just print more.
He said 100% of them are morally bankrupt, not they should be forced to give up all of their wealth. While I don't agree with 100% (and the number was used for emphasis), it's not too far off.
@Yoshi
I don't care if the money goes to charity or somewhere considerably more efficient. I just think capital gained from the holding of capital should go to all people. If you want to discuss the other side of the coin (the poor who don't work), that's fine but it is a different argument.
I think people should be entitled to the money they earn even if its ridiculous, the problem is the lack of accountability when they do stupid shit. For example, HSBC helped fucking Mexican drug cartels launder money and not a single person was jailed for it. Who knows how much murder that funded? White collar criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as any other criminal and they should go to the same jails as rapists and murderers.
but why? Why if it's ridiculous? Who does that help exactly, because I can tell you of plenty of people it could be helping if there was some sort of reasonable cap on this sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
Because i want nice things like smartphones and streaming video?
Again, I'm not even talking about capping people at 10 million dollars. If a hundred million dollars for an individual isn't enough to encourage things like smartphones and streaming videos, then I don't care. Someone else WILL invent it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
I disagree. Why would anybody want to be responsible for a company the size of Google or Samsung if they can earn the same money running a significantly smaller, significantly easier endeavour?
Diminished returns to scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue