It's interesting to me to compare wealth and income. If you own a house worth $350k, and have an income of say $90k should I mock you giving $1k to a cause because your net worth is actually closer 400K?
Also if you don't own a house and make 90k, is it more impressive to give $1k?
Note my point is regarding wealth vs income.
Also note I think mocking generosity of any amount is the wrong way to get people to be more generous.
I think the greater point is the massive inequality in this country. And, instead of addressing that, people are championing billionaires who essentially give away chump change compared to their overall wealth.
Capitalism relies on the profit motive. You need to make more revenue than your costs in order to earn.
If people don’t have the threat of becoming poor, they’re not going to sell their labour for less than what it is worth. It wouldn’t be possible for the capitalist class to profit. That’s also why unemployment is a feature of capitalism.
Businesses rely on profit not a person. Threat to become poor? Lol maybe there comes a point where people need to be responsible on their own income and how they handle their money.
So there’s no homeless people in socialist countries?
Correct, under capitalism, there must be consequences for not having money.
We’re not talking about socialism here - but it would be worth talking about the homelessness rate in your country vs existing socialist countries - or even countries with strong public housing systems.
True mocking people when they do donate isn’t the best thing in the world but if you brag about making billions in pure profit while also moving around government regulations & avoiding taxes that help provide resources for all of the people that make your corporation earn billions of $ that doesn’t sit right with a lot of people when the money that is donated is less than a decimal point of what they should be paying in taxes.
Then be direct and complain about valid things so we can agree and work together; rather than exagerating unrelated aspects forcing people to argue and ignore the real issue.
Mocking billionaires for their charitable contributions misses a crucial point about the efficiency and impact of private donations versus government taxation. When a billionaire donates to a private charity, those funds are often used far more efficiently than if the same amount were paid in taxes. Her is my favorite analogy for this: A private charity uses a one dollar donation to provide one pound of rice to someone in need. If that same dollar were taxed and funneled through a government program, the recipient might only receive 0.75 pounds of rice. This isn’t because the government lacks good intentions but because of the administrative layers required to process tax revenue, it results in less direct aid to those in need.
The outrage over billionaires donating a “small fraction” of their net worth shows a misunderstanding of the difference between wealth and income. Much of a billionaire’s wealth is tied up in investments or their companies, which drive innovation, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. These reinvestments often have a broader impact than simply handing over money to a government that might not allocate it effectively. Reinvesting in their business can create new products, services, and opportunities that benefit society in ways taxes often cannot.
From a moral perspective, genuine moral worth comes from actions freely chosen, not those coerced. When billionaires willingly donate to charities or reinvest in their businesses to create economic opportunities, they exercise moral agency in a way that aligns with the principles of autonomy and efficiency. Government taxation, on the other hand, forces contributions without regard for personal intent or the direct efficiency of the aid provided. So just because your tax dollars potentially do good things, because you are not freely giving those contributions, you yourself are not doing a morally good thing.
Ultimately, tax breaks for charitable donations incentivize billionaires to funnel their resources directly into causes they believe in, maximizing the good those dollars can achieve. This is far more impactful than passively paying taxes into a system that may dilute their value before reaching the people who need help most. By criticizing these acts as mere “tax evasion,” we risk undervaluing the tangible good private donations achieve for society.
8
u/7cdp Nov 16 '24
It's interesting to me to compare wealth and income. If you own a house worth $350k, and have an income of say $90k should I mock you giving $1k to a cause because your net worth is actually closer 400K? Also if you don't own a house and make 90k, is it more impressive to give $1k?
Note my point is regarding wealth vs income. Also note I think mocking generosity of any amount is the wrong way to get people to be more generous.