The Giving Pledge

Can we talk about the giving pledge?

Apropos of nothing, I just want to state how profoundly unimpressed I am with the giving pledge. It just seems so cynical to me. Take Bill Gates, for example. How much money is in his bank account? How long has it sat there while thousands (millions? billions? Definitely more than thousands.) of people around the world continue to die in abject poverty from entirely preventable causes? And I'm supposed to be impressed by the magnanimity of his largesse, that he's going to will half of it away once he's no longer around to enjoy it? Fuck that, you've got a hundred billion right now that you don't need, get to it.

Semi-related, I never want to hear Melinda Gates's name again. The only thing of note that she has done in her life is marry Bill. I don't know Warren Buffet's wife's name.

Mods, please merge with the class warfare thread.

I'll guess Elizabeth or Susan.

I said apropos of nothing, but upon further reflection, that's not entirely true. This is in part a response to Bill Gates's reaction/opposition to Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax.

You've already pledged to give it away, Bill. Consider the wealth tax an advance on your pledge. Unless the pledge was just a PR move, and you never had any intention of following through during your lifetime. And also, you don't get plaudits for paying your taxes, but you can stroke your own ego as much as you want for "philanthropy."

But maybe I'm just cynical.

Just me, I guess.

Cameron I think people struggle to understand just how much money a billion dollars is. Like, it’s all very theoretical and they don’t get it just how much it really is. Let alone 100 billion dollars. That’s fucking insane. I have no sympathy for these people and no matter how much you tax them they’ll still be able to buy and sell all of us at their own will.

One way I like to get people to wrap their heads around it- if you had a million dollars and you spent $1/second, or $86,400 per day, you’d be out of money in 11.5 days. Makes sense. If you had a billion dollars and did the same, it would take 31.7 years to run out of money, and that’s not even including the interest the money is earning in the meantime. So really it would run out way slower than that.

Anyway, it’s an obscene amount of money and no one should have control of that much wealth and it’s a symptom of a broken system and if someone tells me they want to tax people like that at 90% then I’m good with it.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Cameron I think people struggle to understand just how much money a billion dollars is. Like, it’s all very theoretical and they don’t get it just how much it really is. Let alone 100 billion dollars. That’s fucking insane. I have no sympathy for these people and no matter how much you tax them they’ll still be able to buy and sell all of us at their own will.

One way I like to get people to wrap their heads around it- if you had a million dollars and you spent $1/second, or $86,400 per day, you’d be out of money in 11.5 days. Makes sense. If you had a billion dollars and did the same, it would take 31.7 years to run out of money, and that’s not even including the interest the money is earning in the meantime. So really it would run out way slower than that.

Anyway, it’s an obscene amount of money and no one should have control of that much wealth and it’s a symptom of a broken system and if someone tells me they want to tax people like that at 90% then I’m good with it.

I saw a meme recently, and I had to double check the math myself, because it's along those same lines.

Meme said something like: if you started working at the birth of Christ, and earned $2000/hour, saved it all, and never paid any taxes, today you'd have around $8.4 billion. You'd be only about the 30th richest American.

Yeah that’s about right. It’s just absurd.

Also I think people hear about wealth taxes and such and it scares them because they think that they will somehow be effected one day (another random “I saw” but awhile back I saw a poll about people’s views on the standing of their own wealth and something like 25% thought they were either in, or one day would be in, the top 1%.)

It needs to be drilled into people’s heads that things like wealth taxes aren’t even close to impacting 99.999% of people and that they have no hope of ever being impacted by it. Oh and if they somehow were, they’d still not even notice an effect on their life because of the tax due to how absurdly wealthy they’d have to be.

I have recently started watching the Because Science youtube channel, and one of the videos I watched recently touched on how much money Bezos has. I'll try to find the video, but I believe it concluded that if you converted all of Bezos's wealth to one dollar bills, they could circle the circumference of the sun 3 times.

Found the video. It's 4 times, not 3.

That sounds interesting, going to give that’s watch.

Oh one other thing- republicans have ensured that we are hopelessly fucked for quite some time. Every once in awhile I heard rumblings about this but it’s never really talked about. For every proposal to tax the rich, we need another proposal on how exactly we will collect beyond asking nicely.

Here’s a podcast with Chris Hayes of msnbc fame that digs into how, even if we enacted laws to tax these people, we have no enforcement mechanism anymore since the IRS has been gutted over the course of decades. At present the IRS does more audits of poor people than they do of rich simply because it’s easier and they don’t have the staff to do the more complicated in depth ones. It’s a really nice oligarchy we’ve formed while most of the country gets worked up about if “their” tax dollars go to something that makes them upset.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/msnbc/why-is-this-happening/e/58730094

That's a great point. I'm often quite suspect of the motives of anyone who talks about reforming the tax code, but reform is absolutely needed. Gotta close those loopholes.

I'm also given to understand that funding the IRS is one of the most efficient, if rather unpopular, uses of taxpayer money. I forget the number or where I heard it, but I believe each dollar spent funding the IRS brings back more than a dollar in tax revenue.

Cameron wrote:That's a great point. I'm often quite suspect of the motives of anyone who talks about reforming the tax code, but reform is absolutely needed. Gotta close those loopholes.

I'm also given to understand that funding the IRS is one of the most efficient, if rather unpopular, uses of taxpayer money. I forget the number or where I heard it, but I believe each dollar spent funding the IRS brings back more than a dollar in tax revenue.

I thought it was closer to 4:1 that it brings back. Then again, I probably saw it on Reddit over a year ago.

InTenSity wrote:

Cameron wrote:That's a great point. I'm often quite suspect of the motives of anyone who talks about reforming the tax code, but reform is absolutely needed. Gotta close those loopholes.

I'm also given to understand that funding the IRS is one of the most efficient, if rather unpopular, uses of taxpayer money. I forget the number or where I heard it, but I believe each dollar spent funding the IRS brings back more than a dollar in tax revenue.

I thought it was closer to 4:1 that it brings back. Then again, I probably saw it on Reddit over a year ago.

Right you are, at least according to this article.

Yeah, we can say “give us 2% of your wealth” but if the answer is literally just “lol no. make me” and we don’t have a way to enforce it.... well, then sure we got the law passed but it doesn’t make a difference.

[tw]1839674630677639365[/tw]

My cynicism was so justified. Fuck Bill Gates. Eat the rich.

Cameron wrote:[tw]1839674630677639365[/tw]

My cynicism was so justified. Fuck Bill Gates. Eat the rich.

Just because Bill Gates is a coastal liberal rules for thee but not for me type a-hole doesn't mean that billionaires shouldn't exist.

Billionaires shouldn't exist, but I agree that that is not the reason why.

Cameron wrote:Billionaires shouldn't exist, but I agree that that is not the reason why.

Pray tell what is the reason why?

Sure, I've got some free time today, I'll waste some of it telling you a bunch of stuff you already know and don't agree with.

A billion dollars (let alone multiple billions) is more than any person could reasonably spend in several lifetimes, and could do much more good distributed among those who actually have need for it. Efficient distribution of resources would reduce hunger, disease, and crime, and improve educational outcomes, healthcare outcomes, and overall happiness for millions upon millions of people. It is an absolute moral failing NOT to tax billionaires out of existence.

If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

Being a multi billionaire is a mental condition. These people are praised in our society while the guy that holds up in his house collecting news papers and cats and the cats shit everywhere and it stinks because he can’t find the cat shit amongst all the piles of trash but he can’t bring himself to get rid of any of his treasure is shamed and called a hoarder. Mentally, the two people are no different. They can’t part with their insane obsession that they’ve grown to an absurd level even though they could never find a use for all of it

DWags wrote:

Cameron wrote:If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

I don’t know.   I love watching the history channel, And the series “ The man who made America” “ The foods that made America”  etc.  It’s a pretty cool series.  I think some of those people that invented and created factories would keep working and doing things because they were motivated beyond money, And I think some of those brilliant people, Would pick up their toys and move to a country that would allow them to create and make things, And also keep rewarding them with more and more money.  And I do think that would happen to our country.  We would lose a lot of creative and brilliant people to a country that would allow them to make as much money as they wanted.  

If they want to do business in the US, we can tax their fortune one way or the other. If they want to leave the US and only do business outside the US, good riddance.

If and when the US stops being a large enough economy for that leverage to be sufficient, things could be adjusted. But your argument strikes me as indistinguishable from the race to the bottom nonsense among states where they start competing with each other to see who can give out the most goodies and tax rebates (and, often, outright fucking subsidies) to rich fucks to entice them to pretty pretty please bless us with their business. When you race to the bottom, winning is losing.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Being a multi billionaire is a mental condition. These people are praised in our society while the guy that holds up in his house collecting news papers and cats and the cats shit everywhere and it stinks because he can’t find the cat shit amongst all the piles of trash but he can’t bring himself to get rid of any of his treasure is shamed and called a hoarder. Mentally, the two people are no different. They can’t part with their insane obsession that they’ve grown to an absurd level even though they could never find a use for all of it

How many billionaires do you personally know to have formed this opinion?

DWags wrote:
I don’t know. I love watching the history channel, And the series “ The man who made America” “ The foods that made America” etc. It’s a pretty cool series. I think some of those people that invented and created factories would keep working and doing things because they were motivated beyond money, And I think some of those brilliant people, Would pick up their toys and move to a country that would allow them to create and make things, And also keep rewarding them with more and more money. And I do think that would happen to our country. We would lose a lot of creative and brilliant people to a country that would allow them to make as much money as they wanted.

Its the competition and challenge for some, the money is a way they keep track of CRUSHING THEIR ENEMIES. Like Amazon guy or Kermit the Microsoft when he was the CEO...

Others just feel entitled to the cache of it. (If my daddy was a billionaire I should be too because I went to his college.) Trump and his kids... Kochs. The Walmarts, Amways.

Elon is probably both.

Cameron wrote:If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

So you do realize that the Constitution proves ZERO basis for the taxation of wealth, right? I mean legally... it's a non starter. You can both wish for some crazy Robinhood tax the wealthy - give to the poor scheme, and shit in a bucket, and let me tell you what you'll end up with. I mean, you've wasted everyone's time just thinking about it.

Also.... interesting how you start at a billion dollars, and then quickly drop to one hundred million. Next it will be 10 million. This is one of many reasons why people who aren't billionaires are against your idiotic ideas.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Being a multi billionaire is a mental condition. These people are praised in our society while the guy that holds up in his house collecting news papers and cats and the cats shit everywhere and it stinks because he can’t find the cat shit amongst all the piles of trash but he can’t bring himself to get rid of any of his treasure is shamed and called a hoarder. Mentally, the two people are no different. They can’t part with their insane obsession that they’ve grown to an absurd level even though they could never find a use for all of it

How many billionaires do you personally know to have formed this opinion?

How many hoarders do you know?

The patterns of behavior are the same, and one is recognized as a mental illness while the other isn’t. (Though I’d argue that they aren’t really different at all. Being a multibillionaire is quite literally just hoarding. No need for a different word for it.)

DWags wrote:

Cameron wrote:If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

I don’t know.   I love watching the history channel, And the series “ The man who made America” “ The foods that made America”  etc.  It’s a pretty cool series.  I think some of those people that invented and created factories would keep working and doing things because they were motivated beyond money, And I think some of those brilliant people, Would pick up their toys and move to a country that would allow them to create and make things, And also keep rewarding them with more and more money.  And I do think that would happen to our country.  We would lose a lot of creative and brilliant people to a country that would allow them to make as much money as they wanted.  

They aren’t going anywhere. And the actual billionaires are significantly less brilliant and useful than you think they are.

Oh no how would we ever survive without private equity leeching off of everyone else. Fuck em.

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

So you do realize that the Constitution proves ZERO basis for the taxation of wealth, right?  I mean legally... it's a non starter.  You can both wish for some crazy Robinhood tax the wealthy - give to the poor scheme, and shit in a bucket, and let me tell you what you'll end up with.  I mean, you've wasted everyone's time just thinking about it.

Also.... interesting how you start at a billion dollars, and then quickly drop to one hundred million.  Next it will be 10 million.  This is one of many reasons why people who aren't billionaires are against your idiotic ideas.  

What we ought to do and what the Constitution allows for are two different things. Hence amendments.

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:If someone isn't motivated to create because we cap them at $999 million, (or even $99 million) they aren't motivated to create at all. Nonsense argument.

So you do realize that the Constitution proves ZERO basis for the taxation of wealth, right?  I mean legally... it's a non starter.  You can both wish for some crazy Robinhood tax the wealthy - give to the poor scheme, and shit in a bucket, and let me tell you what you'll end up with.  I mean, you've wasted everyone's time just thinking about it.

Also.....interesting how you start at a billion dollars, and then quickly drop to one hundred million.  Next it will be 10 million.  This is one of many reasons why people who aren't billionaires are against your idiotic ideas.  

its not that interesting and no it wouldn’t. That’s what billionaires tell you to protect their stolen wealth and you lap it up because you think that if you eat enough of their shit they’ll respect you.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Being a multi billionaire is a mental condition. These people are praised in our society while the guy that holds up in his house collecting news papers and cats and the cats shit everywhere and it stinks because he can’t find the cat shit amongst all the piles of trash but he can’t bring himself to get rid of any of his treasure is shamed and called a hoarder. Mentally, the two people are no different. They can’t part with their insane obsession that they’ve grown to an absurd level even though they could never find a use for all of it

That’s a really unique and interesting comparison. I’d have to give it more thought before completely agreeing, but it’s fun to think about.

Great wealth is overrated as a benefit to society. If you owned, worked for or depended financially on almost any business, would you rather have a guy with a billion dollars come to your town or 10,000 families with $100,000 each?

Income should be an asymptote to taxation. You should always be able to make more but with diminishing returns. This should not affect the "sort of wealthy". No one is making a $300 billion contributions to society unilaterally. You had a great idea once that has had a profitable impact on society? You deserve to be rich. But our current rules favor capital over labor and that needs to be reversed. Low tax for the rich proponents call this a redistribution of wealth and get away with that language when in fact we have had such a redistribution of wealth in this country over the last 50 years in the opposite direction.

It's fine and dandy too that inheritances are often squandered but it is also worth asking why Lukas Walton is a multi-billionaire. You can't out of one side of your mouth say we should have multibillionaires "because meritocracy" and then say also... well, unless it's given to you for no apparent reason. Unlike you, TM, Lukas Walton definitely did not work hard for his money. There should be a limit on that.

Rick Saunders wrote:Income should be an asymptote to taxation. You should always be able to make more but with diminishing returns. This should not affect the "sort of wealthy". No one is making a $300 billion contributions to society unilaterally. You had a great idea once that has had a profitable impact on society? You deserve to be rich. But our current rules favor capital over labor and that needs to be reversed. Low tax for the rich proponents call this a redistribution of wealth and get away with that language when in fact we have had such a redistribution of wealth in this country over the last 50 years in the opposite direction.

It's fine and dandy too that inheritances are often squandered but it is also worth asking why Lukas Walton is a multi-billionaire. You can't out of one side of your mouth say we should have multibillionaires "because meritocracy" and then say also... well, unless it's given to you for no apparent reason. Unlike you, TM, Lukas Walton definitely did not work hard for his money. There should be a limit on that.

I'll be completely honest - I've never understood why, upon death, the default liberal answer is that wealth should be given to the government. It's not the government's money. It's your money. Shouldn't you get to dictate where it goes? Why does the government get it? You should be able to give it to your family and friends and they should be able to benefit from your generosity without punitive taxation.

I get that you're jealous/angry that you're not as rich as some rando Walton kid, but don't you at least like your own family/friends enough to not want to see your life's wealth squandered by the government???

TravelinMan wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:Income should be an asymptote to taxation.  You should always be able to make more but with diminishing returns.  This should not affect the "sort of wealthy".  No one is making a $300 billion contributions to society unilaterally.  You had a great idea once that has had a profitable impact on society?  You deserve to be rich.  But our current rules favor capital over labor and that needs to be reversed.  Low tax for the rich proponents call this a redistribution of wealth and get away with that language when in fact we have had such a redistribution of wealth in this country over the last 50 years in the opposite direction.

It's fine and dandy too that inheritances are often squandered but it is also worth asking why Lukas Walton is a multi-billionaire. You can't out of one side of your mouth say we should have multibillionaires "because meritocracy" and then say also... well, unless it's given to you for no apparent reason.  Unlike you, TM, Lukas Walton definitely did not work hard for his money.  There should be a limit on that.

I'll be completely honest - I've never understood why, upon death, the default liberal answer is that wealth should be given to the government.  It's not the government's money.  It's your money.  Shouldn't you get to dictate where it goes?  Why does the government get it?  You should be able to give it to your family and friends and they should be able to benefit from your generosity without punitive taxation.

I get that you're jealous/angry that you're not as rich as some rando Walton kid, but don't you at least like your own family/friends enough to not want to see your life's wealth squandered by the government???

The jealousy meme is such a canard used to confuse the weak minded when discussing what the most just system is for society as a totality.

You should ask yourself the opposing POV question, which is twofold.  The first is once the wealthy person is dead they no longer have any existing rights.  In the system we have had forever they can designate  while alive, who gets the estate, which of course is an outgrown of English law regarding the passing on of government granted ruling titles for families to maintain the system of lords and commoners.

The second is what is best for all of the people who are members of society.

So, this passing on of wealth was set up due to the state's interests, and still may have some value, but to what extent, compared with the value of people gaining wealth based on their own contributions to living society, which is much more in line with the United States creed.

Presumably, the offspring, or other favored souls of the wealthy will benefit while the wealth creators are alive, for having access to more opportunities to gain meritious skills via the wealthy funding the acquiring of those skills, which might be considered inheritance enough, without the passing on of capital.

As an aside, is it fair for capital to be passed on without taxation on the gains in value since the money was originally invested, as is now the case.  The wealthy will be passing on trillions of capital gains, untaxed.

TravelinMan wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:Income should be an asymptote to taxation.  You should always be able to make more but with diminishing returns.  This should not affect the "sort of wealthy".  No one is making a $300 billion contributions to society unilaterally.  You had a great idea once that has had a profitable impact on society?  You deserve to be rich.  But our current rules favor capital over labor and that needs to be reversed.  Low tax for the rich proponents call this a redistribution of wealth and get away with that language when in fact we have had such a redistribution of wealth in this country over the last 50 years in the opposite direction.

It's fine and dandy too that inheritances are often squandered but it is also worth asking why Lukas Walton is a multi-billionaire. You can't out of one side of your mouth say we should have multibillionaires "because meritocracy" and then say also... well, unless it's given to you for no apparent reason.  Unlike you, TM, Lukas Walton definitely did not work hard for his money.  There should be a limit on that.

I'll be completely honest - I've never understood why, upon death, the default liberal answer is that wealth should be given to the government.  It's not the government's money.  It's your money.  Shouldn't you get to dictate where it goes?  Why does the government get it?  You should be able to give it to your family and friends and they should be able to benefit from your generosity without punitive taxation.

I get that you're jealous/angry that you're not as rich as some rando Walton kid, but don't you at least like your own family/friends enough to not want to see your life's wealth squandered by the government???

I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I'll be completely honest - I've never understood why, upon death, the default liberal answer is that wealth should be given to the government.  It's not the government's money.  It's your money.  Shouldn't you get to dictate where it goes?  Why does the government get it?  You should be able to give it to your family and friends and they should be able to benefit from your generosity without punitive taxation.

I get that you're jealous/angry that you're not as rich as some rando Walton kid, but don't you at least like your own family/friends enough to not want to see your life's wealth squandered by the government???

I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

There is nothing wrong, at a personal level, in valuing the all mighty dollar above all else.

The question is what is best for all the people in society, which is sometimes called the country.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

There is nothing wrong, at a personal level, in valuing the all mighty dollar above all else.

The question is what is best for all the people in society, which is sometimes called the country.

oh yeah, if TM wants to value money, financial wealth, etc, that's cool.

I'm just saying that not all of us share those values.

Which is cool, too.