John Stossel, defending monopolies on The Daily Show: "Bill Gates got rich giving us software we wanted." There were other preposterous statements, but this one flabbergasted me so much that I forgot the rest.
But considering how much Bill Gates contributes to the world through donations and the taxes he pays it only seems right that he can afford to buy things like the journal of Galileo.
You know what? If you can convince enough people that it's 'right' for me to be that outrageously wealthy, I assure you I will pay even more out in taxes and donations than Bill does. :P
It's not 'right' that he's super wealthy because he pays a lot of taxes. It's right that he pays a lot of taxes because he has so much wealth (and all that charity donating actually _reduces_ how much he or his corporation pays in taxes, so it's not helping him be any more 'right' in that respect either.)
It's interesting, because my latest post addresses this topic. I am more outraged that the poorest in the world are not guaranteed food, shelter, and healthcare. I am outraged that more Americans choose to buy the new Outkast CD rather than donating that money to Oxfam or Unicef (you might want to read Peter Singer's Famine and Affluence, which really addresses the morality of it). Also, I am outraged by how little our fellow people and law makers value the environment, as present in our laws that fall too short.
I think it's wrong we don't help the very poor as much as we could, but I don't think it's wrong that some people are rich. Perhaps we need an even more progressive structure of taxation on inheritence and gift giving, but beyond that I can't think of a reason to take away money from people just because they are rich. Perhaps you could help me think of a reason I haven't considered.
Here's one incredibly pessimistic reason: because the vast majority of the wealthiest simply would not indulge in the giving away of their money if they did not have to (or at least gain something significant from it, either in the form of a tax credit or massive PR boost or both.) For instance, look at the hue and outcry that wealthy individuals made over the whole inheritance tax issue - even individuals who had never worked a day in their life and merely inherited a fortune based on their parentage were livid over the idea that they had to give any of that hard-earned cash to the government instead of their kids. The tax code is full of deductions for charitable giving specifically because without those incentives, most people were not being significantly charitable in the first place.
Of course, the wealthiest people are the ones who need government-funded programs like social security, medicare, public schools, public transit, etc etc the absolute least. So why should they pay to help other people, they say?
Well, perhaps because they can afford to. Government costs money. If we aren't taxing someone because they are wealthy, who are we taxing instead, the poor? That's counter-productive, since the poor by definition don't have significant money to be taxed in the first place, and what they do have isn't enough to support themselves without significant aid.
I'm not saying it's wrong for someone to be rich, either. However, someone who _is_ rich can more easily afford an extra financial burden to help those that are not. Consider that a 10% tax increase for someone at the low end of the scale can mean the different between being able to pay their bills
Ah, yes, I see my question was a little awkward. Of course we need to fund the programs we like and it *is* right to tax the rich to help us do so.
Of course, the wealthiest people are the ones who need government-funded programs like social security, medicare, public schools, public transit, etc etc the absolute least. So why should they pay to help other people, they say?
Actually, I think the very wealthy need these programs dearly. Having an uneducated public ruins the whole economy. As for transportationg, well, private transportation could probably work too... there would obviously be price discrimination to allow the poor to continue to use it. Either way, after we cover the worst off and increase the betterment of everyone (funding education, for example), I think the arguments to take from the wealthy become less convincing. (You could argue for economic justice, but I myself am not convinced by that.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Re: But he's right about the Microsoft thing...
You know what? If you can convince enough people that it's 'right' for me to be that outrageously wealthy, I assure you I will pay even more out in taxes and donations than Bill does. :P
It's not 'right' that he's super wealthy because he pays a lot of taxes. It's right that he pays a lot of taxes because he has so much wealth (and all that charity donating actually _reduces_ how much he or his corporation pays in taxes, so it's not helping him be any more 'right' in that respect either.)
From:
Re: But he's right about the Microsoft thing...
I think it's wrong we don't help the very poor as much as we could, but I don't think it's wrong that some people are rich. Perhaps we need an even more progressive structure of taxation on inheritence and gift giving, but beyond that I can't think of a reason to take away money from people just because they are rich. Perhaps you could help me think of a reason I haven't considered.
From:
Re: But he's right about the Microsoft thing...
Of course, the wealthiest people are the ones who need government-funded programs like social security, medicare, public schools, public transit, etc etc the absolute least. So why should they pay to help other people, they say?
Well, perhaps because they can afford to. Government costs money. If we aren't taxing someone because they are wealthy, who are we taxing instead, the poor? That's counter-productive, since the poor by definition don't have significant money to be taxed in the first place, and what they do have isn't enough to support themselves without significant aid.
I'm not saying it's wrong for someone to be rich, either. However, someone who _is_ rich can more easily afford an extra financial burden to help those that are not. Consider that a 10% tax increase for someone at the low end of the scale can mean the different between being able to pay their bills
From:
Re: But he's right about the Microsoft thing...
Actually, I think the very wealthy need these programs dearly. Having an uneducated public ruins the whole economy. As for transportationg, well, private transportation could probably work too... there would obviously be price discrimination to allow the poor to continue to use it. Either way, after we cover the worst off and increase the betterment of everyone (funding education, for example), I think the arguments to take from the wealthy become less convincing. (You could argue for economic justice, but I myself am not convinced by that.)