Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away.
It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million.
In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.
Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?
You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either:
(a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or
(b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down.
Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US Government is a more effective way to generate positive impact in the world than personal charitable donations.
If I could pay my taxes to Bill Gates I would – my tax dollars would be used to eradicate polio or malaria, rather than on bureaucracy and starting wars.
You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.
Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. That's dangerous territory.
I'm not saying I have a better idea, I don't, but democracy has been the driving force behind some pretty heinous stuff over the centuries (most obviously the resistance to equality of race, gay rights and universal suffrage). It's just less terrible than the alternatives that exist in the world today (e.g. dictatorship).
At least in giving your money to a Buffett, a Gates or a Feeney you have some evidence that they intend to put it to good use.
I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option
(c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.
As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.
Yes. I'm far less worried about government == inefficient (I've learned too much about AI and the genetic algorithm to have faith in human-based optimization strategies, and this is one reason I'm enthusiastic about population-based optimization along Basic Income lines) but possibly even more offended by the logic that specifically billionaires will allocate wealth better.
I feel like the very existence of billionaires demonstrates that they are a self-selecting pool of abusers and/or criminals running exploits that place their interests above the system they're in. Even the idea of 'the wealthy allocate money better' is ridiculous. Towards what, themselves? It's like saying cancer allocates body resources better, because cancer can get into a position where it conclusively 'wins'.
But you've got to aggregate a) over all the billionaires, not just the ones giving. We're not comparing Bill Gates to the US Govt for impact per dollar, we're comparing all US billionaires vs the US Govt.
You are forgetting or ignoring the damage to society caused by multi-generation accumulation of wealth and the consolidation of power that arises from that. These were the primary concerns when the founding fathers were debating estate tax..
If you give more money to the government, doesn’t that implicitly mean you are giving/donating about 15% of that money to the military industrial complex?
Billionaireness is profoundly extractive by definition. Leave class out of it and billionaires inherently benefit themselves against any and every system they are in, and that's including other billionaires (they're exceedingly competitive).
That means that billionaires also act against the interests of the donor class as a matter of course. If they were not the very definition of unaccountable power, you wouldn't see anybody defending them or their typical behaviors.
That is quite a short sighted and funny evaluation.
It is so benignly restricted since it excludes the possibility of charity and government funding can have a positive impact. Instead it is some fight against good and evil.
I don't know what it has to do with Christianity, but you are free to visit a church, maybe they can tell you something about the gospel you linked.
One could argue that there is probably some correlation between great wealth and good judgement about the effective use of money.
In that regard, perhaps it’s good to have social intervention performed by a mixture of democratic and individualistic entities. Perhaps one will address things that the other might miss.
> Two of the billionaires whose philanthropy I most respect, Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, have done a lot of work on criminal justice reform. The organizations they fund determined that many innocent people are languishing in jail for months because they don’t have enough money to pay bail; others are pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because they have to get out of jail in time to get to work or care for their children, even if it gives them a criminal record. They funded a short-term effort to help these people afford bail, and a long-term effort to reform the bail system. One of the charities they donate to, The Bronx Freedom Fund, found that 92% of suspects without bail assistance will plead guilty and get a criminal record. But if given enough bail assistance to make it to trial, over half would have all charges dropped. This is exactly the kind of fighting-mass-incarceration and stopping-the-cycle-of-poverty work everyone says we need, and it works really well.
> If Moskovitz and Tuna’s money instead flowed to the government, would it accomplish the same goal in some kind of more democratic, more publically-guided way? No. It would go to locking these people up, paying for more prosecutors to trick them into pleading guilty, more prison guards to abuse and harass them. The government already spends $100 billion – seven times Tuna and Moskovitz’s combined fortunes – on maintaining the carceral state each year. This utterly dwarfs any trickle of money it spends on undoing the harms of the carceral state, even supposing such a trickle exists.
How do you know what the Walton's and Koch's are doing with their wealth? Perhaps they are doing the same thing as Feeny but without the fanfare. I think they are. Are you singling them out because of political differences?
Waltons and Kochs actually give a lot. I am very close to an organization that receives money from both of their foundations. They do have a political agenda with much or their giving but in certain areas it could be considered apolitical.
It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million.
In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.