40 Billionaires To Give Away Half Their Wealth

anmracing

Registered Member
#41
I thought this was an interesting statement:

“If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full… to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions…”
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#42
I agree with you in some respects. While I do think cutting taxes will allow them to spend more, that doesn't necessarily translate to they will.

I was watching some show the other day and somone suggested that if Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent it would lift the economy tomorrow in far greater terms than anything he's done in the past year and eight months. That is the very definition of wishful thinking in my opinion.
Think of it this way (however simplistic it may be):

A community of rich people will be taxed 2 million dollars this year. However, taxes are cut and they are only taxed a total of 1 million in the hopes that the local economy will benefit.

Some of the money saved on taxes is spent. Perhaps a new TV (which is not guaranteed to be from a local store or manufacturer) or a new car (which is not guaranteed to be from a local dealer or made by an American company). It's a complete roll of the dice that tries to improve the economy in a very indirect way.

Meanwhile, a government office is now underfunded because of the cuts. As a result, they have to cut programs that would directly benefit the community and fire staff. When it comes to making local improvements, take the more direct route.

I'm not saying government bureaucracy is perfect by any means, nor does it always spend money wisely. I just prefer the idea of the public electing people to decide what to spend money on rather than leaving it in the hands of the rich, which has no guarantee of the money staying in the community.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#43
Think of it this way (however simplistic it may be):

A community of rich people will be taxed 2 million dollars this year. However, taxes are cut and they are only taxed a total of 1 million in the hopes that the local economy will benefit.

Some of the money saved on taxes is spent. Perhaps a new TV (which is not guaranteed to be from a local store or manufacturer) or a new car (which is not guaranteed to be from a local dealer or made by an American company). It's a complete roll of the dice that tries to improve the economy in a very indirect way.

Meanwhile, a government office is now underfunded because of the cuts. As a result, they have to cut programs that would directly benefit the community and fire staff. When it comes to making local improvements, take the more direct route.

I'm not saying government bureaucracy is perfect by any means, nor does it always spend money wisely. I just prefer the idea of the public electing people to decide what to spend money on rather than leaving it in the hands of the rich, which has no guarantee of the money staying in the community.
All that is a good point and I agree with this in most respects. Not only does the government spending stay in the community it's also more likely to be targeted towards immediate needs. And you're right, no solution is perfect.

BUT, I do have to throw a little bit of a monkey wrench in here:p Spending money on a TV or a car even if not made in the US can still help the economy. There still needs to be salespersons and delivery persons at the local Best Buy to sell and deliver those TV's. And globalization also drives prices down and forces companies to make their prices better yet cheaper. It can be argued, for example, car companies such as Toyota and Nissan have forced American car companies to make better quality vehicles at a cheaper price in order to try and stay competitive.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#44
BUT, I do have to throw a little bit of a monkey wrench in here:p Spending money on a TV or a car even if not made in the US can still help the economy. There still needs to be salespersons and delivery persons at the local Best Buy to sell and deliver those TV's. And globalization also drives prices down and forces companies to make their prices better yet cheaper. It can be argued, for example, car companies such as Toyota and Nissan have forced American car companies to make better quality vehicles at a cheaper price in order to try and stay competitive.
In general I'll agree with this, although the current system of globalization drives down prices at a high human cost (though I don't favor a protectionist policy either). However, I believe our versions of the details vary quite a bit after the general ideas.
 
Last edited:

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#45
I'm not saying government bureaucracy is perfect by any means, nor does it always spend money wisely. I just prefer the idea of the public electing people to decide what to spend money on rather than leaving it in the hands of the rich, which has no guarantee of the money staying in the community.
The problem is "the rich" is not a renewable resource. The higher taxes become, the less incentive people are going to be to become rich. I am a salesperson. I could quit my job and open my own practice and in 10 years hopefully be as filthy rich as my boss. I really have no desire to do that right now and if it looks like "the rich" will be taxed to death in the future, I will never make that move.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#46
The problem is "the rich" is not a renewable resource. The higher taxes become, the less incentive people are going to be to become rich. I am a salesperson. I could quit my job and open my own practice and in 10 years hopefully be as filthy rich as my boss. I really have no desire to do that right now and if it looks like "the rich" will be taxed to death in the future, I will never make that move.
Taxes are a horrible reason to not do something you want to.

As for the bolded part, I'm not talking about some sort of communist system. Clearly rich people would always have more money, since they earned more. But I don't see how the charity of billionaires will succeed where government has supposedly failed or has yet to try.
 
Last edited:

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#47
Aside from the government budget not being dependent on the rich, taxes are a horrible reason to not do something you want to.
The top tax rate under Carter was 70%. There's no way in hell I'm going to assume the risk and invest the time needed to build a business so that the federal government can take 70%(above a certain level) and my state can take another 15%.
 
Top