The World Would Be A Better Place Without The Rich

[Andy_T]

Interesting article:

The World Would Be a Better Place Without the Rich

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Thanks for sharing. The really really super rich possibly have a carbon footprint equivalent to killing 1 person in their lifetimes, or in the case of a few uber rich, maybe even 1 person per year. Just as a rough order of magnitude estimate.

Of course, the ones that are philanthropists may be saving/improving hundreds or thousands of lives. The ones that give away 90% of their income to charities are likely net positive for society.

I think more could be done to get more taxes from the rich and limit their influence in politics and society.

 

[Andy_T]

@Jamie in Chile , thank you for your reaction

However, I am wondering whether you read the article I posted in its entirety, as the points you raise are specifically analyzed there, and the author comes to the conclusion that there is a huge imbalance between a virtuous few and a greedy multitude, and his conclusion is the title of the article. Not saying this as a criticism, it is well possible that you are disagreeing with some or all of the findings of the article, I’m really curious!

 

[Andy_T]

Very interesting video from the Davos Economic Forum:

Billionaires Called Out for Tax Evasion by Historian Rutger Bregman

 

[Jamie in Chile]

@Jamie in Chile , thank you for your reaction

However, I am wondering whether you read the article I posted in its entirety, as the points you raise are specifically analyzed there, and the author comes to the conclusion that there is a huge imbalance between a virtuous few and a greedy multitude, and his conclusion is the title of the article. Not saying this as a criticism, it is well possible that you are disagreeing with some or all of the findings of the article, I’m really curious!

I didn't see your comment until today. I didn't read the article in full before, but did today.

The stats it gives about philanthropy are not helpful, as they just talk about relative growth, but don't say how much is given as a percentage of total wealth. People like Bill Gates are a net good for society because they look at effective altruism, but the people having fancy concert halls named after them in small towns are not helping. I think the article makes a good case but I'd want to see more detail about % of wealth given to charity by billionaires, as well as more on what charities - e.g. effective altruism vs supporting local church.

I think I'd like to see higher tax bands. In many countries, the tax bands just stop at around 40% or so, and it's the same 40% if you are earning $0.5 million or $500 billion. In some cases, the rich pay lower than 40% because they structure their earnings in different ways rather than as a salary.

I think I'd like to see something like e.g.
50% above $200,000
60% above $2 million
70% above $100 million
80% above $1 billion

And make sure it covers all personal wealth whether salary, bonus, investments, whatever.

And you could perhaps avoid falling into these bands if you were given most of your money to effective charities.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I think getting the rich to pay a fair share of taxes is difficult though because they work so hard to dodge it whether through corporations or as individuals and have so many dodgy and expensive accountants and lawyers. I think you have to set aside a big sum of money to chase around the world after the problem, get more international co-operation, and get more government leaders behind it.

Someone also needs to make this a populist issue during election cycles.

 

[PTree15]

I didn't see your comment until today. I didn't read the article in full before, but did today.

The stats it gives about philanthropy are not helpful, as they just talk about relative growth, but don't say how much is given as a percentage of total wealth. People like Bill Gates are a net good for society because they look at effective altruism, but the people having fancy concert halls named after them in small towns are not helping. I think the article makes a good case but I'd want to see more detail about % of wealth given to charity by billionaires, as well as more on what charities - e.g. effective altruism vs supporting local church.

I think I'd like to see higher tax bands. In many countries, the tax bands just stop at around 40% or so, and it's the same 40% if you are earning $0.5 million or $500 billion. In some cases, the rich pay lower than 40% because they structure their earnings in different ways rather than as a salary.

I think I'd like to see something like e.g.
50% above $200,000
60% above $2 million
70% above $100 million
80% above $1 billion

And make sure it covers all personal wealth whether salary, bonus, investments, whatever.

And you could perhaps avoid falling into these bands if you were given most of your money to effective charities.

While this may be true (the bolded part), the real issue I see is control, IMHO. With charities, the rich dictate the terms. Taxes are spent by the government, such as it is, so the rich theoretically don't have control over how they are spent (though they have powerful lobbies).

 

[Andy_T]

Funny update:

Historian who confronted Davos billionaires leaks Tucker Carlson rant

Bregman so riled Carson with his accusations of hypocrisy, critiques of Fox’s conservative agenda, and attacks on Donald Trump that the TV host called him a “moron” and angrily told him: “Go **** yourself.”

According to Bregman, he recorded the interview with Carlson last week and it was scheduled to air later, but never did.

That interview is absolutely worth watching in its entirety

 

[Jamie in Chile]

One point that wasn't addressed is that TV anchors don't have to be in bed with the rich or certain politicians at all for something like Fox News to work. Maybe they are, and maybe they are not. It doesn't matter either way.

All they need to do is recruit TV anchors that already agree with them ideologically on a range of issues. Just target that in the recruitment. That's it.