Interestingly a lot of the larger philanthropic organizations are just as administration heavy as the US government and suffer from the same mission creep and the same obfuscated, bureaucratic decision making process, etc. Not to mention the leadership is often richly compensated (i.e. $1M in salary) and non-elected.
In fact we should probably celebrate gifts to the US government more than we do.
> we should probably celebrate gifts to the US government more than we do.
I had the idea that we should put a donation box on tax forms. The 100 top donators get on the “US 100” list (like Forbes) but it’s based ONLY on how much you donate, not how much you claim to be worth.
It’s one thing to claim to be rich to a Forbes reporter, it’s another to have the (tax) receipts to back it up.
reminds me of the way dubai auctions off the 3 digit car license plates, then hotels do things like only letting low number license plates park out front
Brilliant move, then use the money to support those that are less well off. You can have the ultra-rich bragging about how much they paid, while those that need it most are benefitting. A real win-win.
yep, iirc on the huberman podcast on testosterone it even said that the competition that's decided by society has an impact on t-levels. societies that make prosocial / win-win games for men obv end up better off
Most tremendously wealthy people don’t want to be known for being tremendously wealthy. Unless being known for being tremendously wealthy is a part of your wealth accumulating strategy, the attention it brings is almost entirely negative. Being tremendously wealthy without millions of people constantly chirping about clawing as much of it away from you as possible, or demanding an explanation from you every time you wipe your ass is a far better outcome, and most people who are savvy enough to become billionaires are savvy enough to figure that out pretty quickly.
Only the ones at the top of the list would be interested in donating and keep donating. If a rich person calculates that he could only reach the 57th place by donating a large part of his money, then he would have no incentive to donate. 57th place means nothing.
The key though is that you don't know how much everyone else puts in. There's a psychological effect of seeing the amount and saying "That's it? I can do better than that." It's basically a silent auction.
> 57th place means nothing.
It means you're on the board and got one higher than 56th place. I'm a top 50 rails contributor, that means something to me and to others.
It's kinda like F1. Some teams are racing for the constructors championship. Some teams are racing for the midfield. All of them are racing for even a single point and to stay in the game.
Billionaires flaunt their wealth via yachts, mansions, space rockets and super-PACs. Which to me seems way more fun than getting your name on a tax list…
I think it's a great idea. It would generate good press for the donors and some billionaires care a lot about that. Guys like Buffett would do it. It's basically free money for the government.
That's not flaunting it; that's just buying things you like because you have the money. Flaunting would definitely be getting your name on a list that you don't need to be on.
Taxes are not and never will be because no two people have the same priorities. Even if my favorite charity is only 10% as efficient as the government in doing what I want, a donation to that charity does what the charity does. A donation to the government goes to military, welfare (social security, medicare...), roads, scientific research, and a long long list. If I want to put extra money into say Lymphoma research $10,000 to a really bad lymphoma charity will get $3000 to research (finding a lymphoma research charity that bad is left as an exercise for the reader - the ones I'm aware of are considerably better). The same $10000 to the government will add nothing to lymphoma research since the share of the budget going to that is a rounding error.
Most of the right wing who is against taxes still agree to pay taxes on something. They disagree what taxes should go for and how much, but they generally agree some are needed.
Society is about the compromise. However that compromise makes nobody happy.
100% this. This reminds me of what my SO says: if you have to work, you are not in the upper class. I don't think I agree with this statement fully (I personally think that top decile by income is already upper class), but I feel like I'm becoming more open to re-evaluating my opinion...
Most upper class work. They work different jobs, but they are generally not sitting around retired. They might or might not get a paycheck, but they are working. (if you own a restaurant you will probably pay yourself minimum wage when you do work - dishwashers start at double that - talk to your accountant but this is often the best legal way to handle your hours that are trackable) Steve Job's was famous for taking a salary of $1/year - he clearly was working and upper class.
Most middle class don't have to work either - they are just not willing to accept the lifestyle that forces. Even poor people could find enough savings by 30 to not work if they really want to live that lifestyle. (I don't blame anyone for not wanting to live like that)
> they are just not willing to accept the lifestyle that forces
Jeez the pedantry around here.
Let me spell it out: Upper class people don't have to work to maintain their existing lifestyle. Steve Jobs could have continued wearing black turtlenecks and paying fines for parking his Mercedes in handicapped spots for the rest of his life, without doing a lick of work. That he didn't is a credit to his work ethic and passion for the work.
Out of curiosity, how much money do you think is needed to survive ~55 years ("savings by 30" + life expectancy around 85ish = 55yrs) without working? Also, please spell out biggest assumptions you're making.
Eat rice and beans $50/month. Live in a $200 tent with a warm sleeping bag replace every 10 years. every year you get $100 for clothing at goodwill (walmart for underware) No other possessions. don't get sick as you don't have health care, but you should on average live to 70 or so [5-10 years less than average with health care], assuming you are not unlucky. so about $70/ month.
I wouldn't want to live like that and I wouldn't wish it on even the most undeserable (life without parole prisoneers). you could do it. Some do it for a month or two in college as they see the world - but they go back to a more normal life and just fondly tell stories.
You may want to revise the life expectancy estimate on a rice+beans diet, scurvy is a thing and based on my googling you would not get enough vit. C. I'm probably missing some other disease too, so "don't get sick" is probably also out the window on this diet.
One can of beans is ~400kcal and costs ~$1.30+tax in my closest QFC, so you need around $4 per day just for beans (3 cans). 5lb bag of rice (50 servings, 160kcal per serving) is $5.50, & you need 5 servings per day to reach 2000kcal, so +55¢. That's $135/mo just for rice and beans, and I have not checked if that satisfies daily protein intake needs.
Where will you set up your tent without getting arrested? Needs to be walkable from a Goodwill, otherwise you need transport once a year. How are you cooking the rice? Where are you getting the potable water from?
Decent sleeping bag is another $100.
Even your unserious response is underestimating the amount of money required.
Not if you have to pay to set up your tent legally, which you conveniently forgot to respond to. The only place I found so far that is free is BLM dispersed camping, but they allow only 14 consecutive days in 28 day period, and those places are far from civilization, so buying those beans is going to be a challenge.
Sorry, but with such an outrageously low estimate (US poverty line is $15k a year), you have to put in a bit more effort and show some receipts.
Mostly because of a very successful propaganda campaign by people who sought to loot the post-war economic boom
Generally speaking, the sad truth of a complex economy is that coordination is hard, and there's usually a short-term privatized gain to be had by someone willing to poison the future and the commons. No amount of benefit to humanity overall or even the specific society such a person lives in will convince a person who simply doesn't care about anyone else. Fortunately for humanity, a very small minority of people actually operate like that. Unfortunately for humanity, some of them have managed to accumulate a lot of power
In fact we should probably celebrate gifts to the US government more than we do.