--be cognizant of your surroundings-----

[snotrockets]

The wealthy DO like to give to charities (hospitals, museums, colleges) when it's their choice, but don't like it when it's the government making decisions for them.

Why do the rich (a minority,) gets to dictate to others what public projects need funding? It's oligarchy.

[jclay]

I think you're projecting a lot of very unlikely what ifs. The DSA, as others have mentioned, is not a mainstream representation of the democratic party and when most on the more left leaning side of things talk about "broadening the distribution of wealth" they're not talking about "distributing the wealth of the rich to the poor." They're talking about things like healthcare for all (which has examples of working in other countries), maintaining social programs that already exist and help people on both sides of the political landscape, closing some of the tax loopholes that allow the uber rich to effectively pay lower taxes than the middle class, and maybe even applying some of those antitrust laws that we have on the books. That's just off the top of my head and without any research, so I'm sure others will disagree. But people aren't demanding that Jeff Bezos open his Scrooge McDuck swimming vault for pillaging, they're instead asking that he pay Amazon employees throughout the hierarchy a wage that allows them to actually shop at Amazon.

Matthew: Those are the sorts of things I'm talking about. Thank you. It's in the best long term interest of the uber rich (and everybody else) to support those sorts of efforts because social/economic migration in the other direction won't end pleasantly. Our country is vastly more pleasant to live in as a result of poor folks having a reasonably decent standard of living. If you don't believe it there are a lot of countries you can visit (and some areas of ours) to see just how "wonderful" it is to have an enormous, impoverished population. Ours, of course, would be heavily armed and with little to lose.

As a related aside I just read a Guardian article at the link below but this passage really stopped me in my tracks. I've long assumed such sentiments existed but to see them confirmed in such an unfiltered way is extremely disturbing.

From the article: But those events still lie in the future. Tonight in Wisconsin, the crowd are focused on only one thing – hearing their leader. It includes Steve Spaeth (no relation), 40, who runs a home exteriors company in West Bend. I ask him who he regards as his political enemies, and whether “hate” is too strong a word. “Not at all,” he says. “I have a deep and absolute disgust for these human beings.” Which ones? He rattles off CNN, Soros, Clinton, Waters, Booker, “Pocahontas” AKA Elizabeth Warren, and others. Why do you hate them? “They want to turn America into a socialistic country. It’s disgusting.” I ask Spaeth how far he is prepared to take his hatred. In reply, he tells a story. The other day he talked to his sister, who is liberal and votes Democratic. He said to her: “If there is a civil war in this country and you were on the wrong side, I would have no problem shooting you in the face.” You must be joking, I say. “No I am not. I love my sister, we get on great. But she has to know how passionate I am about our president.”

The whole nauseating, disturbing article is here: Feel the love, feel the hate – my week in the cauldron of Trump's wild rallies | US news | The Guardian

I've been visiting the Facebook page of Ron DeSantis in his run for Florida Governor just to see what sort of Demagoguery is on display. It is astonishing to me, and I'm not easily astonished by human behavior.

Donald Trump is enormously corrosive to any sort of civil society. I firmly believe that he could rip this country apart.

[vvv321]

Matt,
The wealthy DO like to give to charities (hospitals, museums, colleges) when it's their choice, but don't like it when it's the government making decisions for them. Thanks for your answer.

Sure rich people do give to charities, but for different reasons than the not rich, also who gives more, rich or the rest of us? Research is actually out, we don't know, but the rich certainly don't give much more than the rest of society, and probably less, even though they obviously have much, much more.

[vvv321]

Sure rich people do give to charities, but for different reasons than the not rich, also who gives more, rich or the rest of us? Research is actually out, we don't know, but the rich certainly don't give much more than the rest of society, and probably less, even though they obviously have much, much more.

Wealthy People Give to Charity for Different Reasons Than the Rest of Us - Scientific American



Study: Poor Are More Charitable Than The Wealthy : NPR

[BBB]

As a related aside I just read a Guardian article at the link below but this passage really stopped me in my tracks. I've long assumed such sentiments existed but to see them confirmed in such an unfiltered way is extremely disturbing.

From the article: But those events still lie in the future. Tonight in Wisconsin, the crowd are focused on only one thing – hearing their leader. It includes Steve Spaeth (no relation), 40, who runs a home exteriors company in West Bend. I ask him who he regards as his political enemies, and whether “hate” is too strong a word. “Not at all,” he says. “I have a deep and absolute disgust for these human beings.” Which ones? He rattles off CNN, Soros, Clinton, Waters, Booker, “Pocahontas” AKA Elizabeth Warren, and others. Why do you hate them? “They want to turn America into a socialistic country. It’s disgusting.” I ask Spaeth how far he is prepared to take his hatred. In reply, he tells a story. The other day he talked to his sister, who is liberal and votes Democratic. He said to her: “If there is a civil war in this country and you were on the wrong side, I would have no problem shooting you in the face.” You must be joking, I say. “No I am not. I love my sister, we get on great. But she has to know how passionate I am about our president.”

The whole nauseating, disturbing article is here: Feel the love, feel the hate – my week in the cauldron of Trump's wild rallies | US news | The Guardian

I've been visiting the Facebook page of Ron DeSantis in his run for Florida Governor just to see what sort of Demagoguery is on display. It is astonishing to me, and I'm not easily astonished by human behavior.

Donald Trump is enormously corrosive to any sort of civil society. I firmly believe that he could rip this country apart.

This is truly bizarre and disturbing. I don't even know where to start.

[Corso]

Wealthy People Give to Charity for Different Reasons Than the Rest of Us - Scientific American



Study: Poor Are More Charitable Than The Wealthy : NPR

Lets just say I've seen charitable donation numbers in real life, not "studies" where no actual money is involved.

If the super wealthy stopped giving, there are a lot of organizations in this country that would be in trouble.

I didn't say everyone else wasn't charitable. I'm just saying just because you're wealthy doesn't automatically make you the "bad guy".

[chasea]

Let’s just say that’s anecdotal in the face of hard data.

[vertical_doug]

Matt,
I'm really not trying to be a dick on this subject, just looking for some clarity on that term that gets tossed around. I've worked for decades at a large financial company, and know a bit about people and their investments. The wealthy DO like to give to charities (hospitals, museums, colleges) when it's their choice, but don't like it when it's the government making decisions for them. Thanks for your answer.

This is another way the tax system favours the wealthy. They give to charities of their choice because they can deduct up to 50% of the gross income in some cases. I think if you studied charitable giving you will find it is targetted to benefit the giver or giver's class more so than general society.

[snotrockets]

If the super wealthy stopped giving, there are a lot of organizations in this country that would be in trouble.

If we relied on public services, funded by taxes proportional to one's wealth, rather than handouts form the rich at their own choosing, we wouldn't need those organizations.

[Matthew Strongin]

Charity is a distraction. It's not the same as taxes to fund social programs and core public services like schools. Rich people who think paying taxes is the equivalent of the government forcing them to give to charity are greedy and willfully obtuse. They are also hypocritical because it's not like they refuse to drive on public roads or call the tax-funded police when they're in need. What they need is a civics class, not a tax break.

[Toddykins]

Without delving into the merits of the current tax system, I would just point out income tax rates are not the right way to frame the issue because the ultra wealthy will structure their income so as not to pay or minimise income taxes.

[sine]

edit

And when were the taxes so high on the wealthy that they were buying one-way tickets out of the US?

Seems like this has actually worked better, here in the USA, before.

The history of tax rates for the rich.

What will be interesting to see in the next year or two, if migration from high taxed NE US states accelerates.

[Corso]

Let’s just say that’s anecdotal in the face of hard data.

Let's just say 90% of anything posted here can be considered anecdotal. I'm not sure how to define your standard one sentence acerbic replies-which are all emotion-void of facts.
But that's why we are here to exchange opinions. Even short one sentence pros.

Can we continue?

America's Top 5 Givers

They list is actually 50 givers, not 5. You may debate on why they give, or how they benefit from giving, but the bottom line is that they do.

[vertical_doug]

Let's just say 90% of anything posted here can be considered anecdotal. I'm not sure how to define your standard one sentence acerbic replies-which are all emotion-void of facts.
But that's why we are here to exchange opinions. Even short one sentence pros.

Can we continue?

America's Top 5 Givers

They list is actually 50 givers, not 5. You may debate on why they give, or how they benefit from giving, but the bottom line is that they do.

Yes, but most on that list will say tax rate makes no difference for them. In fact, many say (Buffet, Gates, Soros) rates should be higher.

For Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg giving stock to a charity is a tax windfall. First they avoid selling the stock and paying tax on the capital gains. Second, the fair market value (100% of notional) can be deducted then as a charitable giving. In some cases, they are giving to their own charity, to the charity which is tax exempt then gets to decide on how to spend 100% of the money. The givers again get to highly influence this.

The irony here is even if tax rate makes no difference to the amount or way these people give. In fact, a higher rate may actually justify giving more since the pre-tax dollars are just that much bigger.

If you look at where they give, many fund initiatives that to some extent the government should fund. Julian Robertson to protect the environment, John Arnold to study health outcomes and criminal justice outcomes.

On such a large scale, whether the super wealthy can get better outcomes on charitable dollars than government is still questionable. You can look at the failure of Zucks gift to the New Jersey school, or Gates Foundation and Malaria Nets affect on fish stocks in Sub Sahara African lakes.......

[lumpy]

I'm curious about how this "distribution of wealth" would work in the USA.

What do you mean, "would" work? Distribution of wealth in this country is going on right now, at an accelerating pace. Gains in income and wealth disproportionately go to those at the top, wealth much more so than income.


But as to income, almost all the gains from the last recovery have gone to the top:


Make no mistake, this is the result of government policy, tax laws and legal decisions. Part of the American dream is that a rising tide lifts all boats and that shared prosperity is our common goal, but that's not what we have today.

[lumpy]

These are pretty good references. I certainly haven't seen any data contradicting their general conclusions.

Chapter 7: Income and Wealth, by Income Tier | Pew Research Center

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[Matthew J]

According to Rush: 'Anti-semitism stems from the left. It's the democrats. Hitler was a leftie you know.

Surprising how many people actually believe this. Completely inaccurate. There are libraries full of documents actually generated by the NAZIs proving this.

And of course many of the same who believe this palather also are surprised to learn Republican opposition forced FDR to keep the US on the sidelines until the Japanese foolishly bombed Pearl Harbor - much to the Nazis chagrin.

[Matthew J]

not any specific incident, more my assumption that the birthplace of the free speech movement has become the birthplace of the anti-free speech movement. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Student protests somehow being more effective than the President of the United States challenging our free press on a daily basis, eh?

[Matthew J]

Sure rich people do give to charities, but for different reasons than the not rich, also who gives more, rich or the rest of us? Research is actually out, we don't know, but the rich certainly don't give much more than the rest of society, and probably less, even though they obviously have much, much more.

Arguing charitable donations justify low taxes for the wealthy ignore that the majority very much want money spent on things such as improved infrastructure especially public transit, public education, environmental protection in general and addressing climate change in particular, and access to comprehensive health care free from minority decisions on what care is given (you know, female reproductive rights and all). Some charitable donations address these majority preferences but none completely.

[Matthew Strongin]

Arguing charitable donations justify low taxes for the wealthy ignore that the majority very much want money spent on things such as improved infrastructure especially public transit, public education, environmental protection in general and addressing climate change in particular, and access to comprehensive health care free from minority decisions on what care is given (you know, female reproductive rights and all). Some charitable donations address these majority preferences but none completely.

Agreed. Charitable giving shouldn't be part of the conversation about social programs, schools, infrastructure, etc. As I said above, it's a distraction. Taxes are taxes, not donations and shouldn't be framed as such.