unbeliever Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) OK, so 62 rich people have as much money as 3.5 Billion poor people have to share between them. Is that better? Still hardly seems fair does it? Much better. It may actually be true, where as the original statement was wildly inaccurate. Simplistically fair, certainly not. But it may be the lesser evil. Bill Gates for example was a big part of the computer revolution. His activities have made a major contribution to massively increasing global GDP. If you had set the tax system to deter people like Bill Gates from doing what they did, that computer revolution might never have happened. Those 3.5bn people would be the worst affected if it had not. Present me with a system for addressing this "fairness" that doesn't deter the most productive people in the world from getting out of bed in the first place, and doesn't thereby hurt the people you want to help; then we can talk. Bill Gates didn't need government to force him to share his wealth and to use it to help the poorest people of the world. He did it of his own volition. He deserves better than being talked about as an amoral aggressive tax avoider when nothing could be further from the truth. By the way. I hate Microsoft software and I'm typing this on a mac (it's easier than using my iPhone). I would have preferred to use Steve Jobs as an example but he's far less rich and he's dead. Edited October 5, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Much better. It may actually be true, where as the original statement was wildly inaccurate. Simplistically fair, certainly not. But it may be the lesser evil. Bill Gates for example was a big part of the computer revolution. His activities have made a major contribution to massively increasing global GDP. If you had set the tax system to deter people like Bill Gates from doing what they did, that computer revolution might never have happened. Those 3.5bn people would be the worst affected if it had not. Present me with a system for addressing this "fairness" that doesn't deter the most productive people in the world from getting out of bed in the first place, and doesn't thereby hurt the people you want to help; then we can talk. Bill Gates didn't need government to force him to share his wealth and to use it to help the poorest people of the world. He did it of his own volition. He deserves better than being talked about as an amoral aggressive tax avoider when nothing could be further from the truth. By the way. I hate Microsoft software and I'm typing this on a mac (it's easier than using my iPhone). I would have preferred to use Steve Jobs as an example but he's far less rich and he's dead. To be fair I don't think Anna has been critical of Gates specifically. Anna, you might be interested in The Giving Pledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 To be fair I don't think Anna has been critical of Gates specifically. Anna, you might be interested in The Giving Pledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge No: Anna was, without evidence, critical of all 62 of the super-rich listed without bothering to check if any of them were good people. Nice link. Rather destroys the idea that the super-rich are greedy, amoral, aggressive tax-avoiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 No: Anna was, without evidence, critical of all 62 of the super-rich listed without bothering to check if any of them were good people. Nice link. Rather destroys the idea that the super-rich are greedy, amoral, aggressive tax-avoiders. Not really. She asked if it was right for so few to have so much....without checking if any gave to charity now or pledged their wealth in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Not really. She asked if it was right for so few to have so much....without checking if any gave to charity now or pledged their wealth in future. Okay maybe I'm being a little hard on Anna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-the-arctic-is-global/ http://www.ecowatch.com/david-suzuki-seismic-blasting-1977497480.html Edited October 5, 2016 by petemcewan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Philanthropy is big in the USA, but seems less so over here. However without wanting to seem ungrateful, and I'm certainly not having a go at Bill Gates who is undoubtedly doing some good work, it is also very tax efficient to set up charitable foundations, some of which are nothing of the sort and are really a tax dodge, similar to setting up phoney companies. So, with apologies, I don't get too carried away with such largess. Most of the 62 (or whatever the number is,) you will never have heard off. They deliberately keep an extremely low profile. The Rothschilds for instance are said to be worth trillions, yet rarely appear on rich lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Philanthropy is big in the USA, but seems less so over here. However without wanting to seem ungrateful, and I'm certainly not having a go at Bill Gates who is undoubtedly doing some good work, it is also very tax efficient to set up charitable foundations, some of which are nothing of the sort and are really a tax dodge, similar to setting up phoney companies. So, with apologies, I don't get too carried away with such largess. Most of the 62 (or whatever the number is,) you will never have heard off. They deliberately keep an extremely low profile. The Rothschilds for instance are said to be worth trillions, yet rarely appear on rich lists. Evidence?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Evidence?!? It's a conspiracy..... https://www.quora.com/Why-does-500-trillion-rich-Rothschilds-are-not-on-Forbes-richest-people-list Even the whole family combined being worth a few trillion seems fanciful. Apple has a current worth of about $750bn. Exxon Mobil, Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet, a Giving Pledger) and Google are valued at about $350bn each. They're the top 4. The owners of which are superbly rich (though I don't think Exxon has an owner). But nowhere near what their companies are 'worth.' Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is demonstrably increasing. I don't think that capitalism makes it inevitable though, we just need better mechanisms to help avoid it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now