too rich?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] how about this for an idea: encourage the wealthy to be philanthropic with their money. The top 100 wealthiest people presumably includes Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have both contributed vast amounts of wealth back into society to try and help the less fortunate.

This deserves more than one of my kudos.... I believed this many years ago. I wanted to become rich and focus on myself and manage my own income so I could give plenty to charity afterwards, and yet still have more than enough to rebuild my income and repeat until it became some kind of self-focused money producing + other-focused money giving loop.

[TaraJo]

All those parts where Jesus commands us to have compassion for the poor and specifically says it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven?

Oh Yeah! I don't see those parts in the Bible anywhere!

I forgot; you worship a Jesus different from what most of us are familiar with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkKPtUywY-8

[popeyespappy]

I’m a little skeptical of the claim that extreme poverty could be ended (forever seems to be what they are saying) with a onetime investment of $60 billion. That’s not to say I don’t have a problem with current wealth and income inequity. I’m just not sure we could cure the worst of it worldwide with what amounts to 1/10 of the US’s annual investment in defense. Or offense if you prefer…

Having said that according to Forbes the world’s richest 100 people are worth a combined $1.7 trillion. Just 10% of that would be almost 3 times what these people are claiming it would take to end extreme poverty. That would leave those top 100 with a mere $1.5 trillion. The poorest of them would still be worth more than $8 billion.

It’s time to eat the rich.

[jonb]

That's simply not true at all. Firstly, because when has any tax ever all gone towards helping the poor? Never. An extra 25% tax on anyone would mostly go towards what the government sees as the most important priorities; namely, the military and themselves.

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

Thirdly, those people have already paid tax on what they earned. If you want the rich to pay more tax, start by closing tax loopholes, because whilst they are open, anyone (and I mean rich or poor) will try to avoid paying tax. Or how about this for an idea: encourage the wealthy to be philanthropic with their money. The top 100 wealthiest people presumably includes Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have both contributed vast amounts of wealth back into society to try and help the less fortunate. Taking an extra 25% in tax from them is pointless when they have more evidence of their philanthropy than the government could ever hope to achieve.

Your first point, I agree with, because when has a government ever been about anything other than supporting those in power? I used the term tax as illustrative. I would of thought any reader would be capable of seeing that.

Your second point, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money. What is Tax? The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft.

I don't want to get into a silly your side my side argument partly because your seeming presumption of where I stand is not that accurate.

Think about this: why would people who know a system is not going to deliver anything to them support it? If the super-wealthy continue to support a system that is increasingly incapable of delivering they are going to be hard pressed to hold on to what they have. I would advise them to surrender a portion of there wealth now, leave it too long and it will not just be a portion taken from them.
You see to my mind to keep any system going those that benefit must put something back into it to maintain it, those that gain the most should give the most. The system it seems to me is not working well, if it is not maintained, there will be those who will put in another system into practice.

[Ryantology]

Really? You love rich people? The amount of money someone has isn't something I tend to judge people for.

Who's judging? I just want the money!

Then stop being so fucking lazy.

[Tiberius]

Your first point, I agree with, because when has a government ever been about anything other than supporting those in power? I used the term tax as illustrative. I would of thought any reader would be capable of seeing that.

It wasn't clear at all. You could have used a number of words to suggest the amount, such as "it would only take 25% of that wealth". By using the word "tax", you are not just suggesting the amount; you are suggesting that it be taken forcibly by the government.

Further, you only seem to support this view more when you say (in the same post):

"it is time to make them pay."

Not, "it is time to convince the to pay more", or "it is time to focus on making the rich more philanthropic", but "make them pay". Your use of the word "tax" doesn't appear to be illustrative at all.

Your second point, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money. What is Tax? The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft.

Seriously? You think that the bailout means that banks can never ever fail again? You are the one being daft, my friend.

Think about this: why would people who know a system is not going to deliver anything to them support it? If the super-wealthy continue to support a system that is increasingly incapable of delivering they are going to be hard pressed to hold on to what they have. I would advise them to surrender a portion of there wealth now, leave it too long and it will not just be a portion taken from them.

"why would people who know a system is not going to deliver anything to them support it"

Precisely why I don't agree with a tax hike to sort this problem out. Rich people are humans too; they have the same empathy for the poor as we do. This is why you'll find that most of the top 100 richest people are philanthropic in a number of causes. It is why 91 billionaires have signed the Giving Pledge. Some on that list have pledged to give 99% of their wealth away.

[downbeatplumb]

Ah yes rich people.

Always so philanthropic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_fund

It is the activities of American vulture funds in countries such as Zambia, Liberia, the Congo republics and other heavily indebted poor countries in Africa which have caused the most concern. In 2002 the British Chancellor (and later Prime Minister) Gordon Brown told the United Nations that it was “morally outrageous” and perverse that the vultures made vast profits by buying up the debts of these poor countries cheaply and then suing for ten or a hundred times what they paid for them.[1]
The IMF and World Bank agree that vultures endanger the gains made by debt relief to poorest countries “The Bank has already delivered more than $40 billion in debt relief to 30 of these countries...thanks to this, countries like Ghana can provide micro-credit to farmers, build classrooms for their children, and fund water and sanitation projects for the poor” wrote World Bank Vice President Danny Leipziger in 2007 “Yet the activities of vulture funds threaten to undermine such efforts” and he went on “the strategies adopted by vulture funds divert much needed debt relief away from the poorest countries on earth and into the bank accounts of the wealthy”.[2]

[Ryantology]

Rich people are humans too; they have the same empathy for the poor as we do. This is why you'll find that most of the top 100 richest people are philanthropic in a number of causes.

I wonder how philanthropic they'd all be if charitable donations weren't tax-deductible.

That would make an interesting experiment, yes?

[Tiberius]

Rich people are humans too; they have the same empathy for the poor as we do. This is why you'll find that most of the top 100 richest people are philanthropic in a number of causes.

I wonder how philanthropic they'd all be if charitable donations weren't tax-deductible.

That would make an interesting experiment, yes?

You think giving away 50% or more of your wealth is comparable with reducing a few percentage points of income tax? Get real. This whole "the rich are all miserable bastards who don't actually care about people like I do" attitude stinks.

Yes, we get it. Some rich people are total dickheads. Guess what? Some middle class and lower class people are total dickheads too. The existence of dickheads in your respective class does not suddenly mean your entire class is made of dickheads.

---

Ah yes rich people.

Always so philanthropic.

Did I say always? No. Your point is entirely invalid (see above).

[A Theist]

I wonder how philanthropic they'd all be if charitable donations weren't tax-deductible.

That would make an interesting experiment, yes?

You think giving away 50% or more of your wealth is comparable with reducing a few percentage points of income tax? Get real. This whole "the rich are all miserable bastards who don't actually care about people like I do" attitude stinks.

Yes, we get it. Some rich people are total dickheads. Guess what? Some middle class and lower class people are total dickheads too. The existence of dickheads in your respective class does not suddenly mean your entire class is made of dickheads.

---

Ah yes rich people.

Always so philanthropic.

Did I say always? No. Your point is entirely invalid (see above).

Some middle class and lower class people are total dickheads too.

Especially the ones who are eaten up with envy who walk around with chips on their shoulders, always believing they're owed something.