Wow - that's a pretty cold assessment of what is clearly altruism to a substantial degree. Are they going to get a sizable tax write-off as a result? Absolutely. A tax write-off to the tun of half their fortune? Not even close.
I find this situation to be an unacceptable failure of national policy. It is our national economy and our tax system that allow this wealth to be accumulated. Then private parties make a decision as to which public projects or causes will be benefited.
The decisions as to how so much wealth should be directed to which public purposes should be made through a democratically responsible process.
Stated differently, if the U.S. had European type maximum tax rates of around 50% and really taxed all income without mesh of deductions, the application of those billions would be decided through democratic processes, not individual whim.
I'm glad they are kind and compassionate. EShea, I'm glad you can peer into the hearts of these men, unless you're being sarcastic, if so, touche. I would much rather private institutions get the money than the federal government. Mr. Kramer must be sipping the tater juice a little too much. Another issue is what creates more wealth, charity or shrewd investment? I think a good argument could be made for shrewd investment, but then there are the micro finance charities which do both. Bottom line: Private foundations should be able to allocate the resources in a much more efficient manner than the government. Give it away Bill and Warren!
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have created thousands of jobs and wealth for Americans simply by following their capitalist pursuits. I trust they can handle philanthrophy infinitely better than the US Government.
All those billions to all those alleged charities will give rise to a new breed of opportunistic capitalist - the Charity CEO- whose exorbitant salary will be justified by the huge task of throwing crumbs to the hoi polloi. Democracy replaced by Plutocracy - they decide where the money goes, they get the vote, and only the little people pay the taxes.
Phrasing the choice as "donate or pay taxes" is fairly disingenuous. Charitable donations are tax write-offs, not tax credits. They reduce your taxable income, so the only way to pay no taxes is to donate nearly all of your income.
So, whose fault is it that the government isn't doing its job and private philanthropy has to step in? The donors? Or the government that isn't funding education or the social safety net at reasonable levels?
Personally, I'd rather live in a place where private philanthropy isn't relied on for basic human needs, but with the broken system we have I'm glad it is there.
Mr. Gates has gone from being one of the most despised people in the world to one of the most respected, deserving of both descriptions. Even if his philanthropy ended today, his foundation will have done as much to ameliorate the scurge of malaria than any other individual institution and nearly as much for immunization preventable diseases and the best is yet to come.
Mr. Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize for his "promise." It's unlikely Mr. (and Ms.) Gates will get one but he is assuredly more deserving if were to be based on accomplishment, not just politics.
Of course, there is also a common, fundamental misunderstanding of the math of tax deductibility by Mr. Kramer. It's not a tax CREDIT, it's a deduction. If all you cared about was your own pocket, you're better off not giving, yet Americans remain among the most charitable of societies. And, Mr. Kramer, unlike Germany, in the USA the government is OF, BY, and FOR the people. God help us if we go back 250 years to when it was separate.
From the German perspective this might be unacceptable, but as the American model is the closest thing that this world has to a Libertarian model of government and for a country that hates government, this is most certainly acceptable. For years, the most wealthy, as well as average individual citizens who believe in the power of a civil society and of community, have donated to local causes for the tax write-off. Citizens are taking care of other citizens and are having their say directly, not through a bureaucratic mechanism that may or may not meet the needs of their community in an appropriate and timely manner. Denmark a number of years back did a study that showed when they decreased taxes, donations to non-profits went up. Social services and the betterment of a community don't always have to come from government. And many times, they're better when they don't.
No matter what amends they try to make, amassing such great fortunes can never be seen as altruism. In our system all profit comes at the exploitation of human labor, the earth or both.
Makes NO sense! We're talking about their WEALTH, not their INCOME. Their income was already taxed.
They are talking about giving away half their WEALTH now. If they cashed it out, they would pay tax, but they are not going to cash out their wealth. The rich don't do that. The tax code already helps them keep their wealth and pass it on or protect it.
This guy is just a cynic who 1) doesn't want to give his money way 2) thinks gov't knows better than the billionaire where to help 3) thinks he's better than them, a big ego, which probably helped him become rich
Why don't journalist challenge with common sense these people that just want to attack anyone who wants to care about others? Is it all soft-ball and no logic in the media now?
Wealthy people use philanthropy as an excuse to promote lesser government and restrictions on them, largely so they can treat their workers badly. That said, I think the government should use heavier estate taxes to encourage greater dispersal of wealth to charities in wills, as Andrew Carnegie suggested in the Gospel of Wealth.
If I were someone in need of help and Gates offered to either provide me help through the U.S. Government by paying taxes, or to help me through various charities... I'd prefer the charities any day of the week.
There are charities out there with incredible pass-through rates - the percentage of each donated dollar that reaches someone in need can be quite high. I can't imagine anyone saying the same thing about taxes, at least with a straight face.
Altruism? Where did you get that idea from? Nobody even mentioned altruism. There are lots of reasons given in the MSNBC article you linked to.
Also, writing off donations is an EXPLICIT part of tax law. It's not like these billionaires are getting around the law somehow. The law is written to encourage this sort of behavior.
EShea: Would you rather see 600 billion be handled by the fed or private charities? I, for one, see tons of waste in the government I don't see at the Red Cross, for example.
I am amazed by the stupid assertion in the comment. You get to write-off your donation from taxes only to the extent that you earn the income. If the rich were earning close to half of their wealth per year then yes the claim makes sense but do they really? I think that some times we are way too cynical for no reason. Lets give the credit where the credit is due.
So if they don't donate, they wouldn't be taking the place of the state, and that would be acceptable?
Also, anyone ever see the Seinfeld episode where Kramer keeps saying that big companies "write off" expenses and that's how they can make so much money?
And Jerry then asks him "Do you even know what 'writing off' means?" And Kramer responds something like "No, but they do it!"
Why "unacceptable", though? One need look no further than Pakistan to see a textbook case of how charitable funds are often capable of getting far more bang for the buck (and indeed far more bucks) than state funds.
One might argue that private donors are likely to support more "photogenic" charities than the state, meaning that "forgotten" diseases or disasters gets passed over. (In other words, that the state can more efficiently allocate resources, a good euro-sentiment.) A good freakonomist might care to gather statistics to see if that claim were true....
Donors taking the place of the state. That is how things are actually supposed to work in the US. If i Give 100,000 to the red cross then people in need will probably get 70-80 percent or so of direct help (I'm just guessing on overhead costs). If the government takes 100,000 from me how much do you think is going to go to directly help anyone after paying bureaucrats, cronies, etc? Probably just a few percent or less, not to mention by donating directly you get to choose the charity your money goes to.
Let them take the place of the state, I'm sure their programs will be far more effective and with the oversight of the most successful people in America, far more efficient.
Maybe the Federal Cabinets should be sponsored by corporate gifts: The Buffet Department of Health and Human Services. OR The MicroSoft Department of Commerce. Or the Apple Corporation Department of Education.
Wow. How far we have come in the past few decades. Like virtually everyone else in America and Europe I am committed to a basic, underlying safety net. No extremes supported here. A rough and ready helping hand for those in need remains the general consensus, of Americans anyway. That government has used this consensus as an evermore intrusive wedge leads us to the muttered idiocies of Peter Kramer and his ilk. That, however, does not stigmatize the goodness of those who donate on their own outside the reach of their government supervisors. Would the nanny statists remove the attendant tax deductions for gifts, gifts toward the very purposes they claim to revere? You bet they would; it ain't their parade. There's no mistaking what this pose is about; statist alarm at any sign of competition. They deal government nanny dope and want no one else on their corner. To all the pukka proletarians out there - heads up. Your day is done. I know no English to express the contempt so many of us feel for greed disguised as ideological mush, yet we shall express our will. See you in November.
This year there are no estate taxes, but charitable deductions can come off of estate taxes.
At the heart of this discussion is the question of what does government consist? (Is everything paid for from the taxed or borrowed dollar to be considered government? ) Some sort of bureaucracy is needed as an infrastructure to insure that dispersal of goods, services takes place. So much more needs to be done than is done still and yet. (E.g public transportation between towns and cities in more rural areas,etc., distriibution of excess food -- I was shocked to see the emptied milk jugs piled up in the garbage heap by the supermarket, e.g.)
i can't describe how sad/disappointed i feel for those criticizing the actions of the donors. In the first place, it's their money, they can do whatever they want. The sad thing about the world today is people don't trust each other. Rather than appreciating one's actions, people are questioning their motives and UNDERSTANDABLY so. But we must try to live a better way by appreciating other people good deeds. If you don't like it you don't have to accept their offer or help. I myself is guilty of it. I myself need to change my "train of thought"... I'm practicing it now... I hope other people will do also. I really hope we as humans can live MORE IN HARMONY rather than being skeptical of each other.
It's "unacceptable" for a person to decide how to give THEIR money instead of for the government to forcibly seize it and then decide how to distribute it? Give me a freakin' break.
Tommy Tstars, why IN THE WORLD would it be better for the "democratic process" to decide how these billionaires should spend their money? It's THE BILLIONAIRES' MONEY! They have EVERY RIGHT to give it away according to their individual whims, never mind the fact that their individual whims will probably result in benefiting others FAR more efficiently than any government process ever could.
Want to do Americans a favor? Donate your 600 billion to a medical care system that ends the insurance companies' choke hold on public health.
If you have so much that you're ready to give it away, create a trust fund to assure millions of elderly Americans some dignity and security.
We've been sold on how great all you rich folk are, and boy you guys are sure a heck of a lot better than all us poor dumb slobs.
Maybe you could just send each of us slobs $2000.00 cash, (600bil/300mil)? (I guess we'd just spend it on hooch and bear baiting.)
This sounds more like some stunt to get us to praise the richest of the rich for be'in so kind to us. Thank you massa. Is all ma work be over in China yet? Thanks boss man.
Now, if we could just make is so that funding new businesses that generate jobs could be as beneficial to the rich, maybe we'd get everyone working again.
Instead, we talk about TAXING the rich more. Really? Why would we think the government could better figure out how to use the money than they could? Better to give them a MAKE JOBS OR BE TAXED choice. That way, they at least have the option of creating a profitable business with their money, instead of just turning it over to the government.
By the way, though I am quite UNwealthy, I do appreciate the government allowing me to deduct my charitable donations.
The credit card companies could do something wonderful if they would charge zero percent for donations to approved charities, etc. Who wants to give and pay interest on it? Besides, it would surely generate some goodwill toward them.
What about all the billionaires who won't step up like Gates and Buffett? At least these two guys are doing something. Come on, the rest of you. Isn't $5B enough to live on? Do you really think you're helping your grandson?
Agreed. The state has responsibilities that our system shuns--mainly through nonsensical political debate, including our wonderful "government = bad" attitude. Yes, the system is broken, but that does not change its role.
"Charitable" donations (which are often not charitable at all) should not be tax deductible. If they give their money away during their lifetime, I might buy the "altruism" argument.
Clear evidence that our taxes are way too low at the top end of the income scale. No matter how they suck, I would much prefer the spending decisions coming from our elected representatives than the allocation choices made by a batch of billionairs.
"What he is saying is, IMO, that by evading the taxes they should be paying they are cheating the government out of money to give to charities of their own choice"
They are not evading taxes; deductions for charitable donations are built into our tax code to encourage them, and the deductions aren't all that valuable to someone this wealthy, as explained in some of the previous comments. The idea that taking legitimate tax deductions, particularly for charitable donations, is "cheating" is too deranged to even argue about. The government does not own your wealth.
What the article really demonstrates is the difference in perceptions of the government's competence and role in society between the US and Europe.
" I would much prefer the spending decisions coming from our elected representatives than the allocation choices made by a batch of billionairs"
No elected representative has any right to tell you how to spend your own money.
Part of our problem is that the State has taken the place of private charity. A massive, faceless bureaucracy may dole out cash, but it can't make the human connections that are necessary to help people in difficult situations. And it is the human connections that have the best chance of successful rescues. Peter Kramer has it precisely backwards.
charity is only charity if it is compulsory! the state must decide who is worthy of charity, rich people are too evil to choose.
and i am amazed by the mind-reading of philanthropists like peter kramer. the experts here know that its done purely for cynical reasons such as photo-ops, etc. i wish i had such spontaneous knowledge.
a cursory search would disprove that for at least bill gates and warren buffet, and im sure for many other large philanthropists.
Wow @tommy_tsars. People like you scare me to death. It is THEIR MONEY, not the government's money. They absolutely should decide where they want to donate it. The sad part is there are way too many people who think just like you....
That is disgusting. "Unacceptable"?? No, it is unacceptable to have the government decide where all of our money goes. Don't give your money anyway without Big Brother's approval...
Why not give the $2,000 to every man, woman and child in the US? Our economy's in the hole and a whole lot of people could use that cash and it would help bring the economy out of the hole.
Second, while I applaud the work of charities and would love to be able to give more than I do, the government CAN be just as efficient if not more so than private charities. Take Medicare's 97% pay out rate for example. Beats the crap out of a reader commented 70-80% Red Cross pay through rate.
Not to mention the fact that the government is not supposed to discriminate (Yes I know it happens anyway). Anyone over 65 gets their SS checks. Anyone qualified for Medicaid gets the payments. Charities? Not so much. Add to that, the idea that most charities only help people when they have a catastrophe and I'd take the social safety net and taxes over a random act of generosity any day of the week.
Why does anyone care what a German says about the American Economic system? Remember the role of German capitalists in most of the 20th century. Germany is a country who's people loved to be ruled. This country was created for those who want to rule themselves. IMHO too often "The state is taking the place of the donors. That
Wow - that's a pretty cold assessment of what is clearly altruism to a substantial degree. Are they going to get a sizable tax write-off as a result? Absolutely. A tax write-off to the tun of half their fortune? Not even close.
ResponderEliminarWe've seen this movie before, PHILANTROPY = LESS TAXES but with the upside of being seen as a HELPING HAND...its sheer hypocrisy
ResponderEliminarThat's pretty lame. People that are that rich often max out their tax write-off with charity donations anyways.
ResponderEliminar"The donors are taking the place of the state." I don't even know that that means.
ResponderEliminarI find this situation to be an unacceptable failure of national policy. It is our national economy and our tax system that allow this wealth to be accumulated. Then private parties make a decision as to which public projects or causes will be benefited.
ResponderEliminarThe decisions as to how so much wealth should be directed to which public purposes should be made through a democratically responsible process.
Stated differently, if the U.S. had European type maximum tax rates of around 50% and really taxed all income without mesh of deductions, the application of those billions would be decided through democratic processes, not individual whim.
I'm glad they are kind and compassionate. EShea, I'm glad you can peer into the hearts of these men, unless you're being sarcastic, if so, touche.
ResponderEliminarI would much rather private institutions get the money than the federal government. Mr. Kramer must be sipping the tater juice a little too much.
Another issue is what creates more wealth, charity or shrewd investment? I think a good argument could be made for shrewd investment, but then there are the micro finance charities which do both. Bottom line: Private foundations should be able to allocate the resources in a much more efficient manner than the government. Give it away Bill and Warren!
Taking the place of government? Lets hope so!
ResponderEliminarBill Gates and Warren Buffett have created thousands of jobs and wealth for Americans simply by following their capitalist pursuits. I trust they can handle philanthrophy infinitely better than the US Government.
All those billions to all those alleged charities will give rise to a new breed of opportunistic capitalist - the Charity CEO- whose exorbitant salary will be justified by the huge task of throwing crumbs to the hoi polloi. Democracy replaced by Plutocracy - they decide where the money goes, they get the vote, and only the little people pay the taxes.
ResponderEliminarPhrasing the choice as "donate or pay taxes" is fairly disingenuous. Charitable donations are tax write-offs, not tax credits. They reduce your taxable income, so the only way to pay no taxes is to donate nearly all of your income.
ResponderEliminarThis isn't a simple tax dodge.
So, whose fault is it that the government isn't doing its job and private philanthropy has to step in? The donors? Or the government that isn't funding education or the social safety net at reasonable levels?
ResponderEliminarPersonally, I'd rather live in a place where private philanthropy isn't relied on for basic human needs, but with the broken system we have I'm glad it is there.
Mr. Gates has gone from being one of the most despised people in the world to one of the most respected, deserving of both descriptions. Even if his philanthropy ended today, his foundation will have done as much to ameliorate the scurge of malaria than any other individual institution and nearly as much for immunization preventable diseases and the best is yet to come.
ResponderEliminarMr. Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize for his "promise." It's unlikely Mr. (and Ms.) Gates will get one but he is assuredly more deserving if were to be based on accomplishment, not just politics.
Of course, there is also a common, fundamental misunderstanding of the math of tax deductibility by Mr. Kramer. It's not a tax CREDIT, it's a deduction. If all you cared about was your own pocket, you're better off not giving, yet Americans remain among the most charitable of societies. And, Mr. Kramer, unlike Germany, in the USA the government is OF, BY, and FOR the people. God help us if we go back 250 years to when it was separate.
Seth Asser, MD. Lincoln RI
From the German perspective this might be unacceptable, but as the American model is the closest thing that this world has to a Libertarian model of government and for a country that hates government, this is most certainly acceptable. For years, the most wealthy, as well as average individual citizens who believe in the power of a civil society and of community, have donated to local causes for the tax write-off. Citizens are taking care of other citizens and are having their say directly, not through a bureaucratic mechanism that may or may not meet the needs of their community in an appropriate and timely manner. Denmark a number of years back did a study that showed when they decreased taxes, donations to non-profits went up. Social services and the betterment of a community don't always have to come from government. And many times, they're better when they don't.
ResponderEliminarNo matter what amends they try to make, amassing such great fortunes can never be seen as altruism. In our system all profit comes at the exploitation of human labor, the earth or both.
ResponderEliminarMakes NO sense! We're talking about their WEALTH, not their INCOME. Their income was already taxed.
ResponderEliminarThey are talking about giving away half their WEALTH now. If they cashed it out, they would pay tax, but they are not going to cash out their wealth. The rich don't do that. The tax code already helps them keep their wealth and pass it on or protect it.
This guy is just a cynic who
1) doesn't want to give his money way
2) thinks gov't knows better than the billionaire where to help
3) thinks he's better than them, a big ego, which probably helped him become rich
Why don't journalist challenge with common sense these people that just want to attack anyone who wants to care about others? Is it all soft-ball and no logic in the media now?
In my book, the state taking the place of individuals is unacceptable. Let charity be done by the people. I applaud their actions.
ResponderEliminarWealthy people use philanthropy as an excuse to promote lesser government and restrictions on them, largely so they can treat their workers badly. That said, I think the government should use heavier estate taxes to encourage greater dispersal of wealth to charities in wills, as Andrew Carnegie suggested in the Gospel of Wealth.
ResponderEliminarIf I were someone in need of help and Gates offered to either provide me help through the U.S. Government by paying taxes, or to help me through various charities... I'd prefer the charities any day of the week.
ResponderEliminarThere are charities out there with incredible pass-through rates - the percentage of each donated dollar that reaches someone in need can be quite high. I can't imagine anyone saying the same thing about taxes, at least with a straight face.
Altruism? Where did you get that idea from? Nobody even mentioned altruism. There are lots of reasons given in the MSNBC article you linked to.
ResponderEliminarAlso, writing off donations is an EXPLICIT part of tax law. It's not like these billionaires are getting around the law somehow. The law is written to encourage this sort of behavior.
EShea: Would you rather see 600 billion be handled by the fed or private charities? I, for one, see tons of waste in the government I don't see at the Red Cross, for example.
ResponderEliminarWhy is it unacceptable? And even if it is, the state can simply change the tax laws.
ResponderEliminarI am amazed by the stupid assertion in the comment. You get to write-off your donation from taxes only to the extent that you earn the income. If the rich were earning close to half of their wealth per year then yes the claim makes sense but do they really? I think that some times we are way too cynical for no reason. Lets give the credit where the credit is due.
ResponderEliminarSo if they don't donate, they wouldn't be taking the place of the state, and that would be acceptable?
ResponderEliminarAlso, anyone ever see the Seinfeld episode where Kramer keeps saying that big companies "write off" expenses and that's how they can make so much money?
And Jerry then asks him "Do you even know what 'writing off' means?" And Kramer responds something like "No, but they do it!"
I have to think there's better ways to avoid paying taxes than giving money away, so I'm not sure I really buy this argument.
ResponderEliminarWhy "unacceptable", though? One need look no further than Pakistan to see a textbook case of how charitable funds are often capable of getting far more bang for the buck (and indeed far more bucks) than state funds.
ResponderEliminarOne might argue that private donors are likely to support more "photogenic" charities than the state, meaning that "forgotten" diseases or disasters gets passed over. (In other words, that the state can more efficiently allocate resources, a good euro-sentiment.) A good freakonomist might care to gather statistics to see if that claim were true....
I think the bigger point raises by the article is who would you rather decide how to spend the money: the people footing the bill or the government?
ResponderEliminarDonors taking the place of the state. That is how things are actually supposed to work in the US. If i Give 100,000 to the red cross then people in need will probably get 70-80 percent or so of direct help (I'm just guessing on overhead costs). If the government takes 100,000 from me how much do you think is going to go to directly help anyone after paying bureaucrats, cronies, etc? Probably just a few percent or less, not to mention by donating directly you get to choose the charity your money goes to.
ResponderEliminarLet them take the place of the state, I'm sure their programs will be far more effective and with the oversight of the most successful people in America, far more efficient.
ResponderEliminarMaybe the Federal Cabinets should be sponsored by corporate gifts: The Buffet Department of Health and Human Services. OR The MicroSoft Department of Commerce. Or the Apple Corporation Department of Education.
ResponderEliminarWow. How far we have come in the past few decades. Like virtually everyone else in America and Europe I am committed to a basic, underlying safety net. No extremes supported here. A rough and ready helping hand for those in need remains the general consensus, of Americans anyway. That government has used this consensus as an evermore intrusive wedge leads us to the muttered idiocies of Peter Kramer and his ilk.
ResponderEliminarThat, however, does not stigmatize the goodness of those who donate on their own outside the reach of their government supervisors. Would the nanny statists remove the attendant tax deductions for gifts, gifts toward the very purposes they claim to revere? You bet they would; it ain't their parade. There's no mistaking what this pose is about; statist alarm at any sign of competition. They deal government nanny dope and want no one else on their corner.
To all the pukka proletarians out there - heads up. Your day is done. I know no English to express the contempt so many of us feel for greed disguised as ideological mush, yet we shall express our will. See you in November.
This year there are no estate taxes, but charitable deductions can come off of estate taxes.
ResponderEliminarAt the heart of this discussion is the question of what does government consist? (Is everything paid for from the taxed or borrowed dollar to be considered government? ) Some sort of bureaucracy is needed as an infrastructure to insure that dispersal of goods, services takes place. So much more needs to be done than is done still and yet. (E.g public transportation between towns and cities in more rural areas,etc., distriibution of excess food -- I was shocked to see the emptied milk jugs piled up in the garbage heap by the supermarket, e.g.)
i can't describe how sad/disappointed i feel for those criticizing the actions of the donors. In the first place, it's their money, they can do whatever they want. The sad thing about the world today is people don't trust each other. Rather than appreciating one's actions, people are questioning their motives and UNDERSTANDABLY so. But we must try to live a better way by appreciating other people good deeds. If you don't like it you don't have to accept their offer or help. I myself is guilty of it. I myself need to change my "train of thought"... I'm practicing it now... I hope other people will do also. I really hope we as humans can live MORE IN HARMONY rather than being skeptical of each other.
ResponderEliminarhave a great day guys...
People deciding how their own money should be used is UNdemocratic?
ResponderEliminarI don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
It's "unacceptable" for a person to decide how to give THEIR money instead of for the government to forcibly seize it and then decide how to distribute it? Give me a freakin' break.
ResponderEliminarTommy Tstars, why IN THE WORLD would it be better for the "democratic process" to decide how these billionaires should spend their money? It's THE BILLIONAIRES' MONEY! They have EVERY RIGHT to give it away according to their individual whims, never mind the fact that their individual whims will probably result in benefiting others FAR more efficiently than any government process ever could.
We needs jobs, not pity.
ResponderEliminarWant to do Americans a favor? Donate your 600 billion to a medical care system that ends the insurance companies' choke hold on public health.
If you have so much that you're ready to give it away, create a trust fund to assure millions of elderly Americans some dignity and security.
We've been sold on how great all you rich folk are, and boy you guys are sure a heck of a lot better than all us poor dumb slobs.
Maybe you could just send each of us slobs $2000.00 cash, (600bil/300mil)? (I guess we'd just spend it on hooch and bear baiting.)
This sounds more like some stunt to get us to praise the richest of the rich for be'in so kind to us. Thank you massa.
Is all ma work be over in China yet? Thanks boss man.
"The donors are taking the place of the state. That
ResponderEliminarNow, if we could just make is so that funding new businesses that generate jobs could be as beneficial to the rich, maybe we'd get everyone working again.
ResponderEliminarInstead, we talk about TAXING the rich more. Really? Why would we think the government could better figure out how to use the money than they could? Better to give them a MAKE JOBS OR BE TAXED choice. That way, they at least have the option of creating a profitable business with their money, instead of just turning it over to the government.
By the way, though I am quite UNwealthy, I do appreciate the government allowing me to deduct my charitable donations.
The credit card companies could do something wonderful if they would charge zero percent for donations to approved charities, etc. Who wants to give and pay interest on it? Besides, it would surely generate some goodwill toward them.
What Mr. Kr
ResponderEliminarThat's a lot of money.
ResponderEliminarWhat
ResponderEliminarMaybe Kramer's opinion is more explicable in light of the fact that the Germany has always had trustworthy and benevolent government.
ResponderEliminarWhat about all the billionaires who won't step up like Gates and Buffett? At least these two guys are doing something. Come on, the rest of you. Isn't $5B enough to live on? Do you really think you're helping your grandson?
ResponderEliminarI think most people here are misunderstanding what kr
ResponderEliminarRobert:: "Germany has always had trustworthy and benevolent government."
ResponderEliminarReally? Always? They might be benevolent now, but it wasn't too long ago that they were rounding people up and... well, surely you know that story.
Agreed. The state has responsibilities that our system shuns--mainly through nonsensical political debate, including our wonderful "government = bad" attitude. Yes, the system is broken, but that does not change its role.
ResponderEliminar"Charitable" donations (which are often not charitable at all) should not be tax deductible. If they give their money away during their lifetime, I might buy the "altruism" argument.
Clear evidence that our taxes are way too low at the top end of the income scale. No matter how they suck, I would much prefer the spending decisions coming from our elected representatives than the allocation choices made by a batch of billionairs.
ResponderEliminarI think Mr. Kr
ResponderEliminar"What he is saying is, IMO, that by evading the taxes they should be paying they are cheating the government out of money to give to charities of their own choice"
ResponderEliminarThey are not evading taxes; deductions for charitable donations are built into our tax code to encourage them, and the deductions aren't all that valuable to someone this wealthy, as explained in some of the previous comments. The idea that taking legitimate tax deductions, particularly for charitable donations, is "cheating" is too deranged to even argue about. The government does not own your wealth.
What the article really demonstrates is the difference in perceptions of the government's competence and role in society between the US and Europe.
" I would much prefer the spending decisions coming from our elected representatives than the allocation choices made by a batch of billionairs"
No elected representative has any right to tell you how to spend your own money.
Part of our problem is that the State has taken the place of private charity. A massive, faceless bureaucracy may dole out cash, but it can't make the human connections that are necessary to help people in difficult situations. And it is the human connections that have the best chance of successful rescues. Peter Kramer has it precisely backwards.
ResponderEliminarcharity is only charity if it is compulsory!
ResponderEliminarthe state must decide who is worthy of charity,
rich people are too evil to choose.
and i am amazed by the mind-reading of philanthropists like peter kramer. the experts here know that its done purely for cynical reasons such as photo-ops, etc. i wish i had such spontaneous knowledge.
a cursory search would disprove that for at least bill gates and warren buffet, and im sure for many other large philanthropists.
I question where they donate their money and who owns the business.
ResponderEliminarWhy not donate to your own cause so you get a write off and apart return on your own money as the owner.
Nice to see that they do look down to us
The German has the details wrong, but the idea right.
ResponderEliminarEstablishing trusts and giving large amounts isn't a way to dodge income taxes, but you don't have to pay death taxes on it.
If I recall, the state sued Leona Helmsley estate for a few billion in taxes saying her dog trust wasn't legit.
Philanthropic giving in the US is pretty much capped at 2%. The reason the state stepped in is because donors weren't meeting the need.
Wow @tommy_tsars. People like you scare me to death. It is THEIR MONEY, not the government's money. They absolutely should decide where they want to donate it. The sad part is there are way too many people who think just like you....
ResponderEliminarLet me get this straight...Kr
ResponderEliminarThat is disgusting. "Unacceptable"?? No, it is unacceptable to have the government decide where all of our money goes. Don't give your money anyway without Big Brother's approval...
ResponderEliminarLate to the party but...
ResponderEliminarWhy not give the $2,000 to every man, woman and child in the US? Our economy's in the hole and a whole lot of people could use that cash and it would help bring the economy out of the hole.
Second, while I applaud the work of charities and would love to be able to give more than I do, the government CAN be just as efficient if not more so than private charities. Take Medicare's 97% pay out rate for example. Beats the crap out of a reader commented 70-80% Red Cross pay through rate.
Not to mention the fact that the government is not supposed to discriminate (Yes I know it happens anyway). Anyone over 65 gets their SS checks. Anyone qualified for Medicaid gets the payments. Charities? Not so much. Add to that, the idea that most charities only help people when they have a catastrophe and I'd take the social safety net and taxes over a random act of generosity any day of the week.
@ Jeffrey -" If they give their money away during their lifetime, I might buy the
ResponderEliminarWhy does anyone care what a German says about the American Economic system? Remember the role of German capitalists in most of the 20th century. Germany is a country who's people loved to be ruled. This country was created for those who want to rule themselves.
ResponderEliminarIMHO too often
"The state is taking the place of the donors. That