Question about confiscation of wealth
AOC and her ilk want to confiscate the wealth from anyone with more than $10 million for use for the poor. That money would be processed through the government and by the time it came out the poor would be lucky to get $5 for every $1,000 stolen.
Question: If that was going to happen, would it be better to force the wealthy to donate a percentage 5%, 10% or 15% of their wealth/income directly to 5 or 10 specific charities that help the poor?
I hate the idea of wealth distribution, but this would ensure more money going directly to those that need it, not the government.
Just a thought that hit me.
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.If you want to achieve a common good, you have to tax and start to rethink monetary policy. Not only for the specific common goods but because concentration of wealth itself causes societal harms--just look at its influence on our politics. When billionaires try to donate away portions of their wealth they run into some challenges:
- They don't have the bandwidth to find worthy causes faster than their wealth is growing
- They have a bias for their own interests, e.g., getting family members into elite institutions and raising their status (e.g., funding museums) and influence in the world (e.g., funding journalism)
- They have a bias for world-changing ideas, e.g., funding a university center that attracts the best scientists in the world to cure cancer, but not to increase access to higher education for the average citizen
- They have peculiar obsessions that don't always pan out like teacher evaluation and overpopulation
Anand Giridharadas [amazon.com] and Rutger Bregman [amazon.com] do a good job of talking about this.
WilyRickWiles
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
1
Theft by any name. Either we are free or we are not. We have certain collective arrangements that we provide for; government, common defense, etc... I'd like to get back to the government justifying how much it takes from each individual. The progressive tax structure allows too much burden to be unjustly placed haphazardly on the wealthy. Who uses government services? The poor. You could argue for some progressive rate to cover the defense bill, but not where it is today.
We'd get rid of 80% of our poor if we taxed them. Another 10% could use a helping hand from charity. And the last 10%, well a great man said they will always be with us.
RobBlair
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
1
You said it all--"force" the wealthy. This is not a matter of taste, or policy. What you are actually contemplating is stealing from some people and bestowing unearned wealth on others. What this means in principle is slavery, mitigated only by the extent of the outrage. But who believes that over time there will be a limit? The Republican politicians who supported the income tax amendment, opposed the 10% limit because, they said, it was inconceivable that such a large tax would ever be levied, and to put 10% as a limit might suggest that taxes could reasonably go that high.
We know historically how that idea worked out in practice.
In any such discussion, the only important idea is moral: by what right do some take by force the wealth of others?
ThomasAnderson
Level 4
Apr 15, 2019
2
Our tax laws provide tax breaks and credits for charitable contributions for this very reason. I agree, the government never makes a good 'middle man' for transferring money. Bill Gates has eradicated 8 diseases from the planet with his money. He also built three towers in Seattle and filled them with employees whose job it is to decide how best to spend his money for the benefit of others. The Gates Foundation. Warren Buffet donated over $40 Billion to the Gates foundation so Bill and Melinda could give it away. I say.. let those who made it put it where they want. Politicians would only buy votes with it.. reparations and other 'free stuff'..
Notestine
Level 6
Apr 15, 2019
2
Your objections to theft are essentially Prudential and practical. Such considerations can never touch the moral argument--the proof of which we still see support for socialism. It is simply insufficient to make the valid claim that socialism destroys wealth. That claim is correct empirically but irrelevant. Socialism advanced on moral grounds. It's morality is what therefore must be challenged.
Like you, I do not like having the government involved with redistributing the wealth. Our government is wasteful, corrupt, bloated and is a bureaucratic nightmare. I do not want to give it any more power over us. Your idea about making donations certainly is the lesser of two evils but then again I don’t like evils
Clammypollack
Level 7
Apr 15, 2019
2
Neither do I. Just a thought that hit me one day driving home.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.