What Should a Billionaire Give - and What Should You? (1 Viewer)

[rounder]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?_r=1


I thought this was quite interesting and maybe controversial.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Yamen]

Congrats on your 5K post man.

 

[RAMI-N]

Too long to read...
Can you summarize?!

 

[rounder]

Congrats on your 5K post man.

Thanks mate. I didn't even realize I had posted this much. I guess I've spent a good amount of time here. It's been great so far.

Too long to read...
Can you summarize?!

Yeah, sure.

The wealthiest people in our economy have been famous and indeed applauded for donating billions of dollars to charity. Bill gates and Warren Buffet are the most notable donors, among a few others, with staggering amounts given away that total up to hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the author questions whether we should praise them for their contributions or scold them for not donating even more?

If someone is worth several hundred billion dollars, donating half his money would seem incredibly generous but he would really be sacrificing a significant amount that would render his lifestyle any less luxurious as opposed to someone who owns a low amount of capital and gives away to charity. If indeed he valued the lives of people who are stricken by poverty in Africa and Asia, he would be donating a lot more than half his money for instance(Bill gate donated 30 billion, half his wealth to charity). Instead of living in a house that costs hundreds of millions of dollars; most of this money should be sent to people who are dire need of it.

Questions.

Do you think that we hold a moral responsibility towards those who live in less fortunate circumstances than ourselves? And if so, should this responsibility be relative to our wealth? Meaning should someone like Warren Buffet, and you, pay the same amount to charity relative to your respective income?

For example, If X is worth 10000 dollars and you are worth 100. Is it reasonable that X you and X give away 50 percent of your money to charity? If not, do you think people who are in top 0.1 percent of the economic ladder should be the ones donating a lot more than us, relatively speaking? X would donate 9000 dollars instead of 5000.


And if there had to be a way of distributing this capital for charity. What, in your opinion is the fairest way to do it.

Here are the options.

"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually.

The top 0.5 percent consists of 575,900 taxpayers, with an average income of $623,000 and a minimum of $407,000. If they were to give one-fifth of their income, they would still have at least $325,000 each, and they would be giving a total of $72 billion.

Coming down to the level of those in the top 1 percent, we find 719,900 taxpayers with an average income of $327,000 and a minimum of $276,000. They could comfortably afford to give 15 percent of their income. That would yield $35 billion and leave them with at least $234,000.

Finally, the remainder of the nation’s top 10 percent earn at least $92,000 annually, with an average of $132,000. There are nearly 13 million in this group. If they gave the traditional tithe — 10 percent of their income, or an average of $13,200 each — this would yield about $171 billion and leave them a minimum of $83,000.

You could spend a long time debating whether the fractions of income I have suggested for donation constitute the fairest possible scheme. Perhaps the sliding scale should be steeper, so that the superrich give more and the merely comfortable give less. And it could be extended beyond the Top 10 percent of American families, so that everyone able to afford more than the basic necessities of life gives something, even if it is as little as 1 percent. Be that as it may, the remarkable thing about these calculations is that a scale of donations that is unlikely to impose significant hardship on anyone yields a total of $404 billion — from just 10 percent of American families."


I know it's long. But that part was important to include.

 

[Martin]

I think one good question to ask is "by what means did they acquire their wealth". I know that Bill Gates is in the news a lot recently for his wonderful philanthropy. Even if he's doing good things let's remember how he got rich. Go to your government office or a school and see truckloads of tax money being spent on buying and forever upgrading his product at an inflated price set by the monopolist. Thus am I impressed with his kindness? No, I can't say that I am.

 

[rounder]

I think one good question to ask is "by what means did they acquire their wealth". I know that Bill Gates is in the news a lot recently for his wonderful philanthropy. Even if he's doing good things let's remember how he got rich. Go to your government office or a school and see truckloads of tax money being spent on buying and forever upgrading his product at an inflated price set by the monopolist. Thus am I impressed with his kindness? No, I can't say that I am.

Absolutely. But we must also consider that families that are in grave need for financial resources will not care about the means in which Bill Gates acquired his money nor are they concerned with whether or not his intentions are pure and noble. They just want help any way they can get it.

That does pose an interesting question about the nature of morality itself. Do you think an action is moral by the end or goal it receives regardless of motive, or is an action stripped of any moral worth once the motive isn't pure?

 

[Martin]

That does pose an interesting question about the nature of morality itself. Do you think an action is moral by the end or goal it receives regardless of motive, or is an action stripped of any moral worth once the motive isn't pure?

I knew you had missed me.

If a person does everything in his power to harm others and yet is unable, then he's an immoral person, no? That seems to follow.

And yet his actions, through his own incompetence, turn out to be moral.

It's a question of intent and the ability to execute the intent, I think. No deeply immoral person is (in general) immoral in his own opinion. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, however ignoring all the people who disagreed.

So to give Hitler a rating:
Hitler's intent according to Hitler: moral
Hitler's intent according to us: immoral
Hitler's actions according to a more or less objective standard: immoral

 

[Martin]

I knew you had missed me.

If a person does everything in his power to harm others and yet is unable, then he's an immoral person, no? That seems to follow.

And yet his actions, through his own incompetence, turn out to be moral.

It's a question of intent and the ability to execute the intent, I think. No deeply immoral person is (in general) immoral in his own opinion. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, however ignoring all the people who disagreed.

So to give Hitler a rating:
Hitler's intent according to Hitler: moral
Hitler's intent according to us: immoral
Hitler's actions according to a more or less objective standard: immoral

That was in all likelihood garbage. I'm like a machine of half baked ideas and poorly thought out opinions.

 

[rounder]

I knew you had missed me.

Didn't really think anyone was going to respond unless it was you, or a few others around here.

If a person does everything in his power to harm others and yet is unable, then he's an immoral person, no? That seems to follow.

And yet his actions, through his own incompetence, turn out to be moral.

It's a question of intent and the ability to execute the intent, I think. No deeply immoral person is (in general) immoral in his own opinion. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, however ignoring all the people who disagreed.

So to give Hitler a rating:
Hitler's intent according to Hitler: moral
Hitler's intent according to us: immoral
Hitler's actions according to a more or less objective standard: immoral

Okay, I pretty much agree there. But let's get back to Bill Gates for a second. His intention to give money away to charity was probably out of guilt and not altruism.
He felt guilty by the means he acquired the money. However, he still saved countless lives by doing so. I mean, sure, he did it out of guilt by he could have spent that money on a lot of other selfish and needless luxuries. Doesn't the fact that he did donate to charity give him a little moral merit?

 

[rounder]

That was in all likelihood garbage. I'm like a machine of half baked ideas and poorly thought out opinions.

By the way, who was that guy who theorized that Hitler will inevitably be mentioned in any online debate or something of that sort?

Ah, Godwin was his name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Martin]

Didn't really think anyone was going to respond unless it was you, or a few others around here.

Like a drug addict, here I am right on time for my fix.

Okay, I pretty much agree there. But let's get back to Bill Gates for a second. His intention to give money away to charity was probably out of guilt and not altruism.
He felt guilty by the means he acquired the money. However, he still saved countless lives by doing so. I mean, sure, he did it out of guilt by he could have spent that money on a lot of other selfish and needless luxuries. Doesn't the fact that he did donate to charity give him a little moral merit?

I don't think there's any particular reason to think he feels guilty. But I don't think that would make any difference anyway.

 

[rounder]

Like a drug addict, here I am right on time for my fix.



I don't think there's any particular reason to think he feels guilty. But I don't think that would make any difference anyway.

It wouldn't make a difference in that his actions would be considered moral anyway whether or not he felt guilty?



Did you read the article by the way?

 

[Nicholas]

On themselves. Fuck everyone else.

 

[Martin]

It wouldn't make a difference in that his actions would be considered moral anyway whether or not he felt guilty?

Yeah.

Besides, there is probably another side to it too. Maybe they are philanthropist because they want to make a difference or maybe it's more about getting tax breaks. Ie. this money is gonna disappear in taxes anyway, might as well spend it on something else. In that light it's not even technically "their" money. That's probably common to a lot of companies, no idea if it also applies to Gates.

Did you read the article by the way?

Not really.

 

[rounder]

I liked the part when he compares the burden to financial responsibility towards the poor to the following.

If you were walking in the park and see a child you don't know fall into the river, by no fault of your own of course, would you jump in to save the child's life?

Now, if you and 19 others were walking down the park and 20 children fell into the river. Half of you jumped in to save the children while the other half don't do anything. Would you just be mad at those who remained idle and do nothing about the other drowning children?

The purpose of this analogy is to ask whether it is justifiable to state that since many people are not taking responsibility by donating what are supposed to to charity, is it reasonable that you refuse to pay extra because not everyone is doing their share?

 

[Martin]

I liked the part when he compares the burden to financial responsibility towards the poor to the following.

If you were walking in the park and see a child you don't know fall into the river, by no fault of your own of course, would you jump in to save the child's life?

Now, if you and 19 others were walking down the park and 20 children fell into the river. Half of you jumped in to save the children while the other half don't do anything. Would you just be mad at those who remained idle and do nothing about the other drowning children?

The strange paradox (yeah I know, a paradox is by definition strange but whatever) is that with 20 people there there's a good chance noone would do anything, because everyone would be looking at the other people awaiting their reaction. And in a way absolved of responsibility. But if it was just one guy he would feel like he's the only one who can do anything.

The purpose of this analogy is to ask whether it is justifiable to state that since many people are not taking responsibility by donating what are supposed to to charity, is it reasonable that you refuse to pay extra because not everyone is doing their share?

Isn't this a plain argument about wealth distribution? If so there's a whole range of opinions among people who think they deserve whatever they happen to have, others who feel they should share.

 

[rounder]

Yeah.

Besides, there is probably another side to it too. Maybe they are philanthropist because they want to make a difference or maybe it's more about getting tax breaks. Ie. this money is gonna disappear in taxes anyway, might as well spend it on something else. In that light it's not even technically "their" money. That's probably common to a lot of companies, no idea if it also applies to Gates.

Sure, but they could have spent the money on buying Ferrari's, sport's teams, private jets, companies etc. Why they did it? Kant would believe they did it because they hold a moral duty to do so. The Englishman who I cannot remember his name would argue they did it because it makes them feel better about themselves. I think they did it because they want to leave behind a legacy. They want to be remembered, I think it's an innate human need. And what better way to inscribe your name in the history books than become the greatest or most generous donor/ philanthropist to have ever lived?

 

[Martin]

Sure, but they could have spent the money on buying Ferrari's, sport's teams, private jets, companies etc.

If you're talking about my example, then no. The deal was "pay this in taxes or spend it on a charity". The only two options.

Why they did it? Kant would believe they did it because they hold a moral duty to do so. The Englishman who I cannot remember his name would argue they did it because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Aren't those more or less the same thing?

I think they did it because they want to leave behind a legacy. They want to be remembered, I think it's an innate human need. And what better way to inscribe your name in the history books than become the greatest or most generous donor/ philanthropist to have ever lived?

Bill Gates already has a name in history, any top10 list of "influential people in computing" you could ask people to make up, he would be in it. So it's not like he needs more publicity for his name. I doubt that anything he will end up doing as a donor will even come close to that.

 

[rounder]

The strange paradox (yeah I know, a paradox is by definition strange but whatever) is that with 20 people there there's a good chance noone would do anything, because everyone would be looking at the other people awaiting their reaction. And in a way absolved of responsibility. But if it was just one guy he would feel like he's the only one who can do anything.

There was a case in New York City when a woman was raped and murdered in the middle of the street. There were several witnesses watching from the balconies of their apartments. No one did anything or notify the police.

Psychologists were dumbfounded at first and some people blamed the nature of city life that makes us less emotional and caring. It wasn't until they conducted a few experiments before psychologists concluded that it was simply because each one expect someone else to call the cops.

Isn't this a plain argument about wealth distribution? If so there's a whole range of opinions among people who think they deserve whatever they happen to have, others who feel they should share.

In a sense I suppose.

 

[Martin]

There was a case in New York City when a woman was raped and murdered in the middle of the street. There were several witnesses watching from the balconies of their apartments. No one did anything or notify the police.

Psychologists were dumbfounded at first and some people blamed the nature of city life that makes us less emotional and caring. It wasn't until they conducted a few experiments before psychologists concluded that it was simply because each one expect someone else to call the cops.

I think that's pretty understandable. Would you want to be involved in a rape and murder? Or would you rather let someone else call the cops and walk away if you could? I know which I would rather do.