Billionaires pledge

[NewtonTrino]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710972,00.html

From the article:

Germany's super-rich have rejected an invitation by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to join their 'Giving Pledge' to give away most of their fortune. The pledge has been criticized in Germany, with millionaires saying donations shouldn't replace duties that would be better carried out by the state.


Now I find their point of view rather interesting. From what I can tell their argument is that they don't need to give to charity because the state should be taking care of these basic needs. In some ways they think this actually undermines democracy because it puts the power in the hands of a few people.

Thoughts?

[lomiller]

From what I can tell their argument is that they don't need to give to charity because the state should be taking care of these basic needs.

What they are saying is that having the state supply these services out of tax dollars is an inherently superior method of addressing the issues in question. When presented with two solutions where one is superior it’s simple common sense that you would focus on that superior solution rather then the inferior one.

[NewtonTrino]

What they are saying is that having the state supply these services out of tax dollars is an inherently superior method of addressing the issues in question. When presented with two solutions where one is superior it’s simple common sense that you would focus on that superior solution rather then the inferior one.

So should people who are in a high tax bracket not bother with giving to charity then?

Also what about charity that is more worldwide focused (a lot of Bill G's foundation concentrates on Africa for example)?

Also, why are both not appropriate?

[excaza]

So a better option for Mr. Kramer would be for the super-wealthy to donate to the government instead of a charity? Or that the super-wealthy should just sit on their money and simply pay taxes?

The government doesn't have the resources to do what a lot of these charities are doing, not to mention a lot of these causes greatly benefit from a bunch of money being thrown at them. As much as I love the concept of my tax dollars going to help pay for schools in Africa, why the heck should I be paying for it when some bajillionaire (whose income is probably more than the GDP of a lot of countries) is willing to do it all without denting the bank?

[Mister Agenda]

What they are saying is that having the state supply these services out of tax dollars is an inherently superior method of addressing the issues in question. When presented with two solutions where one is superior it’s simple common sense that you would focus on that superior solution rather then the inferior one.

Like if you had to get 100 tons of freight delivered and there were two trains available, one rated for 60 tons and the other rated for 40, you would focus on the bigger plane?

[lomiller]

So should people who are in a high tax bracket not bother with giving to charity then?

That’s a matter of personal choice but as has been pointed out many times depending on charity for basic services will always leave them under funded. It’s therefore better to levy taxes and then have charitable donations target the remaining gaps even if those donations end up being smaller.

The statement in question is simply reinforcing then idea that charity is not a substitute for a publicly funded social safety net the way some people would like to believe.

[Piscivore]

Also, why are both not appropriate?

Exactly, the Germans are offering a false dichotomy. Donations can supplement taxes without replacing them.

[quixotecoyote]

So a better option for Mr. Kramer would be for the super-wealthy to donate to the government instead of a charity? Or that the super-wealthy should just sit on their money and simply pay taxes?

The government doesn't have the resources to do what a lot of these charities are doing, not to mention a lot of these causes greatly benefit from a bunch of money being thrown at them. As much as I love the concept of my tax dollars going to help pay for schools in Africa, why the heck should I be paying for it when some bajillionaire (whose income is probably more than the GDP of a lot of countries) is willing to do it all without denting the bank?


I'm ok with this domestically given a tax system which isn't undermined by the rich interests. Internationally, I agree with you that their argument doesn't hold water.

[Flo]

You can give several fortunes, it won't solve problems that derive from basic structural defects, like corrupted / inept / failing states ...

[drkitten]

You can give several fortunes, it won't solve problems that derive from basic structural defects, like corrupted / inept / failing states ...

True but not relevant; giving through taxes won't fix corrupted states, either.

[excaza]

True but not relevant; giving through taxes won't fix corrupted states, either.

We could bring them democracy ;)

[NewtonTrino]

We could bring them democracy ;)

Corruption is corruption. There are plenty of corrupt democracies that are still not nice places to live or do business.

[excaza]

It was a joke.