note that half of that lot have given pretty much all their wealth to charity. There is an argument that their ability to deploy that wealth to good effect is far greater than that of the american govt? In away - its a very positive message
Taxes:
- Predictable income
- Democratic control over the spending
- Big risk of misuse due to lobbying
- No predictability, depends on the whim of those who could spend
- No democratic control
- Small risk of misuse due to lobbying
- Taxes reduce economic development by those who control capital.
- Taxes reduce charitable giving, especially by those in the upper middle class.
- Charity doesn't require the implication of violence for noncompliance.
- Charity encourages more direct management and oversight by those who give.
I would also argue that "No democratic control" is not true for charity, but rather that control is biased in favor of those who control capital.
> I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list.
Note that my suggestions are not accusatory, but in the spirit of this statement.
The (Buffet and) Gates foundation, for example, have reported new malaria cases are down 25 pct globally.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mala...