> Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream.
He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy.
Eli can take his money and send it as a gift directly to the US government.
> He devotes himself full-time to philanthropy.
Giving money to private charity is very different from giving money to the government.
Because I give literally no money to the US government voluntarily, and I think the hyper-rich should be taxed more.
Why are we attacking the individual with ad hominem? His argument is sound. Philanthropy alone is not enough.
This whole time I've basically been arguing around the fact that lots of people are participating in the rhetorical fallacy known as Ad Hominem.
There was a fashion to bequeath part of your estate to the government "to pay down the national debt". It was thought the patriotic thing to do. Obviously little impact was made on national debts. :)
If all the people who didn't want to give any of it up hoarded it and spent it lobbying to keep inequality at a maximum and the people who wanted equality gave the majority of their wealth away then we would very quickly find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare.
It has to be everyone, equally. It has to by a systemic change.