Hacker News Reader

Comment by planetzero | Hacker News Reader

Why does this matter?

If he truly is pledging $10B, it can only be a win for society and the future of humanity. It shouldn't really matter if he gets a tax break or not.

View on HN

Well, three things.

First of all, I searched and couldn't find he's actually giving $10b. What I mean is that I don't know if the $10b accounts for any Amazon investments / costs.

Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned. I know, still a lot of money! But he's not loosing $10b from his fortune.

Third, in this case you happen to think it's a win for society and the future of humanity. Other billionaires give money for causes they believe, like The Koch family for "advancing liberty and freedom", or Bloomberg advocating for a third term as mayor. The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern. We praise when they give to causes we believe, but the system that allows them to do this has nefarious byproducts. It's like we're watching billionaires shape our society and our culture and think that's alright.

> Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned

No. It's $10 billion. 10 billion that he won't pay tax on. But he gives $10 billion and the cause receives $10 billion. The $2.4 billion is money that the government won't get in taxes.

> The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern

The thing is, a lot of us like that what people do with their own money is not accountable to the government.

I think it's essential that not all of society is under control by a single central power.

EDIT: As someone said on Twitter - "Say what you want about billionaires, I doubt any of them would have decided to give farmers $10 billion to not grow crops."

This "single" central power is actually 250M potential voters, 130M actual voters, 20M workers, 90k, 50 states, and 20k cities / town / villages.

On the other side, 600 billionaires. Which because they figured out how to earn and keep a lot of money somehow makes them capable of fixing women's issues, racial conflicts, climate change, mass incarceration, homelessness, education, hunger, and healthcare problems. Somehow, they will do all that without influencing public policy, in a sustainable, ethical, morally justifiable and rightful way, so as long as we let them keep getting richer.

The US federal government is absolutely a single central power. That its leadership is selected democratically is good, but doesn't change that.

I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.

I think we can quibble on what central really means, but the fact that they're democratically elected is the important part here. We make the government, and can direct its actions to what should benefit us the most. None gets a saying on what the Koch family or Bezos do with their money other than themselves.

> I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.

I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.

The War on Drugs is a shame, and harder to blame on rich people, probably with the exception of private prisons, which is a relative recent development. Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem? Spending money to change policies so drugs get treated as a public health problem? Fighting against police brutality and racism? Curbing sales of opioids?

And inversely, are any billionaires fighting for the police state? Militarizing the police? Putting more and more opioids on the streets? Privatizing prisons? Selling junk food? Cigarettes? Animal factory farming? Massive student debt? Destroying elections? Fighting against unionization? Any of them against climate change?

Is all that we have left the hope that Bezos has more money than someone who owns a coal mining company so we get the climate change efforts we want? Are we betting the future of the planet on a hope that the richest people alive will be on our side?

I just think it's an important realization that while a democratically elected central government is much better than, say, one run by absolute hereditary monarchy, it is still one central government, and it will end up being run by a few people who make the their way to the top.

> I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.

I don't know how you can square that view with the one where the voting public controls the government. Is the voters or the industrial-military complex in charge? Can't be both.

The human ability to hold completely opposite views at the same time truly is something!

> Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem?

Well, the Koch brothers certainly do/did. A few quickly Google links:

https://www.axios.com/koch-network-opposes-sessions-restart-... https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/25/koch-network-trump-adm... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-...

You can whittle those 130M actual voters down into 25M voters in important swing states.

It's always interesting that often those who yell the loudest about private power / monopolies (even when they're not), are always advocating for more power in the monopoly of violence - the government.

I wouldn’t call relying on consensual handouts from rich people a win for society.

Maybe governments are good sometimes, but sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too. We can have it both ways, and we currently do.

> sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too

This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?

I think individuals that answer to no one is important for the 'random walk' aspect of solutions to problems. If someone fails then oh well. If they succeed it perhaps provides a model for less risk averse agencies to pursue, perhaps even governmental bodies.

Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government.

I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it.

Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects.

So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.

Depends where it is spent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com