The great philanthropic era was a result of the robber barons. The idea that we might enter a new era of such figures is only a sign of the grossly disproportionate wealth scales that damage our societies.
It is a despotic idea that society must endure the deprivations of these individuals or corporation only to be rewarded with narrow visions of a better future world through the myopic eyes of the DuPont's, Gates', or Carnegie's of the world. These "great" men robbed, captured, or monopolized vast tracts of our communal resources in their acquisition of said wealth
(edit: I accidentally an 'r')
Yes! Next time you visit the Frick collection in New York City (you really should) think about the bloody repression of the Homestead strike [0].
I really think that the likes of Gates, Frick, Carnegie, Rockefeller or the more recent Jim Simons. Should have been taxed at a much much steeper rate, just like Buffett proposed [1], instead of waiting for their kindness of heart.
By replacing philanthropy with taxation we get the democratic process to choose what is the best way to spend this money, instead of their however enlightened agenda.
So we should tax away Thiel's money so instead of Space X we get... more ethanol subsidies? Or we should tax away Cameron's money so instead of asteroid mining we get higher pensions for government union workers?
What kind of world do you live in that allows you this kind of democratic idealism?
As our population gets older, the priorities of our democracies will reflect that. More and more government spending will go towards risk-averse projects - mostly medical subsidy. The only truly radical innovation will come from eccentric billionaires.
Well first of all Thiel's venture is a company not philantropy…
But hell yeah, more pensions, universal healthcare, maybe more spending on education (talking about public school not 40k$/year colleges) are definitely a better way to spend money than radical innovation of eccentric billionaires.
Moreover what we're talking about here is not turning billionaires into mere millionaires, but taxing people who can afford to donate 95% of their fortune 30% instead of 15%. That still leaves ample room for eccentric innovation. Yours is a false dichotomy.
The United States is one of the biggest spenders in the world on K-12 education. How much more money do you want to spend on a broken system?
The unions get much better pensions than the rest of us. And their political machines own the state capitals. How much higher should they go?
The United States spends far more money per person on health care than other countries. How much more do you want to spend?
This year, the top capital gains tax rate in California went up 52%. That's a substantial bite on innovation to ensure public workers get gold-plated defined-benefit pensions.
America's government may be inefficient, but it is not stingy.
>The United States is one of the biggest spenders in the world on K-12 education. How much more money do you want to spend on a broken system?
Certainly spending less won't fix it.
>The unions get much better pensions than the rest of us. And their political machines own the state capitals. How much higher should they go?
Extend those rights to non unionized workers.
>The United States spends far more money per person on health care than other countries. How much more do you want to spend?
I want to spend less by having universal public healthcare.
>This year, the top capital gains tax rate in California went up 52%. That's a substantial bite on innovation to ensure public workers get gold-plated defined-benefit pensions.
Capital tax gains mostly affect more affluent households. I'm willing to bet that even with this rate, taxation is regressive in the US.
It is a despotic idea that society must endure the deprivations of these individuals or corporation only to be rewarded with narrow visions of a better future world through the myopic eyes of the DuPont's, Gates', or Carnegie's of the world. These "great" men robbed, captured, or monopolized vast tracts of our communal resources in their acquisition of said wealth (edit: I accidentally an 'r')