Opinion As the rich get richer the answer is private giving and charities...

[djacobox372]

They seem to spend a fair bit on political donations to get people in power who'll let them keep more of it.

100% agree that is an issue; how about dealing with that problem instead. There's supposed to be a $3300 per person limit on political donations let's actually truly enforce that.

But it should be noted that since 2008 there's been a shift in political donations and big money has had less of an influence than they ever had... which is why populous asshats (Trump, AOC, MTG, etc.) have risen up, the wealthy didn't want those clowns in power (see Mitt Romney), but it was small donations from worshiping masses that got them where they are. It's only now that the wealthy have decided to join in (you can't beat them join them).

 

[Koro_11]

Dude I'm not particularly leftist at least by UK standards. I'm just not for unfettered capitalism. Yes capitalism has given me a nice phone to use but it's also filled my water with micro plastics and polluted the air that we all breathe.

Ok look, not gonna go too hard on you because you seem to come from a place of good intentions, and at least you're willing to engage in a good faith argument so respect for that.

I kinda had similar views to yours, but this was back in my 20's where I was much more willing to accept ideas that sound good over ideas that actually work. I will assume you're somewhere around that age, in which case it's understandable why you think the way you do, but I would encourage you to really think about it beyond the surface level.

Since you're from the UK I'll leave you with a quote from a Brit:

'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.'

Winston Churchill

 

[Hellowhosthat]

100% agree that is an issue; how about dealing with that problem instead. There's supposed to be a $3300 per person limit on political donations let's actually truly enforce that.

But it should be noted that since 2008 there's been a shift in political donations and big money has had less of an influence than they ever had... which is why populous asshats (Trump, AOC, MTG, etc.) have risen up, the wealthy didn't want those clowns in power (see Mitt Romney), but it was small donations from worshiping masses that got them where they are. It's only now that the wealthy have decided to join in (you can't beat them join them).

I think the two changes I would make to politics is get the money out and if these fucks don't do what they said they would when they get elected then punish them.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Ok look, not gonna go too hard on you because you seem to come from a place of good intentions, and at least you're willing to engage in a good faith argument so respect for that.

I kinda had similar views to yours, but this was back in my 20's where I was much more willing to accept ideas that sound good over ideas that actually work. I will assume you're somewhere around that age, in which case it's understandable why you think the way you do, but I would encourage you to really think about it beyond the surface level.

Since you're from the UK I'll leave you with a quote from a Brit:

'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.'

Winston Churchill

Well in reality we live in a somewhat capitalist and somewhat socialist society. It's just how socialist you want to be. If you go full capitalism and make the police for profit, the army for profit, judges etc for profit then I don't think we'd like that. It's just where you want to draw the line.

I'm not some socialist, I am for capitalism with limits and restrictions.

 

[Koro_11]

Well in reality we live in a somewhat capitalist and somewhat socialist society. It's just how socialist you want to be. If you go full capitalism and make the police for profit, the army for profit, judges etc for profit then I don't think we'd like that. It's just where you want to draw the line.

I'm not some socialist, I am for capitalism with limits and restrictions.

Fair enough, I am even for universal health care for everyone, so we basically agree.

That said the specific issue we're arguing here is about someone being "too rich", and I just don't think "greed is wrong" is a good argument. I think it should be looked at case by case and determine whether them getting more wealthy is also contributing to the greater good of society, and if so then I have no problem with such a dynamic. If some super driven geek like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs wanna sleep at their desk and work 140 hours a week while creating thousands of jobs, boosting the economy and giving everyone products that improve our lives, then I'm not gonna lose much sleep over them earning ten thousand times my income.

I understand the human urge to say "hey but that's not fair", but the alternative is we impose restrictions and limits, and we reduce the incentives for super driven minds that would thrive in a more free environment.

 

[Andy Capp]

To me it does not matter. All charities should be abolished. If you want to give money then give money but there's too much nonsense as a whole going on with charities and non-profits. We have all these non-profits and charities out here and communities are still facing the same issues they were facing decades ago. I understand what guys like Trump and Elon are doing but it's not about just guys at the top.

Non-profits, charities and philanthropy from my perspective in America does just enough work to give people hope and gives here and there, but not enough to make any actual long term significant changes.

Indeed, it would be great if rich people paid their fair share of taxes which could be used to help people so that charities would no longer be needed except perhaps in short term situations.

 

[Andy Capp]

Then you're laughably ignorant on what they do.

I'll give you one example that I have plenty of first hand knowledge about.

I work for the department of interior, you know, the people that run our national parks. Cut 50% of the staff from this department and you won't have enough law enforcement, trash collection, search and rescue, building maintainence or anything else to keep up with visitation. In short, the parks don't function, period.

a man after @Deorum's (platonic) heart, no doubt.

 

[jefferz]

Then you're laughably ignorant on what they do.

I'll give you one example that I have plenty of first hand knowledge about.

I work for the department of interior, you know, the people that run our national parks. Cut 50% of the staff from this department and you won't have enough law enforcement, trash collection, search and rescue, building maintainence or anything else to keep up with visitation. In short, the parks don't function, period.

This is what they want.
Under fund it, claim it’s inefficient, and sell the land to their buddies for next to nothing.