[Inconel]

At the risk of sounding overly cynical, while it's great that Mr. Soros is donating this money to a worthy cause, I wonder if, as long as he's feeling charitable, he might also be willing to stop domiciling his investment vehicles in jurisdictions known for supporting tax evasion/avoidance. Perhaps with the increased tax revenue, governments could afford to better shoulder the costs of adequately integrating migrants and refugees without the assistance of billionaires.

[nylsaar]

He's not donating money to a worthy cause. He's investing money in immigrants, and betting against the host nation's currency. It's how he's made his fortune.

[Inconel]

You're right, I should have said investing rather than donating, but seeing as there seems to be a moral consideration on his part, I hope the rest of my post is still appropriate.

[neximo64]

You're saying he's selling shorting the Euro? Because it's quite small for currency positions that he usually takes.

In his takes on currency, hes largely made fortunes from breaking pegged exchange rates. The Euro is free floating.

[icantdrive55]

I didn't know he had a history of betting-shorting against currency. I thought it was just that one huge time?

I've always found him to be a straight shooter.

He's the only rich boy, who has constantly told the truth, at least to the creation of great wealth.

And what is that great variable in the equation? It's just is a wealthy father. A father who allows you to take financial risk. A father who mentors you--in the right way. A father who helps out at the right moments--with good advice, and steers you to his helpful friends when in trouble.

The wealthy boys always leave that out of the, "What it takes to make a large sum of money speech."

The one area he seems to be in denial, or wrong is his writing ability. He blames his lack of accolades for his writing on his wealth. He claims if he was poor, his writing would be taken more seriously. I have read some of his work, and he's just an average writer--in my opinion. Other than fancying himself as a great writer; he is one of the guys I listen to.

He is getting older though.

[hueving]

If he wants it all to go to migrants, giving it to the government would almost be the worst possible way to ensure that will happen.

[Inconel]

While you are correct, most governments would undoubtably find much less productive uses for this money than helping either their own citizens or migrants and refugees, I would still prefer that choice be left up to society and not the whims of a person who's investments vehicles are most likely engaged in rampant tax avoidance or even worse, outright tax evasion.

[hueving]

Then change the tax laws. It's silly to suggest that they should pay more to the government than is legally required. Actual tax evasion comes with pretty serious penalties, so people with loads of money tend to be pretty prudent when ensuring what they are doing with their taxes is legal.

[Inconel]

I agree that changing tax law would be the best remedy but I'm not entirely sure if tax "avoidance" on a massive scale doesn't have some ethical considerations. When the people engaging in said avoidance have an outsized influence on the way tax laws are set up and interpreted relative to working/middle class citizens, I can certainly understand why some might attach an ethical consideration to such schemes. Just to be clear, this is an issue that I myself still haven't come to a conclusion on, but at the very least I can see both sides of the argument. I don't necessarily think it's "silly", perhaps naive or ignorant on my part though.

With regards to your second point, I'm not sure if I agree with your statement that "people with loads of money tend to be pretty prudent when ensuring what they are doing with their taxes is legal". I mean, I'm sure this is the case for many people but it seems that illegal tax evasion is a pretty serious global problem so clearly there are plenty of people who's main concern seems to be not getting caught rather than following the law. I also don't have a tremendous amount of faith that the US or other governments can adequately tackle the problem of enforcement at this time. Again, I could very well be wrong on all counts.

Mr. Soros in particular is problematic to me since he has a prior conviction for insider trading and there have been allegations surrounding his Quantum funds for many years. The secrecy and opaqueness with which he runs his investment vehicles certainly seems somewhat antithetical to an "open society", I wonder if the irony is lost on Mr. Soros.

[hueving]

>I agree that changing tax law would be the best remedy but I'm not entirely sure if tax "avoidance" on a massive scale doesn't have some ethical considerations.

Do you suggest that people are unethical if they choose to take a mortgage interest deduction or deduct business expenses? How about people that rollover their retirement accounts?

I disagree with the tax benefits granted to homeowners and parents. However, it is the current law and I don't rant that people are being unethical by limiting their payment to the government under the law that exists. I would consider them fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise.

[Inconel]

While I too disagree with some of the tax benefits afforded to homeowners, particularly with regard to long time homeowners here in CA, no, I would not consider that unethical. For one, there are probably more homeowners and parents than billionaires, so if they vote to give themselves certain tax breaks, even if I happen to disagree with them, I don't view it as a "corruption" of democracy. I'm sorry for using the word "corruption", it might not really be appropriate but I'm tired and couldn't think of a better term. At the very least, politicians seem to be pretty straightforward regarding tax breaks for homeowners, the process of taxation and financial lawmaking seems significantly more opaque to me. I view tax avoidance on the scale of hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, differently than tax avoidance on a much smaller scale, even if both are perfectly legal. I admit this may not be a very good way of looking at things but I can't help but feel that scale is important here.

I hope my posts didn't come off as a "rant", that was not my intention and I deliberately tried to make sure to point out that I'm not concrete in some of these views. I like coming to HN largely because ideas can be challenged in a respectful manner, I apologize if my posts came off as rants.

[oneloop]

Maybe he believes that he can use the same money more effectively for causes that he cares more about.

My point is that there's nothing inconsistent in being charitable whilst trying to minimise the amount of tax you pay.

[Inconel]

I'm certain you are correct in that this is what he believes. I too believe that I can perhaps use my taxes more effectively for the causes that I care about rather than handing them over to the US Treasury. Of course, seeing as I don't have ownership over a slew of offshore shell corporations spanning multiple Caribbean nations and an army of legal experts at my disposal, I don't really get to make that choice.

On some level I agree with you though that there's nothing inconsistent about minimizing one's taxes and being charitable. At the same time, I'm having a hard time accepting this as an absolute truth. If the tax avoidance is a result of what some might see as a "corruption" of the democratic process, even if not necessarily illegal, I can understand why this might be considered ethically ambiguous.

[gonvaled]

Investing in something which is legal to make a huge profit does not necessarily mean that you agree with it being legal. Both Soros and Buffet have repeatedly said that governments should tax them more.

Please note that advocating for governments to tax more is not even remotely similar to voluntarily paying more taxes.

[randomgyatwork]

Destroy the world with your right hand, try to clean up some of the mess with the left hand.