| I think you're getting off track or putting words in my mouth. "Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year." I'm not looking at percent of net worth. Most of the time that is not the "money" that we are talking about here and would not be subject to the utility and use being discussed. For example, the vast majority of Bezos' worth is tied up stock. Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes. "Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, does that make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?" I've made no claims or mention on this topic. "Well-publicized philanthropy also conveniently distracts attention from how several of these billionaires are endangering their workers and, by extension, the public." Again, not part of my discussion. However, I will say that I find this to be untrue when you see articles coming out discussing this very thing (ie your quote). "Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies." Again, off topic. I agree that they are different. I even agree with the implied part about living in an oligarchy. However, that oligarchy in my opinion is more based on if someone is in the ruling class with special privileges and the power to ignore laws when they want (politicians, judges, cops, DAs, etc) than being a billionaire (although money can help influence). |
It could be subject to the same utility if we taxed it, that's what I was getting at. Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use.
>Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes.
Why settle for "some" when we could tax all of them?