> He paid 0$ in income tax on all the money funding his foundation
It's a non-profit foundation that's main function is giving the money away, funding social and educational development in developing countries, and solving huge international human rights issues. One of the biggest in the world, too.
Why do you think people get tax-deductions from donations? Your priority here seems to be more to find any reason to slam someone who is wealthy, rather than actually for the better of society.
The point is we’re subsidizing his economic activities by 10’s of billions of dollars.
Some things you might agree with but money is fungible. I’d rather pay for someone’s healthcare than subsidize his multi million dollar yacht etc.
PS: If you really believe in what the gates foundation is doing you can give them more money to work with here ( https://www.gatesphilanthropypartners.org/) but you can’t give them less.
I don't think you're using a reasonable definition of "subsidize".
By all methods of accounting, Bill Gates contributes more to the public coffers than any other human being under discussion.
Your definition of "subsidize" is predicated on the belief that the state is entitled to a flat percentage of income.
This is arguably preferable (though it is, historically, a very messy argument!), but more importantly it is not true according any existing legal structure.
So you could equally reasonably argue that Bill Gates (or anyone, really) has any number of other responsibilities to the public that you might dream up. He does not.
Exactly zero of your tax pennies went toward the purchase of Bill Gates' yacht. Money is fungible, but that does not mean that all money is in all places at once.
I said subsidy which isn’t the same as taxes, the existing legal structure is happy to subsidize people both in the tax code and with direct handouts. In such cases it’s the tax payers who are covering that burden so talking in terms of subsidies from specific individuals to specific individuals seems perfectly reasonable though obviously the individual burden is low.
As a simple practical matter, 99% of both his earnings and mine are dependent upon past government spending not just roads but even stuff like the judicial system.But asking everyone pay the same amount while it would benefit us both doesn’t work because the total is larger than some people’s income and we really want government services. Further, it’s not just that he received a larger benefit it also cost more to provide him services.
So if we’re stuck subsidizing some people based on a percentage of our earnings, it’s only reasonable to base the subsidy calculation on a percentage of total earnings.
As to pennies argument, if he bought a lunch it’s meaningless to talk about individual subsidies unless someone paid a truly astronomical amount in taxes it’s some meaningless fraction of a cent. But when you’re talking about ultra large purchases and the lifetime subsidies are both a significant portion of his lifetime earnings and a surprisingly large fraction of federal budget, it cross the penny threshold for some people.
I'm 100% on board with the idea that the wealth divide is an enormous problem.
I don't think it's Bill's fault, or even that he benefits from it in any meaningful way. And I don't think that you and I are the victims.
I think we need to be more clear about this. It's not that Bill's (marginal) tax rate is lower than ours. It's that Bill has more and different types of income than we do.
Bill has the types of income that are net beneficial to encourage -- which we do by reducing tax liability on it.
But I think it's more correct to say that Bill contributes more to our lifestyles than we do to his. And that we want Bill to contribute more still.
Not because we need more tax revenue (we don't really), or because of a lifeless theory about non-progressive taxation being more proper (it's so much more complicated than that).
But simply because we're all of a society, and that society is unhealthy when wealth is concentrated too densely.
It's not about fair share. It's about limiting inequality. That's the end goal, so let's address it directly. A flat tax does not do that.
People like Bill Gates should be heroes, for contributing progressively more to society with every success they achieve. (Aside: That was painful to write. Bill himself will always be an evil monopolist who held computing back by 20 years and taught people to believe that computers are scary and unreliable)
But where does that new tax revenue go? Into the maw of the US government, where it is used for important things, often very inefficiently.
Bill & Warren & Charlie (RIP) think they can do it better. And they might be right, honestly. They're creating an super-national voluntary self-taxation regime, and a corresponding appropriations framework to go along with it, out of the gross excess of their inadequately-taxed earnings.
I think that's more than either of us are doing. Even if their projects fail, they will not be obviously less-effective than the same funds as additional tax revenue. :)
It's a non-profit foundation that's main function is giving the money away, funding social and educational development in developing countries, and solving huge international human rights issues. One of the biggest in the world, too.
Why do you think people get tax-deductions from donations? Your priority here seems to be more to find any reason to slam someone who is wealthy, rather than actually for the better of society.