Interesting News, Articles & Stuff

[florduh]

Taxing rich people to fund a welfare state isn't socialism. That's capitalism. Specifically, it's correcting for the inevitable failures of capitalism.

Owner of Ohio Pizzeria Gives Full Day of Sales to Employees to Show His Gratitude

Josh Elchert held an Employee Appreciation Day at his business so that he could honor the hard work of his employees

people.com

Thanks to the community, the day was a major success, bringing in 220 orders for a total of $6,300 in sales and $1,200 in tips, according to a Facebook post shared on July 6. Divided amongst the staff and the 96 total hours they worked, each employee made $78 per hour, Elchert revealed.

If capitalists weren't leeching off of workers, we wouldn't need much in the way of welfare

Think this may have some merit?

Nope.

Revealing the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Inequality.org

How the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence — while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.

inequality.org

Bill Gates's "charity" almost single handedly destroyed public education in this country. Why anyone is in favor of giving this kind of power to unelected scam artists is beyond me.

How Bill Gates Makes the World Worse Off

Billionaires giving to charity, also called philanthrocapitalism, doesn’t actually empower the world’s neediest or reduce inequality.

www.currentaffairs.org

 

[macbill]

Sean 'Diddy' Combs verdict: Combs won't be freed before sentencing​

• The judge denied bail, and Combs will remain detained until his sentencing, which has been set for this fall.

 

[sedentree]

I will read the article at length when I can. I did however scan but not enough to respond properly. It appears that the author is a socialist. No wonder he leans in that direction. I'll respond in detail after I read it.

I also took a look at the article re: it's basically just immoral to be rich. I had to stop after reading the sentence "Because every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others".

Really just another socialists opinion. His statement is outlandish and makes absolutely no sense. We ( not me - I don't have that kind of money) should not be forced to give money to the poor. Many people are very charitable. This should be done via the tax system. Or how about we give the wealthy tax breaks if they contribute to government selected entities e.g homeless organizations, food banks, affordable housing agencies, etc. I don't know but lets say a wealthy person contributes 1 million dollars (or 500 million dollars) to one of the aforementioned organizations the donor may receive a tax break in kind. They would still be responsible to pay income taxes but would get some relief. The money sent directly to there organizations would bypass the governments making these payments. The total amount could be used without the governmental using some of those funds for their bureaucratic spending and administrative expenses which would reduce the net amount those charities would alternatively receive from direct payment. Think this may have some merit?

Most importantly how do I get rid of the italics?

I am not sure it is worth responding to these questions when they essentially, to me, are covered by the article which you mention you have not fully read.

When you do get around to reading it, you will see that the point is: once a person has over a specific amount of income, anything more they keep is immoral (to the author). The author goes on to say that everyone should give away everything over this imaginary ceiling eg does any single person need more than eg 100k per year - “everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given.”

And to paraphrase the first article, which you also state you haven’t read:
Does it make sense that human beings should care about one another and share their resources fairly in a way that ensures nobody is deprived? If you say yes, then you are a socialist.

 

[Bazinga]

Diddy has been denied bail

Diddy denied bail and now faces nervous wait for prostitution sentencing

SEAN “Diddy” Combs has been denied bail and will remain in jail while he awaits sentencing for his conviction of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs’ defense team offe…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

The whole situation is shocking and very bizarre with fans pouring baby oil on themselves outside court like it was all cool.

For some time now our country has been "dumbed down". Criminals have become heroes. Good folks are scoffed at. Young people (not all of course) graduating high school and/or college are unable to perform basic math functions. The list goes on and on. Diddy will probably get a wall mural somewhere depicting his hero status.

 

[Bazinga]

I am not sure it is worth responding to these questions when they essentially, to me, are covered by the article which you mention you have not fully read.

When you do get around to reading it, you will see that the point is: once a person has over a specific amount of income, anything more they keep is immoral (to the author). The author goes on to say that everyone should give away everything over this imaginary ceiling eg does any single person need more than eg 100k per year - “everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given.”

And to paraphrase the first article, which you also state you haven’t read:
Does it make sense that human beings should care about one another and share their resources fairly in a way that ensures nobody is deprived? If you say yes, then you are a socialist.

Well not quite my definition of a socialist. Being charitable and caring about the less fortunate does not make anyone a socialist. It's not the roll of the wealthy to share their wealth with the disadvantaged. Did you like my idea of the wealthy donating directly to organizations that support the needy (food banks, affordable housing organizations, etc.) and receiving a tax credit. This would encourage donations by the rich. I may be wrong but it does seem to be a win win.

Do you believe that the accumulation of wealth is immoral and that this wealth needs to be redistributed? As I previously stated, there will always be poor people. My heart goes out to them but us not my obligation to share with them. It is my pleasure to make donations to organizations that support certain segments of the needy.

Later today I'll read the articles that you were kind enough to share.

 

[Bazinga]

Taxing rich people to fund a welfare state isn't socialism. That's capitalism. Specifically, it's correcting for the inevitable failures of capitalism.

Owner of Ohio Pizzeria Gives Full Day of Sales to Employees to Show His Gratitude

Josh Elchert held an Employee Appreciation Day at his business so that he could honor the hard work of his employees

people.com

If capitalists weren't leeching off of workers, we wouldn't need much in the way of welfare



Nope.

Revealing the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Inequality.org

How the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence — while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.

inequality.org

Bill Gates's "charity" almost single handedly destroyed public education in this country. Why anyone is in favor of giving this kind of power to unelected scam artists is beyond me.

How Bill Gates Makes the World Worse Off

Billionaires giving to charity, also called philanthrocapitalism, doesn’t actually empower the world’s neediest or reduce inequality.

www.currentaffairs.org

You are aware that I disagree with most of your positions. But damn, you provide great reading material !! I am not certain how you find it and I really appreciate you sharing. I would think that most people on this forum share my sentiment.

Okay now back to business. How anyone can criticize Bill Gates after all the money he has given away is beyond me. Socialists love no spend other people's money. They never seem satisfied with what they are demanding and always want more and then more. I do agree with the article`s problem with the charitable foundations as some of the money never makes it to the charity. That's why I suggested the donations be delivered directly to the organization.

How does capitalism leech off workers? Because of low wages or not willing to profit share?