Philanthropy should be for everyone, not just the few and the rich. This is the point of the doctrine of the "tithe." The poor are actually more philanthropic than the middle class. I'm glad that not jut the government is supporting social services. But "oligophilanthropy" is not much better than government.
1
Best of intentions?
What about what happened in Detroit? A charter school company hired to teach in Detroit schools quit abruptly and left a Detroit school district with no teachers. I do not see any good intentions in that situation. This happened in the state DeVos came from, where she was using her money to push for charter schools within the state. I believe she was morally culpable in that fiasco.
What about what happened in Detroit? A charter school company hired to teach in Detroit schools quit abruptly and left a Detroit school district with no teachers. I do not see any good intentions in that situation. This happened in the state DeVos came from, where she was using her money to push for charter schools within the state. I believe she was morally culpable in that fiasco.
1
This article approaches private philanthropy taking over the role of government as some kind of foreign concept. Let's not forget that long before we viewed government as a social panacea, Carnegie was building libraries, the Red Cross was healing soldiers, and the Rotary Club was erradicating polio. As a Conservative, I absolutely love what I'm seeing: people helping people.
As well it should and I say, more power to them. After reading the majority of the comments here, what strikes me most is the venom expressed here that the rich actually have the temerity to donate money to the causes/charities/organizations they wish. What seems to gripe many readers is the inability to figure out a way to get THEIR hands on that money to do something THEY would like to see done with it. Well isn't that special? Some grieve that donations given by these philanthropists "came off the backs of working people." Duh. Everything comes off the backs of someone else! From the taxes Government takes for its already bloated ambitions to the money readers of the Times earn to drive their cars (or $1,000 eco-bikes), live in nice houses, and subscribe to the Times. You know that $3 caramel mocha latte you had today-- the one made by $15/hour living wagers-- that money came from someone else's pay. But did you share it with anyone? Our incomes come from our employers, whose product or service is purchased by another's income; except government employees whose wages come from taxes on everyone else. The self-righteous herein who lament so deeply toss around words like "greed" and "privilege" and "immorality" a lot, but what about the envy and covetousness expressed to wish to get their hands on someone else's money? What makes them any better an arbiter of where this ill-gotten largess goes than they people who donate?
2
What concerns me is the number of wealthy people who never attended public school who are messing around with public education. They are not doing it in a neutral way.
IBM, when it was a big successful company, used to make matching donations or donate PCs to public schools but they never told the schools what to teach or how to teach. It was neutral philanthropy.
Not so with the new generation of so-called public school philanthropists. Many have an agenda. Mr. Gates' school philanthropy is not agenda neutral. It is tied to some very controversially elements which is why I do not applaud his so-called philanthropy. I wish he would stop his school philanthropy altogether and pick something else. With the Trump budget making massive cuts in everything related to health, Mr. Gates' billions could be used in supporting health research in the US which is going to be decimated by Trump.
My objection to the appointment of DeVos to her cabinet Education position is that she is another so-called philanthropist who has an agenda. She wants all public schools to be run by for profit companies called charter school companies. Public school districts already pay for administrators and school boards. We do not need to pay for outside CEOs, many of whom are from out of state companies. I want Californians running and teaching in California public schools, not Texas CEOs running California schools like Texas schools.
IBM, when it was a big successful company, used to make matching donations or donate PCs to public schools but they never told the schools what to teach or how to teach. It was neutral philanthropy.
Not so with the new generation of so-called public school philanthropists. Many have an agenda. Mr. Gates' school philanthropy is not agenda neutral. It is tied to some very controversially elements which is why I do not applaud his so-called philanthropy. I wish he would stop his school philanthropy altogether and pick something else. With the Trump budget making massive cuts in everything related to health, Mr. Gates' billions could be used in supporting health research in the US which is going to be decimated by Trump.
My objection to the appointment of DeVos to her cabinet Education position is that she is another so-called philanthropist who has an agenda. She wants all public schools to be run by for profit companies called charter school companies. Public school districts already pay for administrators and school boards. We do not need to pay for outside CEOs, many of whom are from out of state companies. I want Californians running and teaching in California public schools, not Texas CEOs running California schools like Texas schools.
2
continuing here...
because lithium, like silica is abundant in the earth's crust, and lithium at present is the preferred battery storage material. Bolivia in the W. Hemisphere would be the place to do this. Bolivia, a socialist state because of their experiences with Western exploitative capitalism, would be a good partner for investment in manufacturing along with the U.S. and Japan, or whoever could supply the best technology. Afghanistan could do the same in the East. All along our strategy should have been to give them schools and industry to make them independent of Pakistan and Wahabiism.
Soros might team with the League of Women's Voters to get young people to vote, and change U.S. environmental policy. High school students that are walked through the voting process are much more likely to vote (Gerber et al). Citizens should be registered by default, i.e. encouraged to vote and be informed. In the latter, the CA ballot initiative process is a good example.
Zuckerberg might add a global warming link on new climate research in place of an ad in the fb scroll and also commission an original graphic to describe it; WeChat might be encouraged to do the same.
Buffet has worked out an environmentally sound agreement with Native tribes in the Klamath Basin (congress is holding it up.) He might work toward carbon sink and limited development agreements with other American and Canadian tribes, promoting a philosophy of living with the land instead of conquering it.
because lithium, like silica is abundant in the earth's crust, and lithium at present is the preferred battery storage material. Bolivia in the W. Hemisphere would be the place to do this. Bolivia, a socialist state because of their experiences with Western exploitative capitalism, would be a good partner for investment in manufacturing along with the U.S. and Japan, or whoever could supply the best technology. Afghanistan could do the same in the East. All along our strategy should have been to give them schools and industry to make them independent of Pakistan and Wahabiism.
Soros might team with the League of Women's Voters to get young people to vote, and change U.S. environmental policy. High school students that are walked through the voting process are much more likely to vote (Gerber et al). Citizens should be registered by default, i.e. encouraged to vote and be informed. In the latter, the CA ballot initiative process is a good example.
Zuckerberg might add a global warming link on new climate research in place of an ad in the fb scroll and also commission an original graphic to describe it; WeChat might be encouraged to do the same.
Buffet has worked out an environmentally sound agreement with Native tribes in the Klamath Basin (congress is holding it up.) He might work toward carbon sink and limited development agreements with other American and Canadian tribes, promoting a philosophy of living with the land instead of conquering it.
2
To the extent that philanthropists donate to help our democratic institutions work better, I'm all for it. But I believe a strong tax base is the best way to do this rather than rely on the kindness of rich strangers.
Where philanthropy can help best is to make sure our press/media is free and thruthfull, our votes counted and our politics uncorrupted -- even by the rich and powerful.
Where philanthropy can help best is to make sure our press/media is free and thruthfull, our votes counted and our politics uncorrupted -- even by the rich and powerful.
Lets be clear. When the author says big donors are shifting power away from democratic institutions what he really means is that they are shifting power away from him and his once influential intellectual ilk. That's what bothers him. They don't really care if the so called Everyman, gets heard. They resent the fact that their advice is being dismissed. They resent the fact that they can no longer purport to posture as the public's will on earth. They can't stand the fact that this is a force they can't control, dominate, or direct. They are being made obsolete. How is this bad?
So a group of billionaires in Los Angeles are advancing a plan to move half of all K-12 students in that city into charter schools....why is this bad? Our public school system needs to be disrupted. At least someone is trying to improve public education, we all know the government won't. The public school system in Los Angeles is a complete disaster. It simply isn't working. We are giving diplomas to students who are functionally illiterate. According to the DOE of the 80 percent of high school seniors who receive a diploma, 40% are unable to read or complete math problems. Lets call this what it is fraud. If the public school system was run by a private corporation the owners would go to jail. The fierce debate the author speaks of isn't coming from parents. It's only coming from the Teachers union, academics and Democratic politicians who are about to be exposed. Good...this is way overdue.
So a group of billionaires in Los Angeles are advancing a plan to move half of all K-12 students in that city into charter schools....why is this bad? Our public school system needs to be disrupted. At least someone is trying to improve public education, we all know the government won't. The public school system in Los Angeles is a complete disaster. It simply isn't working. We are giving diplomas to students who are functionally illiterate. According to the DOE of the 80 percent of high school seniors who receive a diploma, 40% are unable to read or complete math problems. Lets call this what it is fraud. If the public school system was run by a private corporation the owners would go to jail. The fierce debate the author speaks of isn't coming from parents. It's only coming from the Teachers union, academics and Democratic politicians who are about to be exposed. Good...this is way overdue.
1
You have painted the problem with a large brush and broad strokes. One of those billionaire donors in LA is Reed Hastings (chief of Netflix) and is a Democrat. The LA teachers union lost big in a school board campaign where they were outspent by a large amount of outside money on the school board campaign. Unions (like those teachers in LA) have been on the decline for years. Some unions have not been adaptive to change.
Perhaps charters can provide competition so long as the paying field is level. For several charters in LA, they have already had to move. The fact is there is no one school system or teachers union. The nation is also replete with Republican regions where the education system is underfunded and unsuccessful. I support charters but, please, there have never been more students enrolled in AP courses, competitive colleges are harder to get into than ever, and there are many high functioning public school systems with very supportive parents around the country. What is disrupting and divisive is your hyperbole.
Perhaps charters can provide competition so long as the paying field is level. For several charters in LA, they have already had to move. The fact is there is no one school system or teachers union. The nation is also replete with Republican regions where the education system is underfunded and unsuccessful. I support charters but, please, there have never been more students enrolled in AP courses, competitive colleges are harder to get into than ever, and there are many high functioning public school systems with very supportive parents around the country. What is disrupting and divisive is your hyperbole.
1
I disagree with everything you have said. I will paint the problem with a small brush and small strokes. I have two kids. For six years they went to a public school. I was a very involved parent. And yes there are very high functioning public school systems with very supportive parents around the country....my kids' were in one. But those schools are a minority, we all know that. But by the time my kids were ready for jr. high school, it was very obvious they were going to get a poor education. Every parent I knew... who could afford to pull their kids out of public school and put them in private. To not do so would have sabotaged their future. It's not our fault that the government is too stupid or too corrupt to run public schools effectively. When government policy continues to impose rigid personnel rules, bureaucracy, regulations, and a mandate to use education to engineer social or political outcomes, a school cannot successfully impart the needed skills, knowledge, and perspective to its students. American students do not possess the communication and computational skills they need today to succeed in college or in the working world. That is a fact beyond debate. The DOE says a huge percentage of students graduating from high school can't read or write on a college level. This is fraud. A high school diploma should mean something...it doesn't anymore. That isn't hyperbole. That's reality. And if this is disruptive and divisive then great...as I said its way overdue.
1
the Waltons, Devos's etc fund charter schools to break the teacher's union, so they pay less in State and local taxes down the road. I really doubt it is more complicated than that.
1
I was interested to read the mention of the proposed Hudson River island park funded by Barry Diller. On the one hand, New York City has benefited from private investment into all these beautiful new parks like Brooklyn Bridge Park, the Highline, Gov's Island, etc... But at the same time, it's created a parks inequity dynamic in the city. Neighborhoods without billionaires simply have poorer quality parks. The conservancies of Flushing Meadows Park or Forest Park, for example, don't get these extraordinary donations. Why not have one big parks pot that philanthropists can contribute to that gets divided among the boroughs, or where projects compete with each other for funding? This will serve all New Yorkers better.
2
This article's ideas won't even touch the problem identified.
As a prominent attorney told me, why set up a foundation if you don't need a tax deduction. Think of the LLC that Chan Zuckerberg set up--it's a business. They can give to lobbying groups or whatever they want.
Direct route: higher taxation. Everyone can still give but the public's voice will be amplified through representation and fully funded government for the people, etc.
As a prominent attorney told me, why set up a foundation if you don't need a tax deduction. Think of the LLC that Chan Zuckerberg set up--it's a business. They can give to lobbying groups or whatever they want.
Direct route: higher taxation. Everyone can still give but the public's voice will be amplified through representation and fully funded government for the people, etc.
2
There is nothing natural about these enormous fortunes, they were fostered by deliberate manipulation of the Tax and Regulatory structure fostered by Right Wing Ideologues.
Republicans have no interest in funding any program that helps less fortunate Americans, their attacks on Food Stamps alone should be enough to discredit their governance model, before we let them tinker with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Or the infrastructure needs of our country. Enough of this propaganda for the neo-conservative agenda.
Republicans have no interest in funding any program that helps less fortunate Americans, their attacks on Food Stamps alone should be enough to discredit their governance model, before we let them tinker with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Or the infrastructure needs of our country. Enough of this propaganda for the neo-conservative agenda.
3
However much doubt I have about the philanthropy of the rich and powerful and its tax credit, branding, policy manipulating, self aggrandizing motivations (see NYT Pick comment) it is somewhat ironic that lowering tax rates has the perverse effect of making philanthropy less appealing to the wealthy and spending money on themselves even more preferential.
I might also note about the Comments (including my own), that the majority of them seem to take a dim view, for one reason or other, of much of the philanthropy. A fairer tax system and distribution of resources here and around the world would likely do away for the need for much of the philanthropy in the first place.
I might also note about the Comments (including my own), that the majority of them seem to take a dim view, for one reason or other, of much of the philanthropy. A fairer tax system and distribution of resources here and around the world would likely do away for the need for much of the philanthropy in the first place.
3
It will take more than philanthropy to combat global warming/climate change, the major challenge of our time. Concerted government effort is called for, but what we are getting is major hostility from Washington. What the fossil fuel industry is doing through their elected puppets would be comparable to the horse and buggy people trying to keep cars off the road.
Republicans appear to be incredibly ignorant by ignoring the science. Perhaps with universal education, we also need laws to insist that our representatives are reasonably educated. Missing or ignoring the science here, which most young people know now, is both irresponsible and dangerous, especially to those who live in low lying areas that will be most affected.
The roads that need to be built now is an electric grid powered by renewable energy. Transportation needs to be powered by this grid as much as possible. Military states whose militaries are based on the high consumption of fossil fuels should be considered as pariah states. Treaties are needed to curtail fossil fuel use just as treaties are needed to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
A carbon transfer tax is called for to encourage individuals to switch to solar/wind electricity and hybrids/electrics vehicles on their own. The bigger the market, the lower the price.
Mr. Bezos is already doing the right thing by supporting local newspapers (all be it WaPo is national). Gates could make lithium batteries as cheap as silica computer chips.
i
Republicans appear to be incredibly ignorant by ignoring the science. Perhaps with universal education, we also need laws to insist that our representatives are reasonably educated. Missing or ignoring the science here, which most young people know now, is both irresponsible and dangerous, especially to those who live in low lying areas that will be most affected.
The roads that need to be built now is an electric grid powered by renewable energy. Transportation needs to be powered by this grid as much as possible. Military states whose militaries are based on the high consumption of fossil fuels should be considered as pariah states. Treaties are needed to curtail fossil fuel use just as treaties are needed to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
A carbon transfer tax is called for to encourage individuals to switch to solar/wind electricity and hybrids/electrics vehicles on their own. The bigger the market, the lower the price.
Mr. Bezos is already doing the right thing by supporting local newspapers (all be it WaPo is national). Gates could make lithium batteries as cheap as silica computer chips.
i
1
If we continue to cut taxes, stop funding our government we will wind up depending upon charity from people who are not necessarily interested in our well being or in doing things right. Billionaires don't have the same interest in healthy citizens, well educated citizens, citizens who don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from as governments do. Billionaires can fund whatever takes their fancy. Governments are supposed to care for their citizens, go to bat for their citizens rights, see to it that all citizens can live decent lives.
America should not be an exception to the rule. Yet too many Americans believe what the GOP tells them: tax cuts are better for stimulating the economy, deregulation is good, OSHA and the EPA are bad. Being less than very rich shouldn't mean that we cannot afford a decent life. In today's America, hard work, getting a good education, being employed, being healthy, simply being as become next to impossible unless you are very rich.
Billionaires should pay taxes like everyone else so that we don't need to rely upon their generosity to have access to the basics in life. We give them too many tax breaks at a cost to ourselves. The same goes for big corporations: if they can pay their CEOs tens of millions in salary and perks, they can pay full freight on taxes. We're expected to. Why shouldn't they?
America should not be an exception to the rule. Yet too many Americans believe what the GOP tells them: tax cuts are better for stimulating the economy, deregulation is good, OSHA and the EPA are bad. Being less than very rich shouldn't mean that we cannot afford a decent life. In today's America, hard work, getting a good education, being employed, being healthy, simply being as become next to impossible unless you are very rich.
Billionaires should pay taxes like everyone else so that we don't need to rely upon their generosity to have access to the basics in life. We give them too many tax breaks at a cost to ourselves. The same goes for big corporations: if they can pay their CEOs tens of millions in salary and perks, they can pay full freight on taxes. We're expected to. Why shouldn't they?
4
They spend with good intentions, I suppose, but the results are spotty and questionable. Smarter investing, by these people who have access to the best advice, would be my preference. Furthermore, I doubt that Altruism is their primary incentive. Tax breaks are tantamount.
1
Begin by full funding the IRS so they can go after the tax cheats. Strictly forbid any tax exempt money going to politics and enforce it. Greatly increase the estate class the death tas to you conservatives. One generation of trust fund babies is enough.
1
If billionaires--yes Walton family I'm talking about you--treated their employees decently in the first place, the need for private philanthropy would not be so great. And if--knowing that I'm really going off the deep end here--they didn't spend millions to reduce their tax burden and if corporations paid the same share of taxes that they did during the Eisenhower administration, perhaps we wouldn't need Zuckerberg to "save" us.
4
Philanthropy is terrific but the key to an equitable society are high tax rates on the rich so that a democratic majority rather than a handful of charitably inclined billionaires set the tone for the society as a whole. Rather than promoting elite education, for instance, public schools should get the resources they need to educate the most disadvantaged members of society, and everyone should have enough to eat and a decent place to live. These are not radical ideas; they were widely shared aspirations of the vast majority of Americans for many years, and they remain standard policy in most of Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world.
2
Here is the key question: Do you want universal coverage? Or do you want pockets of excellence, that do a fantastic job for some and nothing at all for others?
Only the government can guarantee universal coverage. Private organizations are simply not responsible for the fate of the people they turn away. That private school, that church-run food pantry, that no-kill animal shelter - they are not responsible for educating the students they reject, the child who shows up after the food runs out, the abused dog spotted in someone's back yard. If they don't have enough staff or funding, we understand.
Only the government can guarantee universal coverage, and when government fails to deliver, the public holds them responsible. We expect public schools to educate all of the students in their district, we expect CPS to protect and feed hungry kids, and we expect animal control to go get that abused dog - and when they don't, we get angry, and rant about how "government can't do anything," and demand change. We don't let them off the hook because they don't have enough manpower or enough funding.
There is a place for private philanthropy. Private philanthropy creates pockets of excellence - world class universities, museums, research foundations, and exemplary charitable organizations that serve a fraction of the country's homeless, sick, and disabled people. They can raise the bar for comparable public programs. But they do not, and cannot, serve everyone.
Only the government can guarantee universal coverage. Private organizations are simply not responsible for the fate of the people they turn away. That private school, that church-run food pantry, that no-kill animal shelter - they are not responsible for educating the students they reject, the child who shows up after the food runs out, the abused dog spotted in someone's back yard. If they don't have enough staff or funding, we understand.
Only the government can guarantee universal coverage, and when government fails to deliver, the public holds them responsible. We expect public schools to educate all of the students in their district, we expect CPS to protect and feed hungry kids, and we expect animal control to go get that abused dog - and when they don't, we get angry, and rant about how "government can't do anything," and demand change. We don't let them off the hook because they don't have enough manpower or enough funding.
There is a place for private philanthropy. Private philanthropy creates pockets of excellence - world class universities, museums, research foundations, and exemplary charitable organizations that serve a fraction of the country's homeless, sick, and disabled people. They can raise the bar for comparable public programs. But they do not, and cannot, serve everyone.
5
The dubious writer's conclusions begin with a wrong assumption: "Their (philanthropist's) influence is growing in tandem with their largess, shifting power away from democratic institutions." Oh, really? In what sense are our institutions democratic?" Popular vote? Legislation that reflects the will of a majority of citizens? Equal access for the Koch Bros. and you and me alike?
I see the philanthropic activism of forward thinking members of our tech and finance billionaire class as our last best chance.
I see the philanthropic activism of forward thinking members of our tech and finance billionaire class as our last best chance.
2
Leaving public funding to the wealthy, at their whim, beggars the rest of us. So now America is the Land of Beggars?
Of course, any money put into the community would have to be rewarded with conditions that support their socio-economic philosophy. Which would perpetuate the situation that put them in charge in the first place. No guarantee that the benefits would be shared equally by all who need help, especially groups these entitle rich might not like.
I would prefer more money coming from these entitled rich going to government programs, schools, infrastructure, etc. That way the contributions are shared and the benefits are shared. That’s what government should be for.
The Repub way is the rob the poor and give it all to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood. Reverse progress. Reverse civil rights. Reverse everything but the New Gilded Age.
Of course, any money put into the community would have to be rewarded with conditions that support their socio-economic philosophy. Which would perpetuate the situation that put them in charge in the first place. No guarantee that the benefits would be shared equally by all who need help, especially groups these entitle rich might not like.
I would prefer more money coming from these entitled rich going to government programs, schools, infrastructure, etc. That way the contributions are shared and the benefits are shared. That’s what government should be for.
The Repub way is the rob the poor and give it all to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood. Reverse progress. Reverse civil rights. Reverse everything but the New Gilded Age.
5
This is a continuation of the basic philosophy of many of these people: Make disruptive changes is areas that have grown stagnate, in this case government.
Schools are a perfect example, the long term collusion between schools districts and teachers unions whereby they feed off the public trough without having to produce any results is about to come to a jarring end. The donors are not able to force change on public institutions so they are financing private 'start ups,' otherwise known as Charter Schools. The results are somewhat mixed as with most start ups, but where they are succeeding, the customers (parents) are voting with their feet and leaving public schools in droves.
There is an old curse, attributed to the Chinese:
"May you live in interesting times."
Schools are a perfect example, the long term collusion between schools districts and teachers unions whereby they feed off the public trough without having to produce any results is about to come to a jarring end. The donors are not able to force change on public institutions so they are financing private 'start ups,' otherwise known as Charter Schools. The results are somewhat mixed as with most start ups, but where they are succeeding, the customers (parents) are voting with their feet and leaving public schools in droves.
There is an old curse, attributed to the Chinese:
"May you live in interesting times."
Parents will leave public schools as the quality of public schools deteriorates, because they'll be robbed of tax dollars. Private schools are fine. What's not fine is any funding of them, via vouchers e.g., with public money. Public money should go to improving public schools. DeVos et al would be happy to destroy the public school system.
Not only are they not accountable, they're essentially doing it with public money that was never fairly paid as federal and state taxes.
5
Be honest.
Philanthropic foundations are a tax dodge used to hold obscene wealth in a few hundred family dynasties, avoiding federal estate and income taxation, while promoting their massive business dealings in perpetuity.
If in the process of sanitizing their hoarded wealth a few poor folks benefit it is strictly a self serving accident.
Granted, who should make the decisions on how to use the wealth of America is debatable.
A few oligarchs or democratic federal and state government?
Philanthropic foundations are a tax dodge used to hold obscene wealth in a few hundred family dynasties, avoiding federal estate and income taxation, while promoting their massive business dealings in perpetuity.
If in the process of sanitizing their hoarded wealth a few poor folks benefit it is strictly a self serving accident.
Granted, who should make the decisions on how to use the wealth of America is debatable.
A few oligarchs or democratic federal and state government?
5
This is a gross generalization that ignores the billions of charitable dollars allocated annually by non-family foundations.
As soon as the only kids left in public schools are the poor kids, public support for public school taxes will evaporate, and we can eliminate those taxes. As soon as the only mail we are getting is 3rd class mail, public support for the Post Office will evaporate and we can eliminate that federal agency and give all deliveries to private enterprise. Every tax should be eliminated and every public service should mean a payment to a private business. That's the long view of the plutocrats (Republicans and some Democrats); get the picture?
4
"...as long as economic inequality remains so high..."
Anything unbalanced is unhealthy. The more unbalanced it becomes, the more problems arise. Philanthropy as described in this piece plays the role of the boy putting his finger in the dyke. It may help for a while but the underlying problem will fester.
Anything unbalanced is unhealthy. The more unbalanced it becomes, the more problems arise. Philanthropy as described in this piece plays the role of the boy putting his finger in the dyke. It may help for a while but the underlying problem will fester.
3
I applaud philanthropic efforts wherever I find them but this trend gives me pause on many levels - not just that suggested by the title of the article.
First is the acquisition of these dollars in these few people, illustrative of the income inequality and the skewed economic policies and corporate greed of our culture. It should be impossible for that few people to amass that much of the wealth in a fairly balanced system where workers share in the profits of the companies they work for.
Those having the ideas and inventing the products should be rewarded richly (sorry), but they could sit in their offices from now till hell freezes over with their great ideas and without a work force to bring them to life, manufacture them and transport them and stock them and sell them and ring them up and run the warehouses and ship them and clean the stores and provide security etc etc etc, they would not make a dime. Those people have not shared in the profits for decades.
I am concerned that government will become more and more reliant on these people's largesse. The GOP will point at this phenomena as an excuse to keep giving obscenely rich people more money, and keep cutting programs and social safety nets, expecting private dollars to take up the slack, creating an even greater two tiered society - those who need and the mega rich who give to them.
It's hard to argue against people doing good things, but in the larger picture, there actually is too much of a good thing.
First is the acquisition of these dollars in these few people, illustrative of the income inequality and the skewed economic policies and corporate greed of our culture. It should be impossible for that few people to amass that much of the wealth in a fairly balanced system where workers share in the profits of the companies they work for.
Those having the ideas and inventing the products should be rewarded richly (sorry), but they could sit in their offices from now till hell freezes over with their great ideas and without a work force to bring them to life, manufacture them and transport them and stock them and sell them and ring them up and run the warehouses and ship them and clean the stores and provide security etc etc etc, they would not make a dime. Those people have not shared in the profits for decades.
I am concerned that government will become more and more reliant on these people's largesse. The GOP will point at this phenomena as an excuse to keep giving obscenely rich people more money, and keep cutting programs and social safety nets, expecting private dollars to take up the slack, creating an even greater two tiered society - those who need and the mega rich who give to them.
It's hard to argue against people doing good things, but in the larger picture, there actually is too much of a good thing.
3
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is a real problem with the lack of accountability in these huge philanthropic efforts. Best examples are Mark Zuckerberg's and Bill Gates' efforts in education. Well intentioned but misguided efforts to reshape the education system by two admitted geniuses (in their own ways) who do not know principles of pedagogy. Two obviously unique people, enjoying an "elite" status because of innate talents, are not in a good position to apply their own understandings to education. Education is about people, not about programming.
17
In this case, the road to hell is paved with money.
Hmm, you say Mark Zuckerberg's and Bill Gates' don't know the principles of pedagogy? Well where have the principles of pedagogy led us to? The U.S. is falling behind other countries in test scores across a broad range of subjects and grade levels. Polls show growing public dissatisfaction with everything from school choice, classroom sizes, aging infrastructure, standardized testing, and curriculum. Based on any rational review of the facts, it is failing. Given these facts why should any of us care or for that matter listen to those who know the principles of pedagogy? How are Mark Zuckerberg's and Bill Gates' efforts well-intentioned efforts in education misguided when the very system they are trying to fix is broken and can't even graduate students who are functionally literate? Given the fact they have built billion dollar Fortune 500 companies why are they not in a good position to apply their own understandings to education? Blocs of union voters. entrenched special interests and the DOE has been applying their understandings to our educational system....look where it is. The DOE currently employs 5,000 workers and has an annual budget of $73 billion, but it has not affected student outcomes in any demonstrable way over its 40-year history. It has created a system that requires educators to teach "politically-correct" content and focus on standardized tests. Students graduate unprepared for the real world. This what you're defending? Your argument makes no sense.
Gates and Zuckerberg have recently opted to donate a joint sum of money to study the potential of "personalized" learning. Think about it; instead of the teacher standing in front of the class all day presenting one lesson to the whole class, teachers could be trained to individualize the pace of instruction for each kid. The brighter kids would no longer be bored because the teacher was going too slow, while kids at the other end of the spectrum would not be overwhelmed because the teacher was going too fast for them. As Georgetown's Anthony Carnavale has noted in this Goldilocks's approach, the pace of instruction would be "just right" for each kid. Again, THINK ABOUT IT.
1
These plutocrats sure spend bigly to make participation in the political process Hell for educated people.
1
Well said. You are shining some light on an issue that’s been hiding in the shadows for a long time.
Here’s the message Americans have been sent for forty years: the government is evil; billionaires are gods. If you’re not at least a millionaire, it’s because you’re a moocher expecting a handout and you’ve taken no personal responsibility for your life.
This is not a message that builds an integrated society where everyone wants to contribute. It creates the “us vs. them” attitude we have now. When the mantra ‘Liberty and Freedom!’ is applied to everything from health care to education, you end up with the DeVos Schools of No Curriculum, and the Zuckerberg Schools of Oh Well We Tried. Good luck with that.
We’ve lost our sense of common purpose as a nation. Handing our institutions over to billionaires will only exacerbate the problem.
Oh, and Bezos wants suggestions? Amazon intends to purchase Whole Foods. I suggest he invest some time finding out why employees have traditionally been happy working at that company and……make them even happier! I suggest he not explore every way he can to suck every last nickel out of his employees’ paychecks and benefits so he can play with his rocket some more. Also, I pray, no Bezos Schools of Rocketry. Please.
Here’s the message Americans have been sent for forty years: the government is evil; billionaires are gods. If you’re not at least a millionaire, it’s because you’re a moocher expecting a handout and you’ve taken no personal responsibility for your life.
This is not a message that builds an integrated society where everyone wants to contribute. It creates the “us vs. them” attitude we have now. When the mantra ‘Liberty and Freedom!’ is applied to everything from health care to education, you end up with the DeVos Schools of No Curriculum, and the Zuckerberg Schools of Oh Well We Tried. Good luck with that.
We’ve lost our sense of common purpose as a nation. Handing our institutions over to billionaires will only exacerbate the problem.
Oh, and Bezos wants suggestions? Amazon intends to purchase Whole Foods. I suggest he invest some time finding out why employees have traditionally been happy working at that company and……make them even happier! I suggest he not explore every way he can to suck every last nickel out of his employees’ paychecks and benefits so he can play with his rocket some more. Also, I pray, no Bezos Schools of Rocketry. Please.
4
Let's not forget other realms of society the billionaires are disrupting with no accountablity. Peter Thiel and his efforts on behalf of Hulk Hogan against Gawker come to mind.
1
Power vested in the wealthy, whose impact depends on whether they are "benevolent;" the press being stonewalled by the White House; major legislation impacting millions of Americans and one sixth of the economy being drafted in strict secrecy with no hearings, no input by anyone outside the party, and no input from Americans; a president who flagrantly defies conflict of interest issues, nepotism, corruption, blatantly lies on a regular basis (seemingly without much consequence), openly racist & sexist, fires anyone who disagrees with him -- When future generations wonder how the US went from the "shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere" to a banana republic dictatorship, people will say...
I don't even know how to end that sentence. People will say, they saw it coming but were powerless to stop it? "But her emails"? It will serve as a textbook example on the risk of Democracy? I'm at a loss.
I don't even know how to end that sentence. People will say, they saw it coming but were powerless to stop it? "But her emails"? It will serve as a textbook example on the risk of Democracy? I'm at a loss.
1
Sure, welcome to the future and a big welcome to the past. The rich are super rich today and everyone else runs on a treadmill. This is a double edged sword, which really is frightening.
1
American Philanthropy. Bandaids on tumors.
2
They are now so disproportionately wealthy they HAVE to give it away, they NEED to give it away, there is nothing else to do with it. After all, one can only have so many Ferrarris.
Even if acts are performed with benevolence, they still use their money to suppress us, to lord over us, to imbalance our reality, to wield wealth's cudgel.
Even if acts are performed with benevolence, they still use their money to suppress us, to lord over us, to imbalance our reality, to wield wealth's cudgel.
Interesting. I don't believe I have ever before read an Op-Ed piece devoted to the examination of a gift horse's mouth...
Aren't "charter schools" mainly Jesus-based? - meaning kids are being taught Jesus and creationism rather than science? A la Betsy DeVoss.
Why - that's the perfect recipe for making our future generation the global underclass of fairy-tale believers. Children in Japan and China learn real science and while we and the Islamosphere drill bronze age fairy tales into their young skulls, the 21st Century belongs to Asia. Great.
David
Chelsea, Mhtn
Why - that's the perfect recipe for making our future generation the global underclass of fairy-tale believers. Children in Japan and China learn real science and while we and the Islamosphere drill bronze age fairy tales into their young skulls, the 21st Century belongs to Asia. Great.
David
Chelsea, Mhtn
Yep, only in the NY Times can you find an op-ed that argues for more control over philanthropy and, in effect, less philanthropy.
To summarize: Liberals know best. These highly effective business people cannot be counted on to spend their money wisely. Unfortunately, the government failed in its efforts to tax away their entire fortunes and now these jerks want to spend their money to benefit others. Liberals must find a way to control this lest they distribute funds to un-favored groups or causes. Charter schools being a great example. Philanthropy by the very wealthy is an example of free speech and free will run amok.
"Do it our way or keep your money" will result in Gates, Bezos etc.. keeping the money. Hmmm....Soros' giving was not used as an example...
To summarize: Liberals know best. These highly effective business people cannot be counted on to spend their money wisely. Unfortunately, the government failed in its efforts to tax away their entire fortunes and now these jerks want to spend their money to benefit others. Liberals must find a way to control this lest they distribute funds to un-favored groups or causes. Charter schools being a great example. Philanthropy by the very wealthy is an example of free speech and free will run amok.
"Do it our way or keep your money" will result in Gates, Bezos etc.. keeping the money. Hmmm....Soros' giving was not used as an example...
This model has been evolving and it is not a good thing. Perhaps if Gates and his fellow money mongers would have paid their employees descent wages, benefits, allowed them to work reasonable hours, afford a home, time with their familites and community time and committment, there would be no need for large billionaire sums to rescue troubled communities. The rich are the creators of the problem and it is their decision which of these problems to address. This is not good for America and the answer is not to acceot it as business as usual. Rather, the answer is to level the playing field to allow more to share in the prosperity and in the so,ution.
If philanthropy by the wealthy on pet projects is a bad thing, the alternative of government taking the money and doing (good) with it is worse. See Venezuela.
And thank YOU! Billy Boy and Mr. Bezos! Show your stuff. Remember the little guys and now start putting your shoulders to that boulder call "With Liberty and Justice For all".
Put that GOP "me-me-me" to shame. Make them see the cheap, greedy, phonies they are first thing in the morning and last thing in night every time they look into their mirrors.
Put that GOP "me-me-me" to shame. Make them see the cheap, greedy, phonies they are first thing in the morning and last thing in night every time they look into their mirrors.
In general, I think the few richest, who devote themselves to philanthropy, need better, smarter advice, as they are doing a very poor job of solving any problems. It's like throwing money into the wind.
The gentleman doth protest too much. The Newark experiment failed because of the unions, local politics, and the parents who didn't want to make changes in their personal lives.
I thank the rich who are giving away most of their wealth, and trust them to do a better job than spineless, selfish, and scruple-less politicians at any and all levels.
I thank the rich who are giving away most of their wealth, and trust them to do a better job than spineless, selfish, and scruple-less politicians at any and all levels.
1
Well, I guess there will be a problem with EVERYTHING. Maybe the terrorists
have the right idea.....kill everybody.
have the right idea.....kill everybody.
Problems the government will not tackle... decriminalizing street drugs. Justice is not all the black guys locked up for pot, crack, and whatnot!
I have a better and more simple solution:
Tax the rich more while they live.
Tax their estates when they die.
Tax the bank holdings and investment portfolios of "nonprofits" like Harvard University which sit on tens of billions of dollars while paying nothing.
Tax the rich more while they live.
Tax their estates when they die.
Tax the bank holdings and investment portfolios of "nonprofits" like Harvard University which sit on tens of billions of dollars while paying nothing.
The very ironic thing that this topic does not touch on is the double edge sword the Liberals find themselves balanced upon.
While they publically may applaud this trend, they secretly hate the fact that this money is not taxed so they can direct it where THEY think it should go...
While they publically may applaud this trend, they secretly hate the fact that this money is not taxed so they can direct it where THEY think it should go...
The current administration seems impervious to the needs of citizens. Not listening; not accountable until next election.
The super rich with a conscience are stepping in because the situation now is incredibly bad. Let them.
The super rich with a conscience are stepping in because the situation now is incredibly bad. Let them.
Call me crazy but anything more than a billion dollars seems excessive. Perhaps our government could tax billionaires so that roads, bridges and sewers were updated/fixed. You could appeal to egos by renaming infrastructure after those who paid to fix them. Interstate 80 could be changed from I-80 to I-80Gates. The NYC subway system could have "Thanks Mr. Buffett" signs at every station.
Better philanthropy than anonymous Political Action Committees and Super PACs that spew false ads without regulation or revealing who donated the money.
The American People to the wealthy and successful: THANK YOU.
1
The people have so little money because these people have so much. Now they decide what is the common good and what is to be done about it. Freedom!!!
1
America clearly needs to tax the rich and spread the wealth.
Yet, how do we find leaders that will reign in the rich, instead of fawning over them and desperately trying to become them? We don't because wealth has become the ultimate goal in America. We therefore need a better system of checks and balances, more emphasis on party platforms and ideas than on people.
Although the rich feign to "help" the poor and to acculturate society, they step on the middle class in the process (and thus kill the goose that laid the golden egg). America needs greater protection from the excesses of hyper-wealth!
Yet, how do we find leaders that will reign in the rich, instead of fawning over them and desperately trying to become them? We don't because wealth has become the ultimate goal in America. We therefore need a better system of checks and balances, more emphasis on party platforms and ideas than on people.
Although the rich feign to "help" the poor and to acculturate society, they step on the middle class in the process (and thus kill the goose that laid the golden egg). America needs greater protection from the excesses of hyper-wealth!
What limits on wealth? None? Well, if we're that bad at tax policy then we should be led by billionaires.
We're complicit in the obscene concentration of wealth, property, income and power. We legitimize it. We look away from the paid-for government with the bought candidates and campaigns, the multitudes of lobbyists helping write laws and loopholes. We're lost and playing dumb.
We are nothing without each other. We create civilization, probably starting in Mesopotamia @ 7000 years ago, when we decide to live in cities. We work together, we build together, we help each other, we love and grow.
I hold no great regard for billionaires; this concentration hurts our world. We need more equality and compassion and less arrogance and lust for lucre.
I'm tired of the billionaires speaking as if they know; they know how to acquire, we should look to others for guidance in building strong, honorable societies. We should look within.
We're complicit in the obscene concentration of wealth, property, income and power. We legitimize it. We look away from the paid-for government with the bought candidates and campaigns, the multitudes of lobbyists helping write laws and loopholes. We're lost and playing dumb.
We are nothing without each other. We create civilization, probably starting in Mesopotamia @ 7000 years ago, when we decide to live in cities. We work together, we build together, we help each other, we love and grow.
I hold no great regard for billionaires; this concentration hurts our world. We need more equality and compassion and less arrogance and lust for lucre.
I'm tired of the billionaires speaking as if they know; they know how to acquire, we should look to others for guidance in building strong, honorable societies. We should look within.
It might be more societally useful for Jeff Bezos & the Waltons to offer six week paid vacations or higher wages rather than building parks to harbor indigents or financing charter schools in order to create more elitists employing another generation of overworked & under payed employees. Somewhere along the line the greed demands tempering.
1
The obvious problem with what might be called the "free-market solution" to social problems is how little money the Gateses and Buffetts actually have. The sum total of ALL potential philanthropic dough is simply chicken-feed compared to potential public funds to solve social problems with. Our problem, of course, is a selfish, greedy Boomer electorate that demands tax cuts and wants to shrink government's ability to solve social problems, not expand it. Of course, the inefficacy of past government efforts doesn't help the cause of facing and solving our problems with huge government funding either. But fantasizing that private donors can solve our problems is simply another example of today's typical default position of denial and magical thinking. The rich would do much more good by using their money to transform our horrible politics than by scattering their relatively tiny bounty around the world.
One of the things that irks me with this philanthropy is the way the philanthropists take credit - both tax wise and personal - for something actually paid for by others. As an example, Bill Gates gets all the credit for his philanthropic efforts but in reality it is the people who bought his products that are the ones who are actually paying for it.
For many such philanthropic efforts, especially when it is closely linked to a business activity it is at least as much (if not more) about shaping and promoting their brand using government tax subsidies as it is about doing something worthwhile.
To put it simply it is something of a sham that helps ease the conscience of the rich and powerful. Its also time for companies and their owners to stop asking their customers to make donations even as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage, and keep supporting rightwing politicians that want to take away healthcare so the companies can get bigger tax cuts.
For many such philanthropic efforts, especially when it is closely linked to a business activity it is at least as much (if not more) about shaping and promoting their brand using government tax subsidies as it is about doing something worthwhile.
To put it simply it is something of a sham that helps ease the conscience of the rich and powerful. Its also time for companies and their owners to stop asking their customers to make donations even as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage, and keep supporting rightwing politicians that want to take away healthcare so the companies can get bigger tax cuts.
4
There are many wealthy people who give big bucks without seeking (and in fact shunning) public or even private acknowledgement. You don't see or hear them, so you can't know how big their numbers are, but it's not an insignificant number of donors. Many people can even give a million dollars without it having much of a tax impact (which is a whole other issue)...people give for many different reasons (including some unflattering ones).
Quotes from Teddy Roosevelt:
1. "Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
2. Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.
3. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.
1. "Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
2. Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.
3. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.
A culture of philanthropy is a good thing. But not when it comes with the tradeoff of a government that doesn't support it's citizens:
My mother is disabled and lives in a Red western state where there is essentially no social safety net, but plenty of charitable faith communities. She cannot drive or afford a car; the city has little public transportation. She spends most of her money on expensive medications through Medicare D but is not eligible for SNAP or Medicaid for extra help.
Effectively, this situation results in state-sponsored religion because that's where people (even the irreligious, like my ma) have to go for help; you don't get help without a sermon. You get better help if you're a congregant (job offers from within the church, select food from the food pantry, gas vouchers instead of useless bus passes...)
It should not be acceptible in this country to have a social safety net with a de facto religion test, but that is the result of government abdication of this responsibility.
My mother is disabled and lives in a Red western state where there is essentially no social safety net, but plenty of charitable faith communities. She cannot drive or afford a car; the city has little public transportation. She spends most of her money on expensive medications through Medicare D but is not eligible for SNAP or Medicaid for extra help.
Effectively, this situation results in state-sponsored religion because that's where people (even the irreligious, like my ma) have to go for help; you don't get help without a sermon. You get better help if you're a congregant (job offers from within the church, select food from the food pantry, gas vouchers instead of useless bus passes...)
It should not be acceptible in this country to have a social safety net with a de facto religion test, but that is the result of government abdication of this responsibility.
1
Much wealth comes from tax avoidance, that goes back in the form of philanthropy to make up for government shortfall. Instead of demanding government services we grovel for "donations" from the wealthy. Insanity!
Philanthropy accountable to no one. Well, we also have the wealthy donating to - or is it buying up - our politicians accountable to no one. We have the worst example of a fake philanthropist running our country with zero accountability whatsoever - in spite of all the investigations, he is willing to trash the Constitution and our country to evade.
The problem is when philanthropy looking to do good is replacing what government is there to provide in the first place. Why should citizens beg from the wealthy instead of demand from their government for clean water, good education, health care, bridges, consumer protections, etc.
Waltons want to promote school "choice" while ignoring the fact that choice is for those with the means. Those who earn Walmart level wages have little to NO choice.
The issue is all the "government philanthropy" and giveaways to the wealthy through tax cuts. At least the Gates-Buffett initiative to place most of their wealth toward philanthropic causes is a better solution to all that wealth going to another entitled generation entirely un-taxed as the Trumps would have it.
How many donations are really marketing or advertising for the wealthy, to distract from the terrible things they've done - or continue to do - to get their wealth.
Philanthropy accountable to no one. Well, we also have the wealthy donating to - or is it buying up - our politicians accountable to no one. We have the worst example of a fake philanthropist running our country with zero accountability whatsoever - in spite of all the investigations, he is willing to trash the Constitution and our country to evade.
The problem is when philanthropy looking to do good is replacing what government is there to provide in the first place. Why should citizens beg from the wealthy instead of demand from their government for clean water, good education, health care, bridges, consumer protections, etc.
Waltons want to promote school "choice" while ignoring the fact that choice is for those with the means. Those who earn Walmart level wages have little to NO choice.
The issue is all the "government philanthropy" and giveaways to the wealthy through tax cuts. At least the Gates-Buffett initiative to place most of their wealth toward philanthropic causes is a better solution to all that wealth going to another entitled generation entirely un-taxed as the Trumps would have it.
How many donations are really marketing or advertising for the wealthy, to distract from the terrible things they've done - or continue to do - to get their wealth.
Did I miss something? I see no mention of philanthropy from our President? He says he is worth more than a billion although he is very secretive about his investments. Is there anything he is interested in supporting? Maybe plastering his name on a cancer wing or medical research. Seriously, he only seems interested in amassing wealth for himself.
2
Have you considered reading "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer? This effort began in the Reagan years and has its greatest opportunity in the next two years. Its greatest proponents were the Koch brothers who basically want to dissolve the central government of the United States. It is not philanthropy but a method to gain further advantage under the Trump administration who plans to grant them almost 14% increase in assets in tax reduction and perpetual wealth by eliminating the estate tax. Trickle down has never worked because it is non-competitive. No one given money will spend it just to get into business and competition. But they will give a small percentage of it away in order to preserve their advantage or to get more. Anyone who thinks that private funding intends to solve problems is an outright fool or a paid consultant. Private funders are simply seeking publicity which this columnist has happily provided.
Democracy, in the substantive/non-institutional sense, is umbilically linked with accountability and representation. This situation demonstrates the inherently non-democratic nature of philanthropy after wealth accumulation that is distinct from any ethical consideration of how that money is spent. A rich person might choose to do something with his/her wealth that 100% of society thinks is moral or good; however, the action is non-democratic compared to an alternative that employs mechanisms of accountable representation. In a "mathmatically equivalent" description, workers increasingly pass earnings to their increasingly wealthy bosses and shareholders, then the bosses and shareholders "represent" the workers (with no accountability or deliberation) by choosing how that money is spent.
The real danger is that this behavior might enable the continued neoliberal deconstruction of the state. What we need is some way to get this "extra" money into a place where society can collectively decide what to do with it.
The real danger is that this behavior might enable the continued neoliberal deconstruction of the state. What we need is some way to get this "extra" money into a place where society can collectively decide what to do with it.
3
You say what we need is some way to get this "extra" money into a place where society can collectively decide what to do with it. But be honest... that's not what you mean, is it? What you really want is to find some way to get this "extra" money into a place where those who purport to posture as society's will on earth can collectively decide what to do with it. ....right? So the people that caused the problem want to be part of the solution....yes? That's never going to happen.The teachers union, academics, and the politicians who control our educational system have done tremendous harm. That's why Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are going around you....because you no longer have any credibility. Your advice will be intentionally ignored. Monopolies are unhealthy in the private sector, and much worse in the government sector. Parents want choices: Vouchers create competition for the best teachers and give parents choices. And parents DO want that right to choose where their kids go to school. Vouchers, charter schools and the other "school choice" policies each receive majority support from mothers of school-age children. Vouchers were supported by 61 percent of respondents, while charter schools were favored by 53 percent. This creates a competitive landscape for the best teachers. I understand your frustration.You can't stand the fact that this is an entity you can't control, dominate, or direct anymore. Tough. You reap what you sow.
Counting on Philanthropy to address the myriad of foreseeable fiscal problems facing our country is a Red Herring. While there are a few well meaning wealthy people in our country, the more likely scenario to take hold is that those will capitol will fund what have traditionally been 'public projects' with FOR PROFIT projects. Mr Trump is already trying to open the door to our public lands and interstate highways to foreign and private investment.
Back in the 70's we used to nervously joke about the space program rockets - those who risked their lives on top of a launch vehicle built by the lowest bidder. Soon your air traffic control system will be managed by the lowest bidder, or best connected. Profit will be the primary driver and wall street will drive the results much as you see in our often sick corp. American culture (shareholder return rational for everything) Wait for the finger pointing when the first accident happens. I won't even begin to postulate the potentials - I have worked in the field for many years and the opportunities are endless.
Back in the 70's we used to nervously joke about the space program rockets - those who risked their lives on top of a launch vehicle built by the lowest bidder. Soon your air traffic control system will be managed by the lowest bidder, or best connected. Profit will be the primary driver and wall street will drive the results much as you see in our often sick corp. American culture (shareholder return rational for everything) Wait for the finger pointing when the first accident happens. I won't even begin to postulate the potentials - I have worked in the field for many years and the opportunities are endless.
Republicans can't have it both ways. Something has to give. Unfortunately the continuous increase of wealth in the hands of the few and cuts to government spending on social welfare programs and education will leave us with no other choice but to accept the largess of a handful of people. If that's not a strategy to increase elitism I don't know what is. Oh how I wish Trump supporters would see this too.
Philanthropists give away their own money, not anyone elses. Taxation is a form of coerced, legalized confiscation: "They have it, we want it, there are more of us than there are of them, so lets write a law and take it, or put them in jail". Anyone can do whatever they want with their money as long as their actions are legal and do not harm (in the literal sense). If you begrudge their philanthropy for "playing God" then simply confiscate their money... and transform our Society.
"It's time to look harder at how the wealthy wield clout through philanthropy".
That being said, no mention of the Koch Brothers who for all intensive purposes now run our Republican controlled government?
Ok maybe their money went to super PACs and not 'philanthropic causes' but the line is becoming increasingly blurred.
Isn't LESS government what the GOP wants? As the GOP and Trump keep saying "give it to the state to decide" thus abdicating federal responsibility, they know full well the states do not have the budget to fill in the gap. Thus the states will cease to 'offer' services too completing the shrinking of government responsibility in citizen's lives. That is the GOP goal.
The core belief is that citizens are on their own and if you can not afford it you do not deserve it or can do without.
Of course this small government, big business favors the outsized influence of the rich. Once again, that is the whole point. Ordinary citizens are believed to be uneducated and unworthy of having a say in their lives. Those who are at the top know better and must direct the rest of us on how we should live our lives. Voting restrictions are meant to reinforce this.
Accountability is not welcomed in this agenda. That is pure GOP.
That being said, no mention of the Koch Brothers who for all intensive purposes now run our Republican controlled government?
Ok maybe their money went to super PACs and not 'philanthropic causes' but the line is becoming increasingly blurred.
Isn't LESS government what the GOP wants? As the GOP and Trump keep saying "give it to the state to decide" thus abdicating federal responsibility, they know full well the states do not have the budget to fill in the gap. Thus the states will cease to 'offer' services too completing the shrinking of government responsibility in citizen's lives. That is the GOP goal.
The core belief is that citizens are on their own and if you can not afford it you do not deserve it or can do without.
Of course this small government, big business favors the outsized influence of the rich. Once again, that is the whole point. Ordinary citizens are believed to be uneducated and unworthy of having a say in their lives. Those who are at the top know better and must direct the rest of us on how we should live our lives. Voting restrictions are meant to reinforce this.
Accountability is not welcomed in this agenda. That is pure GOP.
Why is this philanthropy wrong? Because we live in a democracy (or we used to) and it is up to us as citizens and voters to decide how the government spends its money. If these uber wealthy paid their fair share in taxes (I favor a top progressive rate of 75%) then we we the people could decide how to use all that money instead of having to depend on the charity of the current crop of robber barons.
Expressing concern over philanthropists' decisions is primarily an American phenomenon, and perhaps we should reflect on why that is the case. In much of western Europe, where the social net safeguards many (or, at least, that is the public's perception), the super rich do not necessarily engage in large-scale philanthropy. In many other parts of the world, the wealthy purposefully do not invest in their own countries but rather keep their fortunes for themselves, often under less-than-legitimate pretexts.
The tax breaks for the rich is just wealth distribution so the wealthy can direct money the way they want it applied to society instead of how the citizens want. And, the wealthy get more tax breaks for the charitable giving.
We are slowly becoming an oligarchy. Our Founders would be shocked and saddened.
We are slowly becoming an oligarchy. Our Founders would be shocked and saddened.
8
The reporter says that philanthropists are tackling problems that no one else will. They are also creating problems that no one else does. While many visible billionaires in the US like to line up with Gates, for example, it is more vanity philanthropy and it is serious R&D. Philanthropy is rarely actual risk capital. In the case of Gates, and Soros, and donors to the Clinton Foundation, money is frequently used for political persuasion in ways that the broader public cannot compete with. And as campaign and political donations are, really, effectively unregulated, their influence is a major distortion in the political economy. It can also be used for "off-balance sheet" or "black" operations--funding protests, or "color revolutions" that can be actually violent, illegal, and highly corrupted. Moreover, many philanthropy acts that catch the attention of the press; say, vaccination or birth control programs, or other highly emotional symbolic acts, can act as a public cover for money applied to much more troubling, even nefarious purposes that have no accountability whatsoever to the public, or any political or regulatory body. Atmospheric particle injections that purportedly deflect sunlight, is an example. Bio-engineering research for de-population purposes (at a major Chicago university by a well-known family) is another. Philanthropy isn't really booming: private social engineering projects are, however.
2
My greatest problem is the inequity of the choices. These gifts are going to major population areas. What about the poor scattered across the country, those who live in poverty in rural America? What about small town America with many of the same problems? Only the government can spread fund equally, when it chooses to. I want all children to have food and education. ALL children, not just those whom philanthropists decide need help. I am NOT against philanthropists giving of their vast fortunes. I praise them. However, I don't want the government to step back and turn this over to foundations and the wealthy.
2
Considering the AHCA in the Senate is a very unfavorable bill, it isn't clear the government is accountable to the people.
2
Yet another symptom of having created a class of people so rich that the money they give away (if you ignore the tax breaks) dwarfs the spending of government on individual issues.
You are in thrall to a Republican party so rich, so able to corrupt the composition and the functioning of government through bribery, manipulation, and corruption of the regular order that the very few can control what happens to the evryebody else.
You are in thrall to a Republican party so rich, so able to corrupt the composition and the functioning of government through bribery, manipulation, and corruption of the regular order that the very few can control what happens to the evryebody else.
The Koch bothers and their billionaire friends have been taking advantage of this charitable giving charade for decades.They pretend to be donating money to Universities and " Think Tanks ", that in the end only follow their specific corporate rules, then reap tax deductions as their retrograde ideas are installed all across the country. Time to close the loophole to this kind of double dealing. All giving to political and self-serving interests should be greatly restricted. They give away millions upon millions to promote their business interest, yet keep paying workers minimum wages. Who benefits?
10
This is the most important story the Times has reported in months, because it lays bare a tidal shift that to Trump supporters represents nothing less than a revolution. As one of his revolutionaries explained to me, they may not care for Trump the man, but they love Trump the change-agent, the leader who can sweep in an entirely different way of life. In short, this revolution strips government from community, and leaves everything -- from privatized schools and prisons to mowing public lawns and feeding the poor and the elderly -- to the community. When I asked, "But what if the 'community' doesn't step forward? Does that mean houses burn down because there's no publicly-funded firehouse or people starve because there are no food stamps?" The answer? "Yes. It's the survival of the fittest. Better get used to it because that's the future."
Reading this article today underscored, perfectly, the fear I felt after that conversation. Plz keep up the reporting on this critical shift. Yes, in many cases generous billionaires will pick up the slack. But they can't or won't be everywhere, solving everything. Forget the obsession with the petty tweets. This is what we need to pay close attention to.
Reading this article today underscored, perfectly, the fear I felt after that conversation. Plz keep up the reporting on this critical shift. Yes, in many cases generous billionaires will pick up the slack. But they can't or won't be everywhere, solving everything. Forget the obsession with the petty tweets. This is what we need to pay close attention to.
6
Spend a little time reading about the knuckleheads in northern California and southern Oregon - the State of Jefferson cult. What your friend is supporting is in play in many southern Oregon towns. No police of fire service after midnight. No libraries or public buildings. It's the Republican Kansas (Brownback) experiment run wild. This is a cross section of America that does not really care about 'community' so much as 'self'. Note that I did not say 'self-reliance'. It's not about that, it all just about me!
1
And like prairie wildfires, this "movement" can spread, overwhelming everything in its path before we know it.
Were not governments, at any level, established to collectively build, control and maintain the physical and social infrastructure wanted by all their citizens rather than their rich?
Today's absolutely gross assymetry of wealth touches every moment of the nation's day. The uber money do not speak for the general population, and no matter how well intentioned, should not be able to freely insert itself into social mechanics. They better concentrate instead on remitting rather than escaping fair taxation.
Today's absolutely gross assymetry of wealth touches every moment of the nation's day. The uber money do not speak for the general population, and no matter how well intentioned, should not be able to freely insert itself into social mechanics. They better concentrate instead on remitting rather than escaping fair taxation.
4
Another result of this is what working feels like. I was an opera singer for many years and in the US the arts are almost entirely funded by private donors. One of the reasons it felt good to finally stop performing was the increasing expectation of the extra "performing" for the people with money. While we all knew that was a part of it and a bit of it is fine, it has gotten very unbalanced. I had a job with 2 performances and 4 expected social events which was really the writing on the wall.
One of the reasons I liked working in Europe was that I felt like a professional, which is indeed what I was, not a constant supplicant/celebrity. Working is deformed by feeling that you must beg for funds, that your job is only valuable if the wealthy decide it is.
I know opera is not high on the list of current problematic issues, but the arts have long been indicative of where we're heading in defunding government and allowing the wealthy to determine what we value enough to fund.
One of the reasons I liked working in Europe was that I felt like a professional, which is indeed what I was, not a constant supplicant/celebrity. Working is deformed by feeling that you must beg for funds, that your job is only valuable if the wealthy decide it is.
I know opera is not high on the list of current problematic issues, but the arts have long been indicative of where we're heading in defunding government and allowing the wealthy to determine what we value enough to fund.
16
Welcome to the future. As wealth and influence are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the effects begin to appear. Forget the yachts, multiple palatial houses, or million-dollar autos; the wealthy are slowly but surely gaining a stranglehold on the levers of power and the ability to influence what kind of society we will live in.
In my humble opinion, leadership is the limiting factor in civilization. I'd like to see an altruistic billionaire take on this problem, and work towards a society where the wealthy can enjoy their wealth, but they can't control the lives of other people. Get that right and the rest will be easy.
In my humble opinion, leadership is the limiting factor in civilization. I'd like to see an altruistic billionaire take on this problem, and work towards a society where the wealthy can enjoy their wealth, but they can't control the lives of other people. Get that right and the rest will be easy.
5
There is no recognition in this article or any of the comments that 2/5's of the money these folks give is the people's money. Via itemized tax deductions the government reimburses 40 percent of charitable donations for the one percent. Thus not only to they have outsize influence on direct government spending through their dark PACs, individual donations, lobbyists and personal connections, they are empowered to raid government coffers for their own "private" philanthropy. They get to decide, they get the glory and we get half the bill. Freedom!!
19
I share all the concerns raised in this article and then some. But to respond to some of the comments raised below and speaking from a purely logical point and devils advocate of view - why shouldn't the very wealthy get to choose where their money goes? Yes, I get that the rich get rich in part on the backs of the poor, and in many cases by virtue of the privilege they started with. But why should the 99% get to decide how the superrich spend their philanthropy dollars? Especially in a society that supposedly values freedom. At least the rich are giving.
8
A society that values freedom but is based in private property, is consistent with the existence of an underclass of dependent workers.
5
I would prefer the top 20% honestly pay their taxes,
then give for personal enrichment using philanthropy.
I would prefer Democracy rather than Plutocracy.
then give for personal enrichment using philanthropy.
I would prefer Democracy rather than Plutocracy.
13
A Mafia bribe is essentially giving away money too, but the 99% in their dreams mistaken belief that they are the government gets to say where those bribes go all the time. Under the table to a politician, no. Above the table to a politician through a superPAC, that's fine.
I agree. Certainly it is admirable that super-rich don't Americans do some charitable giving, rather than bequeath their whopping estate to their children or try to take it with them. But our era reminds me of the Robber Baron era, when Social Darwinists like Andrew Carnegie effectively said, "I earned these riches because I am superior. Because I am superior, I alone know best how to disburse my wealth for the benefit of others. Private charity, not redistribution of wealth, is the proper way to cope with economic inequality and other social problems."
A couple decades later, Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr criticized Henry Ford, effectively telling him that, "Just because you are very good at building cars does not mean that you know how to run Detroit."
Some of today's richest Americans, like Carnegie and Ford, seem to think that they know best how to tackle disease, improve education, etc. But many of their charitable donations seem ill-advised, and some have proved just plain wasteful. Charity is a good thing, but it is no substitute for a more egalitarian society.
A couple decades later, Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr criticized Henry Ford, effectively telling him that, "Just because you are very good at building cars does not mean that you know how to run Detroit."
Some of today's richest Americans, like Carnegie and Ford, seem to think that they know best how to tackle disease, improve education, etc. But many of their charitable donations seem ill-advised, and some have proved just plain wasteful. Charity is a good thing, but it is no substitute for a more egalitarian society.
7
I've been a nonprofiteer in a wide range of community organizations in the US and overseas. What often goes unmentioned in the mad rush to ingratiate ourselves with new sources of revenue (read: donors) is their often short attention span with specific issues. This year it's AIDS-HIV, next year STEM. Also, they bring an amateur's enthusiasm that rests on the twin assumptions that all efforts before theirs have been a failure and therefore we so-caped professionals need the novel, outsider's insight to finally move forward.
7
For all of the hoopla surrounding the minimum wage, I'd suggest that we'd be much better served by working for a maximum wage... and for that matter, while we're at it, for a maximum wealth.
While I'm cautious about demonizing billionaires as a class---Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, as examples, seem to be pretty good guys---I think we'd be far better off as a society if we had no billionaires, whether good or bad, or even the possibility of there being such a thing.
While I'm cautious about demonizing billionaires as a class---Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, as examples, seem to be pretty good guys---I think we'd be far better off as a society if we had no billionaires, whether good or bad, or even the possibility of there being such a thing.
6
It is an undemocratic system that disproportionately allocates the wealth produced by society as a whole to a few unelected people at the top, and expects them to redistribute it in some way. Some do, some don't.
One solution is to reinstate strong progressive taxation, where everyone contributes to the common good, and the money is spent democratically... and no, it's not an economy/job-killing idea. Top marginal tax-rates were 90% up to '63, were 70% in the 70's-80's but are at 35% today. The data show that these tax-reductions were not accompanied by a massive hike in the economic growth-rate at every step, but I do wonder if they contributed to the massive redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the past 30-40 years, with the concomitant impoverishment of the "hard working Americans" at the bottom. One juicy irony of the current system is that the wealthy get to tax-deduct their donations.
One solution is to reinstate strong progressive taxation, where everyone contributes to the common good, and the money is spent democratically... and no, it's not an economy/job-killing idea. Top marginal tax-rates were 90% up to '63, were 70% in the 70's-80's but are at 35% today. The data show that these tax-reductions were not accompanied by a massive hike in the economic growth-rate at every step, but I do wonder if they contributed to the massive redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the past 30-40 years, with the concomitant impoverishment of the "hard working Americans" at the bottom. One juicy irony of the current system is that the wealthy get to tax-deduct their donations.
18
It's an undemocratic system, but to understand it we have to look beyond politics. The other day there were stories about Amazon and Walmart battling to rule the world of retail. There are things about technology and the scale of society that encourage these corporations to gather in wealth from the vast areas. (And the corporations themselves are not all that large, in terms of people employed or property owned.) We look at the individuals involved, Bezos and Gates and so on, but we should also look at the real economic structures.
The technologies are important, but I think we are also seeing a tendency for capitalism to lead to monopoly. Or maybe it's not just capitalism, because Russia has its oligarchs, and China has its billionaires. Responding to the previous Gilded Age, democracy took back some power, in the form of trust-busting and regulation. Maybe this time we can do something similar, without the world wars...
The technologies are important, but I think we are also seeing a tendency for capitalism to lead to monopoly. Or maybe it's not just capitalism, because Russia has its oligarchs, and China has its billionaires. Responding to the previous Gilded Age, democracy took back some power, in the form of trust-busting and regulation. Maybe this time we can do something similar, without the world wars...
You assume, wrongly, that government spending is directed to the common good. The activities of government are primarily concerned with what is politically expedient and in the interests of the governing class. The common good is incidental, at best.
The name Trump and the name Kushner are noticeably absent from your list of mega-donors. This excellent article reminds us all that there are people out there sharing their massive wealth with the rest of America.
I agree that a ceiling amount should be made on allowable tax-deductible gifts to policy-making groups. I also agree that there should be more transparency as far as these donors. But, many are giving to social causes because they want to, and can afford to, and do not want thanks, hence their desire for anonymity and privacy. Some may not be so generous in the future if their id is exposed.
The rest of us give what we can afford from our budgets, and evidently the super wealthy philanthropists are doing the same on a so much greater scale. Their love of humanity and their spirit of unity and amazing generosity are welcome reminders offsetting the bloated greed of Trump and way too many of our GOP members in Congress.
It is too bad their example is being ignored by those blinded by self-interests and self-promotion as well as self-aggrandizement.
I agree that a ceiling amount should be made on allowable tax-deductible gifts to policy-making groups. I also agree that there should be more transparency as far as these donors. But, many are giving to social causes because they want to, and can afford to, and do not want thanks, hence their desire for anonymity and privacy. Some may not be so generous in the future if their id is exposed.
The rest of us give what we can afford from our budgets, and evidently the super wealthy philanthropists are doing the same on a so much greater scale. Their love of humanity and their spirit of unity and amazing generosity are welcome reminders offsetting the bloated greed of Trump and way too many of our GOP members in Congress.
It is too bad their example is being ignored by those blinded by self-interests and self-promotion as well as self-aggrandizement.
4
Missing in the analysis is “fungibility.” When billionaires give for parks, education, and health, they alleviate the pressure of the government to provide parks, education and health. In the US, this means that the Republicans will have more money for pre-emptive wars. The boat people of Syria would like to thank you Mr. Gates.
Billionaires should seek public-good projects that the government will not fund because of vested interests or political ideologies. For example, the auto industry would lobby against bicycle interstate highways and the evangelicals, against incentives for non-pregnancy of women at risk. The fact that few billionaires consider non-fungibility calls into question their motives. Gates comes back to mind: the launch of his foundation coincides with federal investigations of anti-trust violations.
Another problem arises, also grave but in a different realm. Inasmuch as billionaires did not make their money in designing parks, etc., one may assume that they will leave their imprint on the object of their charity: ghastly parks, bogus education and quack medicine (e.g., Trump’s claim that autism is related to vaccination).
If the Jeff Bezos’s of the world are truly altruistic and will not fund non-fungible public-good projects, here is an idea that fits into a Twitter message
Remit to the US Treasury 77% of your annual income and 25% of your capital gains, the tax rates which applied when you were born (1964).
Billionaires should seek public-good projects that the government will not fund because of vested interests or political ideologies. For example, the auto industry would lobby against bicycle interstate highways and the evangelicals, against incentives for non-pregnancy of women at risk. The fact that few billionaires consider non-fungibility calls into question their motives. Gates comes back to mind: the launch of his foundation coincides with federal investigations of anti-trust violations.
Another problem arises, also grave but in a different realm. Inasmuch as billionaires did not make their money in designing parks, etc., one may assume that they will leave their imprint on the object of their charity: ghastly parks, bogus education and quack medicine (e.g., Trump’s claim that autism is related to vaccination).
If the Jeff Bezos’s of the world are truly altruistic and will not fund non-fungible public-good projects, here is an idea that fits into a Twitter message
Remit to the US Treasury 77% of your annual income and 25% of your capital gains, the tax rates which applied when you were born (1964).
10
This article neglect to mention that some of these philanthropic efforts are to actually stimulate governments to be more involved in finding better solutions for the societies they neglect through bureaucracy, lobbyists and partisanship. For every one billion invested privately in things like providing access to contraception, in order for that goal to be realized, the government needs to chip in ten billion. Some (not all) Foundations that invest in these efforts are largely investing in the data-driven research that proves where and why there is a need for involvement, not just because some wealthy person wills it. They make their cases to key policy makers via research, not bribes like basic lobbyists. There's also a strange notion that people assume if these same philanthropists were taxed more, that the government would somehow know more wisely to invest that money. If the US had more access to private wealth, it would go straight into the military to build a missile before it would go into vaccine research to stave off global pandemics in undeveloped countries and you only have to look at the history of debt to see who is better equipped to handle that money. The person who made it... or the entity that wastes it?
6
I think we should really be taxing the unrealized capital gains on stock/assets that make up the majority of these donations. At the very least we should make it so you can't write off the unrealized gain as a charitable gift, because as it is we are doubly losing out on taxes because of this.
Not to mention that a lot of the very rich got that way by abusing laws/workers (Microsoft's anti-trust issues, Amazon not collecting sales tax and workers in their warehouses getting sent to the hospital because it's so hot, etc.). Basically that so few are collecting so much wealth shows that capitalism isn't working right because profit should just be another cost to be minimized by competition. Of course, that's not surprising considering that if government was working as it should be (managing the economy and public needs) then philanthropy wouldn't be needed so much.
Not to mention that a lot of the very rich got that way by abusing laws/workers (Microsoft's anti-trust issues, Amazon not collecting sales tax and workers in their warehouses getting sent to the hospital because it's so hot, etc.). Basically that so few are collecting so much wealth shows that capitalism isn't working right because profit should just be another cost to be minimized by competition. Of course, that's not surprising considering that if government was working as it should be (managing the economy and public needs) then philanthropy wouldn't be needed so much.
12
It is still the wrong way to go. It is still the Second Gilded Age with all the suffering and misery that implies.
Gates himself has winced at the issue of taxes. Much of this wealth was built on the backs of the middle and working classes through the insane tax ideas of supply side. We suffer a 7.25 minimum wage so THEY can dole out Christmas Presents. No go.
Gates himself has winced at the issue of taxes. Much of this wealth was built on the backs of the middle and working classes through the insane tax ideas of supply side. We suffer a 7.25 minimum wage so THEY can dole out Christmas Presents. No go.
15
The US has already gone through something similar. It was called the "gilded Age." Think JP Morgan bailing out the US government in 1893.
Good or bad? You decide.
Good or bad? You decide.
6
While philanthropy is wonderful, money given can guide public policy or when there is none, substitute for same. The Gates give great deals of money to many causes w/noble ideals: eradicate disease, build schools, better health care, etc. With more children born and attending school, if those outcomes occur, how will the need for better jobs be assured? For every philanthropist, there is a different outcome. In this country, the DeVos/Prince family money goes for school choice and now that Betsy DeVos is secy. of ed. in the Trump administration, more time and public monies going toward school vouchers and choice under the rubric of choice for parents. That the money devoted for education is taxed by locals for their children in their own districts is taken to support these choices, where for example no handicapped or developmentally children do not have to attend, weakens the public school idea, an American institution hallowed since the beginning of this country. Yes, Rockefellers, Carnegies et al made marks w/their philanthropy; with the number of the extremely wealthy at record levels in our society, the question of sharing that money w/workers/employees/or made in conjunction w/local leaders should be considered. Like so much, not enough public policy debate on this.
9
The tax-deductible donation needs to be eliminated. People should give, but they should give their money, not ours. Unfortunately, too many powerful institutions, universities, museums, symphonies (why no rock bands?), etc., rely on this for this to happen.
7
Even with an increase in philanthropic spending it is tiny still compared to government spending for necesseties such as health care food assistance and housing subsidies.
Do the math. There is no way foundations and wealthy folks could ever come close to replacing the medicaid money the Repulicans want to slash from the Federal budget.
Do the math. There is no way foundations and wealthy folks could ever come close to replacing the medicaid money the Repulicans want to slash from the Federal budget.
8
There should be serious conversations had before we change the way philanthropy is executed in the US. The upheaval this could cause excellent, transparent nonprofits is significant. Comparing philanthropy today to the philanthropy of yesterday doesn't teach us much--let's look forward and tweak a system that gets us where we want to go. (Though can the Divided States of America even agree on a vision? I'm not confident.)
4
While I applaud philanthropy, there is something wrong when our cities, states, and national government are so poorly underfunded as to depend on the largesse of billionaires for their survival. In Washington State, we are home to the Gates Foundation -- but also to a regressive tax system, with no income tax. Our struggling state has failed to fund K-12 education to basic levels, and the state supreme court has declared the legislature in violation of the state constitution for this failure, a situation that has continued for years. Thanks to our national obsession with low taxes for the 1%, the Gates Foundation has billions to invest in projects like more sanitary toilets for the developing world, while children right here in Seattle can't get a decent education because of underfunded schools. Bottom line, I don't join in the cheerleading for Gates and other billionaire philanthropies; they are too often ineffective tools that exist mainly to promote the "legacy" (fame) of their billionaire namesakes, not the health, happiness, education, and welfare of our citizenry.
17
Correct. Bill Gates is Bill Gates' friend.
I am reminded by this thought-provoking article of questions that has been on my mind for some time: how did the US get to the state it is in today? Why is the gap between the 1% and the rest of us widening? Are the actions I am taking in my life mine or are the result of the influences the very rich have on our society?
5
So is there a way to universalize and institutionalize this practice? Yes - it's called progressive taxation. Have the super-rich pay 95% of their income in taxes, which the government then allocates to the places where money is most needed. In theory, at least, the people thus have a say in how the money is spent, and the tax burden falls on all the wealthy, not just those with a social conscience. Of course the devil's in the details, but that's always true in democracies.
17
Private philanthropy can never replace essential government services. We (well Republicans) have outsourced what used to be government responsibilities (education, research) to the super-rich. The problem is lack of fairness and accountability. The rich decide who wins and loses, who benefits from their largesse.
Republican politicians and the voters who put them in office have been slowly but surely destroying our democracy for the past 4 decades. Obama was right when he said income inequality is the greatest problem facing America. Unfortunately nothing short of a complete turnaround from Republican to Democratic (and progressive) control of state and federal government will save the country. The likelihood of that happening is small, although our current bozo of a president and his Republican lackeys might help.
Republican politicians and the voters who put them in office have been slowly but surely destroying our democracy for the past 4 decades. Obama was right when he said income inequality is the greatest problem facing America. Unfortunately nothing short of a complete turnaround from Republican to Democratic (and progressive) control of state and federal government will save the country. The likelihood of that happening is small, although our current bozo of a president and his Republican lackeys might help.
7
The comparison "Nondefense discretionary spending totaled $518 billion in 2016, compared with charitable giving of $390 billion last year. " is somewhat fspurious given that at least one third of all charitable giving is given by the faithful to their churches/religious institutions, and of the remainder the vast majority goes to elite education, cultural and medical institutions. The portion that goes to what most people would see as addressing social problems of poverty, dislocation, etc is very minor.
10
Don't religious, education, cultural and medical institutions address social problems?
3
Some do, ... but research shows that the majority serve the interests of elites and entrench privileges. They don't serve to redistribute public goods and services and so don't address the problems one would hope philanthropy could help to alleviate.
4
They do - but they do not have the money
One thing seems clear: we won't have to worry about trump using his money to alter either the national or global landscapes, and he surely lacks the competence do alter them through his power or authority. Useless altogether.
2
An alternative is to increase taxes on the wealthy so that democratic institutions have more resources.
17
No good deed goes unpunished -- or un-criticized in the NYT.
8
See note from John: the overwhelming amount of these dollars do not get spent on things that the public sees as "needful."
7
A good deed done at the right time would be massively rewarded, except by others in the too-rich-to-really-care class.
That is, instead of hoarding money to give away at a later date, spend a little now to care for your employees, to pay your share of taxes, to rescue those in crisis situations.
Less glamorous, I know, but far more effective and far, far more honest.
That is, instead of hoarding money to give away at a later date, spend a little now to care for your employees, to pay your share of taxes, to rescue those in crisis situations.
Less glamorous, I know, but far more effective and far, far more honest.
1
Philanthropy is to be commended - but is not a predictable or long term solution. Unfortunately, those in favor of less government and privatization, use these "gifting" scenarios as rhetoric to support their agenda - "less government in business and more business in government". It is ludicrous to think that philanthropy will cure the ills of poorly managed government finance. Some of the philanthropists are part of this very problem in their own lobbying efforts to cut their taxes and strip away needed funding from government.
8
I've been watching an listening to stories about Gate's charitable giving for years and years. What always amazes me is the difference between regular people and rich people. If I donate $10.000, I have $10,000 less dollars. If Bill gives away millions, he either stays the same on the Forbes richest list or gains position on the Forbes richest list. He receives massive publicity for his giving and never has any less money. Neat trick.
4
That "neat trick" is called intelligent investment management.
But I am confident most of the commenters here would call it a string of lucky coincidences - year after year.
But I am confident most of the commenters here would call it a string of lucky coincidences - year after year.
I would call it a rigged system in which the wealthy have access to money making opportunities that the rest of us do not. If I try to put money away, I'm lucky to get 1% interest. Yeah, you can invest in high earning vehicles, if you've got millions to invest.
The analysis is spot on save for the blind spot in assessing the underlying reasons for growing concentrations of vast wealth, which is taken as a given. In fact, the process is one that is reinforcing. Through the appropriation of ever larger masses of wealth through economic rents that reflect political power, broader swaths of society are subject to the great largesse of private philanthropy, a euphemism for the hijacking of true democracy.
9
Yet another misleading conservative screed from The Times. Incredible that Callahan goes through an entire essay on philanthropy without mentioning the Koch brothers, or their billionaire henchmen. Jane Mayer points out in her brilliant expose, "Dark Money", how right-wing billionaires are destroying American democracy.
Instead of praising these one-percenters for their giving, far better to sharply raise the marginal tax on the uber rich, and use those tax revenues for the good of the entire nation, and direct it through our elected officials.
I am fed up with the conservative pablum served up by The Times. Time for The Times to clean house.
Instead of praising these one-percenters for their giving, far better to sharply raise the marginal tax on the uber rich, and use those tax revenues for the good of the entire nation, and direct it through our elected officials.
I am fed up with the conservative pablum served up by The Times. Time for The Times to clean house.
10
Despite what the calendar says, this is still 19th century Gilded Age giving. A better model, one that gets the money down to ground level and improves lives there, is the 1:1:1 model pioneered by Marc Benioff, CEO and Parker Harris, CTO of Salesforce.com. In that model, a company pledges one percent of equity, revenue and importantly employees' time to doing good works. Employees are never coerced into doing good but the company gives them the leeway to invest 1 percent of their time on the clock each year to make a difference in their communities. The results can be significant. Though there are no parks with plaques announcing who paid for them, the strategy gets a lot of funding and resources into the hands of people who need them. Best of all, it doesn't wait until someone is at the end of a career and rich to get started.
7
Assuming a person works 2000 per year, I am thinking that equates to 20 hours per year per person. That is a significant amount of time. Think of 20 hours fixing up someone else's yard and house. (I am thinking of Rebuilding Together that does just that once a year for vets, seniors, single moms, etc.) If Salesforce is funding these good deeds as well, it is even more impressive. Multiply this by thousands of employees and the results must be fantastic and span many areas. This is something that should be championed by someone in power who can influence the way businesses conduct themselves. Hmmm....
When do these excellent people get down to important stuff? Like fixing toilets that flush through the ceiling in overpriced housing owned by other, um, excellent rich people.
Like making sure people who work at two, three jobs are paid enough to live on and be healthy and go to school.
Stuff like that.
Painting the playground at your local elementary school is super nice, and accomplishes not much.
Like making sure people who work at two, three jobs are paid enough to live on and be healthy and go to school.
Stuff like that.
Painting the playground at your local elementary school is super nice, and accomplishes not much.
The resentment, hostility, cynicism and willful ignorance reflected in so many of these posts cannot help those who give time or treasure want to give more.
This is one of the first times I can remember in which generosity-lots of it-is bemoaned. My God, such largesse is exactly what we need in a country where the blessings of free enterprise and creativity provide the most successful among us to exhibit a morally-uplifting (if not game-changing) "giving back." Would Mr. Callahan have those who've sworn to give away most of their wealth (including, so far as I know, Messrs. Gates, Buffet, and Zuckerberg) recant? Or just have them pay higher taxes? Contrary to the author's claims that large givers have little interest in hospitals, we can all point to innumerable examples of such giving, such as the just-announced $100 million Duchossois Family gift at the University of Chicago. While it is undoubtedly true that such private initiatives do not answer to the public at large, it is also true that the research funding resulting from these gifts would never find the light of day in a bureaucratized Federal government that, due to its unwillingness to reform entitlements, has to direct most of its attention to much writing checks to pay the interest on America's debts and dealing with "pork barrel" spending. I say "Hooray" to the givers! Without them we'd not have many of our greatest (privately-endowed) universities, all of the Carnegie libraries that helped countless Americans improve their lives, and yes, many charter schools that offer a path out of despair for many of our least-served youth.
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
Although this Op-Ed seems to be America-centric, it wouldn't be fair to A) lump all the wealthy into the same "evil, greedy" box (a bit like saying all poor people are lazy or stupid which, of course, isn't true) and B) ignore the truly good work philanthropists do around the world.
Building schools. Sourcing underground water reserves in desert lands. Immunizing against diseases. Planting crops and developing seeds that can withstand harsh conditions. Bringing healthcare to people who've never seen a doctor. These are all things that governments should do but refuse to. And, because of that, their communities suffer.
A better, more useful, way of approaching this subject might be asking why the wealthy need to step up and how can we force governments - foreign as well as our own here in the States - to actually do the job they're supposed to do.
If government actually worked for the people, perhaps the Gates and Buffets of the world wouldn't have to.
Building schools. Sourcing underground water reserves in desert lands. Immunizing against diseases. Planting crops and developing seeds that can withstand harsh conditions. Bringing healthcare to people who've never seen a doctor. These are all things that governments should do but refuse to. And, because of that, their communities suffer.
A better, more useful, way of approaching this subject might be asking why the wealthy need to step up and how can we force governments - foreign as well as our own here in the States - to actually do the job they're supposed to do.
If government actually worked for the people, perhaps the Gates and Buffets of the world wouldn't have to.
9
I don't think you understand.
When monarchies are the norm then the titled rake in the money via taxes and allowances. Because of the placement of their birth they are expected to make jobs for the locals in their entitled lands and to act as a government of ONE. One who decides what acts of philanthropy are needed and to what extend. They answer to no one.
When democratic governments are working properly they also rake in the money through taxes but the officials are voted in by the people on a scheduled basis. These official make jobs by maintenance and building the infrastructure, determining how many educators are needed by class size, keeping the peace using diplomacy as vital key, and the list goes on. The officals, each one, answer to the people who voted them into office.
You're absolutely right that not all wealthy people are evil. But you're wrong about them being greedy. If they were not greedy they would not have all of that money until they decide to give some away in the form of philanthropy.
The problem is the Republican party has been preaching a merit based system for decades. I believe it began a few years before the financial collapse that led to the Great Depression. People still drink that Koolaid. Heaven is merit based, the world is not. And the last time I read the Bible, Jesus Christ was pretty clear that it is much more difficult for a rich person to enter into heaven. I suppose that is why philanthropists wait until it is nearly time.
When monarchies are the norm then the titled rake in the money via taxes and allowances. Because of the placement of their birth they are expected to make jobs for the locals in their entitled lands and to act as a government of ONE. One who decides what acts of philanthropy are needed and to what extend. They answer to no one.
When democratic governments are working properly they also rake in the money through taxes but the officials are voted in by the people on a scheduled basis. These official make jobs by maintenance and building the infrastructure, determining how many educators are needed by class size, keeping the peace using diplomacy as vital key, and the list goes on. The officals, each one, answer to the people who voted them into office.
You're absolutely right that not all wealthy people are evil. But you're wrong about them being greedy. If they were not greedy they would not have all of that money until they decide to give some away in the form of philanthropy.
The problem is the Republican party has been preaching a merit based system for decades. I believe it began a few years before the financial collapse that led to the Great Depression. People still drink that Koolaid. Heaven is merit based, the world is not. And the last time I read the Bible, Jesus Christ was pretty clear that it is much more difficult for a rich person to enter into heaven. I suppose that is why philanthropists wait until it is nearly time.
2
A traditional notion of philanthropy makes it morally suspect because it’s connected to givers who feel guilty about hording their wealth. With so many hands out these days, I doubt those on the receiving end feel qualms about any conflicted feelings the giver may have. Moreover, today it’s the people who can’t afford to give who feel guilty. Seems there’s no end to new ways to feel like a loser.
Americans are the ultimate amateurs, with an ingrained suspicion of experts, expertise, and one sometimes suspects thought itself. The idea that someone with no knowledge of a complex problem can solve it is totally American. I don't question the good intentions of most oligarchs, I do question their arrogance and fear their ignorance. Even more I fear their belief that they know what they are doing outside their area of proven competence.
6
The fact that many of these gifts are anonymous suggests that the megadonors are well aware that their aspirations would often be unwelcome to many of the public whose lives are affected.
Transparency can accomplish much of what regulation can do, without the complications involved in attempts at official oversight. If these moguls are promoting the common good, then they should be happy for people to know what they are doing.
Some of the same considerations apply to the burgeoning "think tank" sector. We frequently encounter advice in the media from organizations with inspirational but entirely uninformative names. (Interestingly, I tried to invent some fictional examples and discovered that in every case there was an actual organization with that title.) I generally check the "Mission statement" and the leadership of the organization on the website and often find that they have highly sectarian aims. Journalists should do that too as a matter of course, before publishing those views without any cautionary guidance.
Transparency can accomplish much of what regulation can do, without the complications involved in attempts at official oversight. If these moguls are promoting the common good, then they should be happy for people to know what they are doing.
Some of the same considerations apply to the burgeoning "think tank" sector. We frequently encounter advice in the media from organizations with inspirational but entirely uninformative names. (Interestingly, I tried to invent some fictional examples and discovered that in every case there was an actual organization with that title.) I generally check the "Mission statement" and the leadership of the organization on the website and often find that they have highly sectarian aims. Journalists should do that too as a matter of course, before publishing those views without any cautionary guidance.
6
How come these rich people have so much money to just give it away for whatever purpose they deem proper?
It is time the people took back this wealth that the wealthy have stolen from us. It is our wealth and the Government should take this money back for the people. That is what justice in the tax system is all about.
However I do have a caveat. There should be a law that prohibits then spending of this wealth when the people controlling the government are not the people with which I agree because they will not distribute it properly.
It is time the people took back this wealth that the wealthy have stolen from us. It is our wealth and the Government should take this money back for the people. That is what justice in the tax system is all about.
However I do have a caveat. There should be a law that prohibits then spending of this wealth when the people controlling the government are not the people with which I agree because they will not distribute it properly.
1
Back to the future.
The peasants live on the generosity of the liege.
Ordinary workers labor 6 days a week and use their one day of rest to undertake improving activities at one of Andrew Carnegie's libraries.
I value the contributions made by philanthropists, but they in no way substitute for a strong middle class, a more egalitarian society and robust governmental entities.
The peasants live on the generosity of the liege.
Ordinary workers labor 6 days a week and use their one day of rest to undertake improving activities at one of Andrew Carnegie's libraries.
I value the contributions made by philanthropists, but they in no way substitute for a strong middle class, a more egalitarian society and robust governmental entities.
12
Look at what happened when Bill Gates got interested in K-12 school reform. He accepted the idea that the solution was in data about student achievement and making schools and teachers accountable. He invested in research and in books, articles and TV spots that disseminated information about his idea. He brought together like-minded people to advocate for the concept. Eventually, he helped assemble politicians who drafted a plan.
The problem always was that measuring student achievement is complicated. Who would have guessed?
Holding teachers accountable for what students learned was almost as complicated. The testing was expensive in terms of the cost of the instruments and the time it took. Teachers' unions get blamed for their opposition, but parents also objected to what the constant testing was doing to the lives of their children.
We don't hear so much about it these days but a lot of places, New York State for one, have gone back to the drawing board. We've realized that, sometimes, collecting data becomes an end in itself.
What we can learn from this is that the very wealthy can have enormous impact on our lives. Even if they mean well, the "reforms" they support may not have enough public support to be effective. If they don't mean well, the results will be catastrophic.
The problem always was that measuring student achievement is complicated. Who would have guessed?
Holding teachers accountable for what students learned was almost as complicated. The testing was expensive in terms of the cost of the instruments and the time it took. Teachers' unions get blamed for their opposition, but parents also objected to what the constant testing was doing to the lives of their children.
We don't hear so much about it these days but a lot of places, New York State for one, have gone back to the drawing board. We've realized that, sometimes, collecting data becomes an end in itself.
What we can learn from this is that the very wealthy can have enormous impact on our lives. Even if they mean well, the "reforms" they support may not have enough public support to be effective. If they don't mean well, the results will be catastrophic.
9
so you'd prefer that they spend their money on more mansions or something?
if people are spending their own money on something they want, or giving it to someone who wants it, who has a right to tell them otherwise? where does that right come from?
if people are spending their own money on something they want, or giving it to someone who wants it, who has a right to tell them otherwise? where does that right come from?
3
Here's a philanthropy idea for Jeff Bezos - shut down Amazon and go away. Amazon is strangling the retail market and has caused thousands of retail jobs to evaporate. Not to mention the negative impact to main streets who can't keep retail stores open because everyone is buying online. How is this monopoly allowed to continue?
7
Here's an idea: capitalism. The market supports online shopping/shipping. Why blame Amazon? Instead we should be looking at what drives customers to distance themselves from retail locations. Lack of availability? Poor customer service? Cost/Benefit analysis of ordering something online vs having to spend the time driving to a location to buy a product? Don't fault innovation, fault the retail stores who drove away their customers.
I would suggest another rule. Voters decide what needs to be done and philanthropists fund it. Part of that wealth is due to tax breaks to the rich and lopsided tax codes that we the people have voted for. We can still have a say how and on what that money is spent.
10
"This is hopeful in many ways, and most of these donors have the best of intentions. But make no mistake: Their influence is growing in tandem with their largess, shifting power away from democratic institutions."
This is an understatement. I believe this trend is also one of the most dangerous in America. The wealthy give because they increasingly have all the money, thanks to Citizens United and other financially charged rulings and laws that continue to transfer tax dollars from the middle and lower classes up to the superwealthy.
About 400 American families possess collectively more money than the bottom 99% of the US public. When I make my annual donations to causes I believe in, I'm one of many speaking their voice. But when say, the Mercers and their outsized fortune can have such tremendous influence that a Betsy deVos is now leading the charge for charter schools, then you develop a sort of "collusion" between wealth and public policy.
This cannot be good for America. Having an outsized say in public works just because you grew rich on largely GOP policies of wealth transfer and small-government philosophies, is just so tempting if it enables rich donors to push their own political agendas. One only has to look at the Kochs to see how they have an outsized say through the power of the purse to push libertarian policy.
Many say we are already in an oligarchy, and I agree. This nobles oblige giving reminds me of societies teetering on the brink of collapse.
This is an understatement. I believe this trend is also one of the most dangerous in America. The wealthy give because they increasingly have all the money, thanks to Citizens United and other financially charged rulings and laws that continue to transfer tax dollars from the middle and lower classes up to the superwealthy.
About 400 American families possess collectively more money than the bottom 99% of the US public. When I make my annual donations to causes I believe in, I'm one of many speaking their voice. But when say, the Mercers and their outsized fortune can have such tremendous influence that a Betsy deVos is now leading the charge for charter schools, then you develop a sort of "collusion" between wealth and public policy.
This cannot be good for America. Having an outsized say in public works just because you grew rich on largely GOP policies of wealth transfer and small-government philosophies, is just so tempting if it enables rich donors to push their own political agendas. One only has to look at the Kochs to see how they have an outsized say through the power of the purse to push libertarian policy.
Many say we are already in an oligarchy, and I agree. This nobles oblige giving reminds me of societies teetering on the brink of collapse.
47
For universal health care the super rich should support:
1) Direct Primary Care networked across the country that is capable of organizing Comparative Effectiveness studies that can be financed by PHARMA for meds and by a Mutual Health Fitness Insurance Company with the overall goal of health fitness and outpatient outcome improvement with a continuous quality improvement objective for 24 x 7 outpatient care for all. This MHFIC supports the national purchase of health care delivery services that have Comparative Effectiveness evidence for being purchased. There are also capabilities of doing Comparative Effectivness studies of individual state Comparative Effectivenss in the delivery of universal outpatient care.
2) A Mutual Health Insurance Company organized and HSA supported fitness and catastrophic health insurance for all that starts at birth and that has a national Health Information Exchange for continuous quality assurance of emergency, hospital, home and palliative care with the goal of continuous quality improvement.
3) A national system of adjudication of health care inadequacy claims that independently (and outside the tort system) monitors the cost-effectiveness aspects and assists in the adjudication of those claims using an initial "no fault" national approach similar to what is done in New Zealand with national rollup of all such claims for the purpose of continuous quality improvement.
1) Direct Primary Care networked across the country that is capable of organizing Comparative Effectiveness studies that can be financed by PHARMA for meds and by a Mutual Health Fitness Insurance Company with the overall goal of health fitness and outpatient outcome improvement with a continuous quality improvement objective for 24 x 7 outpatient care for all. This MHFIC supports the national purchase of health care delivery services that have Comparative Effectiveness evidence for being purchased. There are also capabilities of doing Comparative Effectivness studies of individual state Comparative Effectivenss in the delivery of universal outpatient care.
2) A Mutual Health Insurance Company organized and HSA supported fitness and catastrophic health insurance for all that starts at birth and that has a national Health Information Exchange for continuous quality assurance of emergency, hospital, home and palliative care with the goal of continuous quality improvement.
3) A national system of adjudication of health care inadequacy claims that independently (and outside the tort system) monitors the cost-effectiveness aspects and assists in the adjudication of those claims using an initial "no fault" national approach similar to what is done in New Zealand with national rollup of all such claims for the purpose of continuous quality improvement.
1
How is this really different than the Rockefeller family who starting in the 1800s funded science, healthcare, higher education and the arts for generations and with that giving shaped our society then and now?
3
At that time, the 1% were not running the Government!
10
It isn't, and that's the problem.
7
Let us not be to cynical. There are people and institutions, companies and organizations that need this funding and upon securing such funding provide a benefit for all of society - even the cynics.
1
Philanthropy usually has strings attached, taxes are insurance for Equality.
1
Wealth is a good thing. Given that the donors are (were) part of society, and their resources were built within, it's use ought to be regulated, somehow, so no political advantage nor distortion of communal life becomes predominant. We live in a capitalistic society, and it's tendency to favor capital over labor is 'well established', hence, the rising inequality, and it's inequities. Thus, the need for an active citizenry telling the administration (so called 'our' government) what needs to be done for the well-being of all and everyone, not just to enhance the image of the few fortunate enough to have gained in prominence (money and the power behind it). Don't get me wrong; I think that Bill Gates' work is tremendous, and currently it alleviates the suffering of a lot of folks that otherwise would perish. But iff not regulated, it may give rise to abuse and undeserved influence in decisions that ought to emanate from the people themselves. Besides, it may mask incompetence and corruption of the officials we elected to do a specific job on our behalf, even allow us to become lazy and stop contributing to our communities. You realize that, putting aside the stupidity of republicans wanting to cut taxes we depend on to get things done, the tax deductions claimed by the 'rich and powerful' could (should?) be put to good use...if in responsible hands. This philanthropy issue is complicated, and deserves our full attention, after proper introspection.
5
I don't mean to be cynical but relief from all this charity may be at hand. If the Republicans are successful in repealing the estate (I mean death) tax, perhaps the incentive toward philanthropy will be the collateral damage.
1
I agree with this opinion piece. We are still the Puritan ethic country that lives and propagates the belief of material riches signifying as (spurious) evidence of superior intellect, as if some evidence of divine favor; but if you're poor, it's that God doesn't favor you, or the nonsectarian equivalent, "it's your own fault." I'm sick and tired of rich people thinking they ALWAYS know better than the rest of us. And most of these rich people didn't grow up in some shanty town; most were middle class or upper middle class (e.g. Gates, Zuckerberg, etc.) We ate up that Horatio Alger mythos real good and project that on these billionaires, rarely thinking of the harm they created on their way to super-rich-hood: Microsoft routinely bought competitors to squash competition; Amazon has decimated local businesses in many communities; Facebook is just a giant marketing tool that is used to disseminate fake news. Human existence is about the duality of good/beneficial and the evil/harm in extermalities. Rarely do I see these rich people admit to the harms they've done to society; but they're the first to prescribe "solutions" that, many times, solidify their fortunes and their legacies, a way of sublimating their constant need for honor amd validation. They seem like the ancient king-priests of our ancient past, dictating to us, the populace, what to do, think, act.
17
Philanthropy is the undemocratic and inhumane method to redistribute wealth to the most needy. It should be heavily regulated.
10
The author seems to think that democratic institutions need to be involved in everything. Not really! Why not let these philanthropists solve the problems?
5
There are all these touching announcements of massive giveaways yet the net worth of these individuals an families never seems to go down. The bathtub that never empties - a wonder of this forlorn age.
2
If capitalism would serve all citizens,not just the very rich,there would be no need for philanthropy.
26
I admire the wealthy who are willing to share to make the world a better place. Patrons of the arts, those who support research,
Then I think, for every Bloomberg or Turner there is a Koch or a Murdoch ....
Then I think, for every Bloomberg or Turner there is a Koch or a Murdoch ....
15
Our economic system is called FEUDALISM. It is based on a medieval European system where aristocrats, church and the military ruled, and the serfs paid heavy taxes to live on and farm land that was never theirs. People relied on "charity" which was actually the money stolen from them. This is the situation in the US. The very rich, military and church hoard all the money, and the rest of us are the taxpaying serfs. We don't even own our own homes, but pay heavy property taxes. If we even miss a sewer tax, the government steals a home that was really never ours to begin with.
Money & wealth create their own interests, which are often at odds with the public interest. This doesn't mean Mr. Gates or Mr. Bezos are wicked or dishonest people; they are simply biased toward framing & addressing problems in ways that serve their own interests, as we all are. Why is it so hard for Americans to understand this????
10
I'm perfectly willing to accept the largess of the wealthy so long as it's with no strings attached, and anonymous.
But of course, it so rarely is. The typical formula is too often a glamorized form of privatization. Slapping one’s name on hospital wings, concert halls and university buildings is an ancient tradition, but there's too often a quid pro quo. How else could George W. Bush get into Yale? There's also a subliminal tincture of patronization when ordinary folks have to (metaphorically) duck under those plaques to get into those buildings. Democracy implies something more pure, more egalitarian, which is why our Presidents live in a “House”, and not a “Palace”. So far, anyway.
So, how do you get the money, but take the ego and potential for corruption out of the formula? Well, it's called taxes.
But of course, it so rarely is. The typical formula is too often a glamorized form of privatization. Slapping one’s name on hospital wings, concert halls and university buildings is an ancient tradition, but there's too often a quid pro quo. How else could George W. Bush get into Yale? There's also a subliminal tincture of patronization when ordinary folks have to (metaphorically) duck under those plaques to get into those buildings. Democracy implies something more pure, more egalitarian, which is why our Presidents live in a “House”, and not a “Palace”. So far, anyway.
So, how do you get the money, but take the ego and potential for corruption out of the formula? Well, it's called taxes.
12
This article is combining two types of philanthropy and then taints the good. We need cast stones at those contributions that serve us well in improving the health, safety and welfare of the general population.
1
We need to invest in our country. It's nice to know that there are people like Gates who want to help those less fortunate. Right now we're in a fight for our lives with those like the Kochs and the Mercers, who are looking to steal everything they can and destroy our country for their own benefit. It's nice to know there are those with more honor.
But there's still only so much one well meaning person can do. We need ALL of us. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So we need to reinforce our supports during rough times. And we need to invest in our infrastructure, education, and people. WE need a balance.
Constant tax cuts and benefits for the rich drain the country and will ultimately kill it, just as it's killing Russia. The Oligarchs drain Russia, but largely don't live there anymore. That's what happens. They don't realize that they're the human version of the polar bear on that disappearing ice flow. At some point, there will be no where else for them to go.
We need progressive taxation, where EVERYONE pays their fair share. Including the rich and the corporations. We need equality for ALL and we need to join the rest of the world again. Building walls will only get us left far behind. As China will tell you.
We need to protect our voting and dump the Electoral College. We need healthcare for ALL. And workers rights, Net Neutrality, High speed Internet everywhere, and free college so we can catch up to the rest of the world.
We need to pull together!
But there's still only so much one well meaning person can do. We need ALL of us. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So we need to reinforce our supports during rough times. And we need to invest in our infrastructure, education, and people. WE need a balance.
Constant tax cuts and benefits for the rich drain the country and will ultimately kill it, just as it's killing Russia. The Oligarchs drain Russia, but largely don't live there anymore. That's what happens. They don't realize that they're the human version of the polar bear on that disappearing ice flow. At some point, there will be no where else for them to go.
We need progressive taxation, where EVERYONE pays their fair share. Including the rich and the corporations. We need equality for ALL and we need to join the rest of the world again. Building walls will only get us left far behind. As China will tell you.
We need to protect our voting and dump the Electoral College. We need healthcare for ALL. And workers rights, Net Neutrality, High speed Internet everywhere, and free college so we can catch up to the rest of the world.
We need to pull together!
6
An ingenious strategy. Buy the government, hoard all the wealth and then make these touching declarations about giving it all back (however, does the net worth of any of these big 'donors' ever go down at all?)
Your plutocracy in action.
Your plutocracy in action.
"Philanthropy" can be as much about accumulation of power in the hands of the very few as about a desire for human advancement. In the hands of the likes of Bill Gates, that power has translated into someone with no particular professional knowledge of education who fancies himself the designer and principal of our entire national educational system, and someone with no government credentials becoming the de-facto leader of any impoverished nation needing the funds, (let Donald Trump be our lesson).
The very notion that charity is the entitlement of the wealthy to determine and manage the destinies of humanity is an abominable obscenity.
The very notion that charity is the entitlement of the wealthy to determine and manage the destinies of humanity is an abominable obscenity.
14
@Me Wait a second. Since our government has failed and is now threatening us with worse failures (for example, the disgusting lie of the Republican "health plan")Bill Gates gets it that someone has to do something and steps in to help. He's trying to pull people out of a fiery car weck. True, he's neither a doctor nor a firefighter but someone has to help.
1
Brovo!
1
envy is a strange animal, and I for one am grateful that these people, even the Walton's are giving some of their wealth back even if it is in ways that I may not 100% agree with. What's the alternative? Have them sit on it? Tax it so that more bureaucracy can make the same poor decisions that got us into this mess, as one of the other posters says? If the ignorant in Washington are cutting back on important spending on medical research and even birth control in third world countries which desperately need it, I am not going to be the one looking the gift horse in the mouth at this point
1
If you're so keen to look for a dark side to private giving and threats to our democratic institutions, look no further than the terrible Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court.
6
Mega Philanthropy is a loss of control by the society. There is an answer. Tax that wealth at 70 %, cut back the military by a couple hundred billion and a change of attitude. The US has a bad attitude to the rest the world.
Revival will come after you tax these people and keep them away from my my children!
Revival will come after you tax these people and keep them away from my my children!
7
Jane Mayer in Dark Money showed how the wealthy use philanthropy to pursue policies & projects which financially benefit them with no oversight or input from the public. The wealthy have been accumulating vast sums due to tax cuts starting in the 1980's. This group of citizens need to pay vastly more taxes than they currently do. And, these charitable deduction tax loopholes must be closed for all.
12
Our tax code has allowed this situation to get out of control. If those at the top had been taxes appropriately these monies would have flowed into the public domain--where public deliberation would have replaced the theories of rich hobbyists.
11
The idea that any ONE of us in this country has $80 billion dollars is as obscene as it is absurd. That is $800 million, ONE HUNDRED times over. For someone making $1 million a year, it would take 80,000 years to accumulate $80 billion -- if you could somehow save every penny earned.
We used to have sensible tax laws. We need to restore a truly progressive tax code.
Nobody among us should have $80 billion, or $8 billion, or $800 million. The immense inequity of this situation -- when millions of Americans go without healthcare and cannot afford higher education; when millions are crushed by debt that they will never get out from under; when millions have inadequate daycare assistance and millions work two or more jobs to barely eke out a living -- is simply grotesque.
We used to have sensible tax laws. We need to restore a truly progressive tax code.
Nobody among us should have $80 billion, or $8 billion, or $800 million. The immense inequity of this situation -- when millions of Americans go without healthcare and cannot afford higher education; when millions are crushed by debt that they will never get out from under; when millions have inadequate daycare assistance and millions work two or more jobs to barely eke out a living -- is simply grotesque.
16
As a guy that works on large construction projects I know first hand that you don't get what you used to get for a billion dollars. You don't get anything for a million. All this good intentions money is quickly flushed. What did we get with the mosquito nets? More poverty and an unsupportable population increase.
Go ahead and donate. But give the money to put very bright and talented people on the cutting edge. And something back! Spending money to increase the number of dolts in the world is a fool's mission.
Go ahead and donate. But give the money to put very bright and talented people on the cutting edge. And something back! Spending money to increase the number of dolts in the world is a fool's mission.
1
If governments ( around the world ) truly worked for all of its people n equitable fashion, then there would be no need for charity ( billionaire philanthropist, religious or otherwise )
Think about that for a moment.
We can put aside that having more than even 10 million dollars is obscene on so many levels, having 1000's of times that is even more so.
Aye, they made their money and there is freedom and all that, but along the way, there has been law suits, indentured servitude and monopolies. ( some sanctioned even by government )
Give away your money, with absolutely no preconditions, tax breaks or just plain stroking of your ego, and I would vote for you no matter what office you may run for.
That is the true test of a human being ( and a Christian or other denomination for that matter)
Time for a rethink.
Think about that for a moment.
We can put aside that having more than even 10 million dollars is obscene on so many levels, having 1000's of times that is even more so.
Aye, they made their money and there is freedom and all that, but along the way, there has been law suits, indentured servitude and monopolies. ( some sanctioned even by government )
Give away your money, with absolutely no preconditions, tax breaks or just plain stroking of your ego, and I would vote for you no matter what office you may run for.
That is the true test of a human being ( and a Christian or other denomination for that matter)
Time for a rethink.
5
"More big league givers keep emerging as the vast fortunes of a second Gilded Age are harnessed to philanthropy."
Finally, finally the media is beginning to recognize we are in a "second Gilded Age." U.S. history runs in cycles, with one 3 cycle group standing out: Gilded Age to contraction to Progressive Age. We experienced this in the 1880s, 1890s and at the turn of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt not only broke up the trusts -- the monopolies of that era -- but also pushed policies to further rebalance to "shared democratic values," such as food and drug laws, a central bank, income tax.....
So now we have Second GIlded Age robber barons, who again are mostly monopolists. Bill Gates is just as great an economic criminal as John D. Rockefeller. We all pay for Windows, whether we use it or not. Thereby, it's a tax, and we certainly shouldn't let criminals like him determine where our tax dollars should go.
Folks like to say, however, that Gates, and his ilk are great folks because of their philanthropy. Well, if the mafia gives to charity, that money is dirty, just as Gates is, and no amount of giving can undue the economic crime.
Think about it.
Finally, finally the media is beginning to recognize we are in a "second Gilded Age." U.S. history runs in cycles, with one 3 cycle group standing out: Gilded Age to contraction to Progressive Age. We experienced this in the 1880s, 1890s and at the turn of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt not only broke up the trusts -- the monopolies of that era -- but also pushed policies to further rebalance to "shared democratic values," such as food and drug laws, a central bank, income tax.....
So now we have Second GIlded Age robber barons, who again are mostly monopolists. Bill Gates is just as great an economic criminal as John D. Rockefeller. We all pay for Windows, whether we use it or not. Thereby, it's a tax, and we certainly shouldn't let criminals like him determine where our tax dollars should go.
Folks like to say, however, that Gates, and his ilk are great folks because of their philanthropy. Well, if the mafia gives to charity, that money is dirty, just as Gates is, and no amount of giving can undue the economic crime.
Think about it.
4
Dale Carnegie, having leveraged America to build his fortune, then went on to build "Carnegie libraries" all over the USA, including one in the County seat of the rural county I lived in growing up in rural East Texas.
That library, with thousands of books, put in place by Carnegie and continued by county funding even today......changed my life. I could find many, many books that took me on trips away from East Texas. I could read the entire Warren Report for a high school senior project.
Carnegie gave to me the world, through books.
Carnegie gave back to the country that he took from.
And he did so without the visibility accorded today's philanthropists.
The Dale Carnegie libraries, even today, stand as monuments to what government cannot do. Establish entities that everyone benefits from without Republicans blocking the work because of dumb labels like "socialism".
Dale Carnegie libraries, and, the "public" library that they presaged, are neither "republican" concepts nor "democrat" concepts.
They are the legacy of a brilliant mind and man, giving back to the land that gave to him.
That library, with thousands of books, put in place by Carnegie and continued by county funding even today......changed my life. I could find many, many books that took me on trips away from East Texas. I could read the entire Warren Report for a high school senior project.
Carnegie gave to me the world, through books.
Carnegie gave back to the country that he took from.
And he did so without the visibility accorded today's philanthropists.
The Dale Carnegie libraries, even today, stand as monuments to what government cannot do. Establish entities that everyone benefits from without Republicans blocking the work because of dumb labels like "socialism".
Dale Carnegie libraries, and, the "public" library that they presaged, are neither "republican" concepts nor "democrat" concepts.
They are the legacy of a brilliant mind and man, giving back to the land that gave to him.
That was Andrew Carnegie - no relation to Dale Carnegie. Dale changed his name from Carnegy to Carnegie. Look it up!
1
Nice to see some scrutiny in this area. The tax exempt status of eponymous foundations, like the Gates Foundation, needs to be questioned. It operates at the sole direction of Gates. It is a second form of consumerism: buying what you want the world to be. I addressed this issue in 2011 piece. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/a-forced-marriage-1464/
1
The American super rich have decided to neglect our public transit systems and put everybody in self-driving cars, so that we peons are forced to live in atomized politically inert Jeffersonian squalor out in the boonies. Appalachia is their model.
3
however true this is, it's disgusting that in a democracy our priorities are set by the richest of the rich.
3
Curtail the spending and influence of the wealthy in America - Keep Dreaming. Show me a road map and I'll fire up the veg oil powered micro bus. Two words: citizens united (ironic)
Most Americans are unaware of the cancer which has been allowed to grow in America with the Koch, Waltons and many other billionaires who have corrupted the democratic process to push their vision of government, education or what ever they deem worthy of their money without any discussion or input by the American public,
They have bought off whole political parties ( GOP ) and fund think tanks and non profits to literally write bills for congress which are designed to further enrich and en-power the already rich and powerful and to diminish the power of the many to the power of the few.
The rich figured out how to subvert our own government with their money and if Americans do not wake up we may just loose it...
They have bought off whole political parties ( GOP ) and fund think tanks and non profits to literally write bills for congress which are designed to further enrich and en-power the already rich and powerful and to diminish the power of the many to the power of the few.
The rich figured out how to subvert our own government with their money and if Americans do not wake up we may just loose it...
4
Every time I see Bill Gates I want to scream, like I do at the junk OSes he's stuffed via monopoly practices onto everybody's desktops. If he had to pay $1 per hour of pure aggravation caused by his ugly engineering mess, he'd have less money than I do to give to charity. If he had to pay companies he's buried through unfair competition he'd be looking for a meal at a shelter.
4
Where is the money and where does it get used? Money in the hands of government gets used according to the motives of those in the government, and their motives are not discernibly other than their own benefit and re-election. So, where are the best and the brightest whose ideals we'd have the most confidence in? I do not see them in government, but I do see many (no, not all) in philanthropy.
If income distribution were more equitable we wouldn't be living in the land of the billionaire oligarchs. Take Uber (please). It is unconscionable that Uber is run by a slew of billionaires while many of their drivers are working for $8-$10 an hour.
5
Amazing that this article has generated a negative comment on Uber - a company that has nothing to do with the topic. Seems like the author of this comment is pretty bored and might need something productive to do with his time, and Uber could be a great option. Though driving a taxi has never resulted in folks achieving the highest economic rung on the ladder (and no one really seems to worry about these drivers when they were serfs to medallion owners), Uber has created an opportunity for countless people to monetize their time in a way they could never do before. And to make a reasonable income (based on the skill required) from a source that didn't exist before - their idle vehicle - when and where they please, with no time clock, and no boss. And they can do this without having to pay rent to a medallion owner through a corrupt, monopolistic licensing system or deal with dispatchers (in some cities) that require payoffs for the best rides. Take an Uber ride some time and ask the drivers how they like it - the drivers are happy and the stories in most cases are pretty remarkable (stay at home mom's and earn money while the kids are in school and can take time off as they please, retirees, students....). I someone doesn't want to drive for Uber, they can always do something else with their skill set.
"In Michigan and beyond, we’re already seeing an answer: Philanthropy will increasingly slide into the driver’s seat of public life, with private funders tackling problems that government can’t or won’t."
Governments tend to spend money on such projects as will get some crucial members of Congress reelected. The correlation between such expenditures and the public interest may only be coincidental.
There are other ways in which what public interest requires and what the government does can diverge.
Governments tend to spend money on such projects as will get some crucial members of Congress reelected. The correlation between such expenditures and the public interest may only be coincidental.
There are other ways in which what public interest requires and what the government does can diverge.
Americans objective is to preserve Democracy.
Democracy does not need "alms for the poor" from the richest. Democracy is based on equality, the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities given to us by our legally chosen leaders.
Why would the top 20% rather give to special interest than pay their taxes? Seems to pay taxes would be a lot simpler and cheaper !
Democracy does not need "alms for the poor" from the richest. Democracy is based on equality, the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities given to us by our legally chosen leaders.
Why would the top 20% rather give to special interest than pay their taxes? Seems to pay taxes would be a lot simpler and cheaper !
3
A maximum income or Eisenhower tax rate of 92% would place decisions of need back in the hands of the community, who actually generated the money for the few.
4
So we have governments that lower taxes to the point of default and defund education, the arts etc., and the super rich who derived the most benefit from these tax breaks swoop in and reinvest it back into the failing government which fueled their wealth. This sounds like some extra unnecessary steps, with the end result being a shift in power from government to individuals. Regulation on charitable giving is a band-aid - the problem needs to be addressed at its source.
1
The phenomenon described here did not happen by accident. If I remember correctly, this was an intended consequences of the "less government" thinking of the Republican party beginning with Reagan. They advocated that social needs be addressed by the private sector (remember Bush's "points of light"?).
Those of us who believe in government as a common, shared responsibility and resource opposed this trend, and we need to continue our work.
Those of us who believe in government as a common, shared responsibility and resource opposed this trend, and we need to continue our work.
4
Philanthropy may be the new playground where the upper crust of the superrich rushes to shell out a sliver of its wealth and still reap some benefits.
Indeed, what represents a 70 million donation for a multi-billionaire. Pocket change esp. when a $110 Million Basquiat sits a click away from a cool millennial with deep pockets. No big deal. Now, according to it's buyer, every so often the painting will be shown to the public, so the glaze of philanthropy comes over. (and yet at the end of the day....)
Some of the actions provided in the article seem paved with good intentions though one doubt whether any of these are fully disinterested.
Looking at the picture from a different angle:
These actions affect large segments of the population. Tinged with generosity towards others, they also and on the other end bring positive advertising to individuals today valued as brands. Ultimately & in the best of all worlds, it remains the government' core mission to provide for its citizens, not the other way around.
Perhaps this also illustrates another fact, the wealth of a few amounts to so much it dwarfs the budget of entire countries can spend in particular areas.
Private philanthropy is somewhat reminiscent of 16th century's Indulgences where in exchange of a sizeable donation one was warrantied benefits in the afterlife.
isn't that what brand and donors fight for, being remembered as a good-willing long-lasting idea(s) to be passed down from one generation to the next.
Indeed, what represents a 70 million donation for a multi-billionaire. Pocket change esp. when a $110 Million Basquiat sits a click away from a cool millennial with deep pockets. No big deal. Now, according to it's buyer, every so often the painting will be shown to the public, so the glaze of philanthropy comes over. (and yet at the end of the day....)
Some of the actions provided in the article seem paved with good intentions though one doubt whether any of these are fully disinterested.
Looking at the picture from a different angle:
These actions affect large segments of the population. Tinged with generosity towards others, they also and on the other end bring positive advertising to individuals today valued as brands. Ultimately & in the best of all worlds, it remains the government' core mission to provide for its citizens, not the other way around.
Perhaps this also illustrates another fact, the wealth of a few amounts to so much it dwarfs the budget of entire countries can spend in particular areas.
Private philanthropy is somewhat reminiscent of 16th century's Indulgences where in exchange of a sizeable donation one was warrantied benefits in the afterlife.
isn't that what brand and donors fight for, being remembered as a good-willing long-lasting idea(s) to be passed down from one generation to the next.
6
As foundations are only required to contribute 5% of their capital in any fiscal year, I am not sure one can argue that the new philanthropists are giving all their money away. Additionally, the capital gains, inheritance tax consequences mitigated by contributions to foundations are obvious.
6
Tax benefits rarely recover more than about a third of charitable giving. Investing the corpus and spending only earnings after inflation keeps the corpus working for many lifetimes to come. These magnificent benefactors are indeed giving away huge portions of their wealth (not "slivers") and many have pledged to give virtually everything away. Earl's cynicism is wrong factually and unhelpful to those who depend on a strong safety net.
3
American oligarchs, tossing spare change to the lost, making sure the press is recording, so they can go to bed happy.
If a man is super rich, gives something, and still is the same degree of rich, isn't all he is doing just easing his need to manage his billions?
If we had a tax rate as high as in the 1950's, we would actually be able to pay down the debt, and the billionaires wouldn't be tossing dimes about.
I live in HUD low income senior housing, and if any oligarch wants to help the very poor, they could shovel a hundred million or so our way. In the part of Oregon where I live there is no waiting list, for apartments, not because there isn't a demand, but because the list grew over five years long.
The poor suffer, and the rich pledge. The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
If a man is super rich, gives something, and still is the same degree of rich, isn't all he is doing just easing his need to manage his billions?
If we had a tax rate as high as in the 1950's, we would actually be able to pay down the debt, and the billionaires wouldn't be tossing dimes about.
I live in HUD low income senior housing, and if any oligarch wants to help the very poor, they could shovel a hundred million or so our way. In the part of Oregon where I live there is no waiting list, for apartments, not because there isn't a demand, but because the list grew over five years long.
The poor suffer, and the rich pledge. The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
16
The problem here is that the wealth of these people is based on the stock market.
Should anything happen to the stock market--a dive or an all out collapse-- the source of their money disappears. And with the economies of so many countries near death, the future is doubtful when it comes to speculation. What is the stock market other than legalized gambling?
Whatever happens, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg will not revert to being ordinary citizens. They'll have plenty of money. For themselves.
This is not a solution to the world's problems.
Philanthropy is not justice.
Should anything happen to the stock market--a dive or an all out collapse-- the source of their money disappears. And with the economies of so many countries near death, the future is doubtful when it comes to speculation. What is the stock market other than legalized gambling?
Whatever happens, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg will not revert to being ordinary citizens. They'll have plenty of money. For themselves.
This is not a solution to the world's problems.
Philanthropy is not justice.
9
A signpost at the end of Democracy.
Noblesse oblige.
Noblesse oblige.
28
Mr. Callahan lays out the problem very well, but his suggestions for improving the situation are not persuasive. The essential problem, as many commentators point out, is that philanthropies are taking over areas formerly addressed by government programs. And that is because the rich have become much, much richer and their taxes have become much lighter. This did not happen by accident. It was propelled by legislation passed by politicians whose main contributions came from the same super-wealthy donors. These new philanthropies may be seen as generous, but in this realm, as Linsey McGoey puts it in her book of this title, there is "No Such Thing as a Free Gift." In effect the rich are buying the implementation of the policies and programs they prefer, with no public accountability. At least tax-based, government-run programs are accountable to the public. Public benefits should not be defined by the whims and preferences of wealthy individuals accountable to no one.
37
One of America's wealthiest men said it bluntly: "I don't mind being taxed; what I do mind is how the government spends the money"
Think long and hard about what that means, next time someone suggests "charity".
Think long and hard about what that means, next time someone suggests "charity".
You have got to ask about motivation. It seems highly unlikely that entrepreneurs start their ultimately-successful enterprises on the basis that they will cash out with "$5.3bn" (whatever) personally from their enterprise, but rather they start their activities because they are determined to succeed and hope that success will be rewarded, ironically by sufficient wealth to mean that they and their families can stop what they are doing!
Consequently it would make sense for "society" ("whatever that is" - M. Thatcher) to tax "super" gains at "super" rates and to recycle those tax receipts in to the common weal.
But what also needs re-direction is the sense of purpose of the governing institutions and those, principally politicians, who seek to direct or influence those institutions. There is now an upsetting lack of practical vision amongst these institutions and their leaders, not just in America but in the wider community of nations that run on broadly "Western" liberal democratic lines.
"Government" seems to have become universally about "command and control" rather than "liberty and freedom". Returning vision and practical purpose to politics and the means to effect those purposes to government is the prerequisite for those institutions being provided with more tax-based income to use. Sadly in both the USA and the UK (let alone the EU) the political compass does not seem to be set towards liberty and freedom, but is mired in "command and control."
Consequently it would make sense for "society" ("whatever that is" - M. Thatcher) to tax "super" gains at "super" rates and to recycle those tax receipts in to the common weal.
But what also needs re-direction is the sense of purpose of the governing institutions and those, principally politicians, who seek to direct or influence those institutions. There is now an upsetting lack of practical vision amongst these institutions and their leaders, not just in America but in the wider community of nations that run on broadly "Western" liberal democratic lines.
"Government" seems to have become universally about "command and control" rather than "liberty and freedom". Returning vision and practical purpose to politics and the means to effect those purposes to government is the prerequisite for those institutions being provided with more tax-based income to use. Sadly in both the USA and the UK (let alone the EU) the political compass does not seem to be set towards liberty and freedom, but is mired in "command and control."
2
It's pretty obvious what has happened. The rich (.01%) are richer and richer by far than anyone else..they have hoarded their wealth and are dispicable. They should've been taxed so we, the public has a say in what happens and how, to this money.
8
Here's an idea: Maybe these billionaires should pay their employees a living wage so philanthropy isn't as badly needed. Instead they want to concentrate massive wealth into their own hands. Bezos has so much money he doesn't know what to do and is asking for suggestions.
30
Jeff Bezos, Amazon's billionaire has asked for philanthropic ideas from his 220,000 Twitter followers. I am not on Twitter. but will offer this suggestion.
Seek out the millennial generation. Build a powerhouse special foundation composed of a hundred of. the most talented millennials you can find across this country.
Their attributes/qualities in your search should be the following:
Smart and talented
Humanitarian bent and experience
Willingness to use power for the poor and disadvantaged
Willingness to use wealth, especially extreme wealth, for the poor and disadvantaged
A determination to vote in the country's elections.
A capacity to listen to their parents, grandparents and old people to draw from their experiences.
They should form the basis of his special foundation.
Seek out the millennial generation. Build a powerhouse special foundation composed of a hundred of. the most talented millennials you can find across this country.
Their attributes/qualities in your search should be the following:
Smart and talented
Humanitarian bent and experience
Willingness to use power for the poor and disadvantaged
Willingness to use wealth, especially extreme wealth, for the poor and disadvantaged
A determination to vote in the country's elections.
A capacity to listen to their parents, grandparents and old people to draw from their experiences.
They should form the basis of his special foundation.
6
Millennials are great for forward thinking vision, but often too mercurial and unseasoned, even naïve, to plan long-term philanthropic initiatives. At least that has been my experience on several nonprofit boards. A mixture of all kinds of people usually works best. Millennials should, however, get more involved in nonprofit work. They are the future.
I admire Warren Buffet for his push to force billionaires to recognize their social responsibility. No one became rich just because they are that good. They had skill and drive, but also luck, timing and a set of rules that fostered them. Would Bill Gates be as rich if the Justice Department used the same rulings on Microsoft that they used to hobble IBM in the 70s? Would he have billions if he'd been born 10 years earlier or ten years later?
The difficulty is that Gates, as an example, may find many things he wants to invest in - and mostly I admire his choices - but we might need other things more. Flowing money into private hands, even generous private hands, instead of into the general community means that charter schools may be funded but bridges and dams are not.
The Carnegie model is admirable. But we need to investigate if another model. One which doesn't amass quite so much wealth in quite so few hands is more pragmatic. Aristocracy faded out because it did not produce good results for the nation - as in England - or because the people decided to try something different as they marched royalty to the guillotine, or because the peasants finally rebelled and they ended up with Lenin's worker paradise.
Let's think about skipping the Gilded Age philanthropy as our primary model and go back to figuring out how to have a robust middle class and strong political system.
The difficulty is that Gates, as an example, may find many things he wants to invest in - and mostly I admire his choices - but we might need other things more. Flowing money into private hands, even generous private hands, instead of into the general community means that charter schools may be funded but bridges and dams are not.
The Carnegie model is admirable. But we need to investigate if another model. One which doesn't amass quite so much wealth in quite so few hands is more pragmatic. Aristocracy faded out because it did not produce good results for the nation - as in England - or because the people decided to try something different as they marched royalty to the guillotine, or because the peasants finally rebelled and they ended up with Lenin's worker paradise.
Let's think about skipping the Gilded Age philanthropy as our primary model and go back to figuring out how to have a robust middle class and strong political system.
12
Meanwhile, thanks to Citizens United, the same philanthropists are also shaping the political landscape. Many of them spend their business careers hoarding (and sheltering) wealth at the expense of the same governments they sometimes bail out. And it's very hard for me to believe that most of them are simply acting out of goodness. Their careers suggest that they don't do anything for nothing. US government (all levels) is up for sale.
37
The influence of the wealthy on public education is and should be of serious concern. Funding charter schools enriches them while simultaneously taking money from public schools. It is undermining the public good and decimating the idea of equal opportunity. Gates funded research into what makes for an effective teacher. The results - who knows? and I was one of those teachers. At that time he also pushed for Common Core, which I support in theory, but many states have since disavowed. Did anyone hold Gates accountable? What were the repercussions for those states that took the money but then chose to back out of the plan?
In general, the monies this article discusses is the monies that are side stepping funding that involves the public good. It's no longer the public that is deciding what is good and just. Now if we had a functioning Congress then maybe we could get back to the focus of the public good and maintaining our infrastructure.
In general, the monies this article discusses is the monies that are side stepping funding that involves the public good. It's no longer the public that is deciding what is good and just. Now if we had a functioning Congress then maybe we could get back to the focus of the public good and maintaining our infrastructure.
24
Yes. It's an end-run around the Representative Democracy. Noah Webster would be horrified. But, people forget. Education becomes more of a jobs training facility and people are unaware of what is being lost. What does it mean to be human? Gates is a good example, was interested in tech and economics in school (which is failed to complete). These people are NOT qualified to govern - their interests are unique to their particular acumen. They don't know what they don't know. In the USA, money rules. Down the slippery slope.
The problem isn't philanthropy, but the fact that very few people control as much money as the U.S. government. In other words, tax cuts to the rich caused so much money to be concentrated in so few hands.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and others are trying to use their extreme wealth to good causes, sometimes with mixed results. The Koch brothers are more interested in getting even richer and are investing on the political game. We wouldn't have this problem if taxes hadn't been cut so deep.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and others are trying to use their extreme wealth to good causes, sometimes with mixed results. The Koch brothers are more interested in getting even richer and are investing on the political game. We wouldn't have this problem if taxes hadn't been cut so deep.
24
I have to question the altruism of these mega donors. Seems to me their agenda does not reflect public need. Putting public services and spaces into the hands of the wealthy seems like a return to serfdom.
10
Exactly. On the, er, MONEY!
Doesn't it make you wonder how these people become so rich in the first place? Perhaps if they shared their profits with their employees, real profit-sharing as in job pensions, I wonder if we'd have so many foundations? Yes, I am grateful that many share for needed causes, but it seems to be an abuse of power in some ways.
17
There once was a time when major foundations would decide on a funding priority, research the smartest and most effective groups out there doing that work and fund them. After that, the foundation stepped back and let their grantees do what they do best.
But today funders, especially from the really large foundations manage their grants as if they were the board of directors of the groups they fund. Some go as far as even creating groups to do their bidding if none already exist.
With charter schools we aren't seeing better schools, but a weaker, less viable public space. Schools used to be the measure of a viable democracy. Now they are little corporations, broken off from local politics and less accountable than the political processes that they replaced.
More importantly, at a time when our present capitalist model is struggling, they represent a new market and new source of capital. We are seeing a dramatic shift of public funds into a private enterprise.
This might be warranted if there was an equally dramatic upturn in educational quality. But after a dozen years of careful study the conclusion is that it simply hasn't happened.
But what has happened is that our idea of what public education is has changed as has the revenue stream that supports it. This is the tragedy of philanthropy's experiment.
But today funders, especially from the really large foundations manage their grants as if they were the board of directors of the groups they fund. Some go as far as even creating groups to do their bidding if none already exist.
With charter schools we aren't seeing better schools, but a weaker, less viable public space. Schools used to be the measure of a viable democracy. Now they are little corporations, broken off from local politics and less accountable than the political processes that they replaced.
More importantly, at a time when our present capitalist model is struggling, they represent a new market and new source of capital. We are seeing a dramatic shift of public funds into a private enterprise.
This might be warranted if there was an equally dramatic upturn in educational quality. But after a dozen years of careful study the conclusion is that it simply hasn't happened.
But what has happened is that our idea of what public education is has changed as has the revenue stream that supports it. This is the tragedy of philanthropy's experiment.
21
So voluntary giving bothers you. You'd rather use govt to force people to fork over their money.
Why is it that we rely on the super rich's philanthropy to help needy causes? Why aren't we taxing the rich so that programs other than what the rich think are important get funded? I'm not advocating that the tax structure be rolled back to the pre Reagan era, but maybe the Clinton era tax structure would be more appropriate. The wealthy were taxed under Bill Clinton and there was still tremendous job growth. It's been proven time and again that tax breaks to the wealthy does not guaranty job growth. Let's get all the the wealthy to pay their fair share and maybe we can lower the deficit and start lowering the national debt.
59
VMG: or why don't we tax the rich and, while we're at it, see to it that their corporations are forced to pay people salaries they can live on rather than allow them to profit from programs of public support and still claim to be selfless and brilliant Americans?
If we did that, the need for these programs would decrease markedly and almost overnight.
The very rich who get credit for 'addressing society's most formidable challenges' are quite often the cause of those problems in the first place.
Like Republicans generally, these guys tend to be people who would rather fund noble sounding Rube Goldberg enterprises for the benefit of mankind than to hand somebody a few thousand dollars a year and say "Here. Have good life. See ya." Because that would work. That would be nice, too. Too nice, by their lights.
They'd rather spend eighty thousand dollars a year punishing a person in a cruel and ineffective (private) prison system, expecting them to return soon after release, than to hand them thirty thousand a year to escape the rat-hole we have created and live a decent life.
If we did that, the need for these programs would decrease markedly and almost overnight.
The very rich who get credit for 'addressing society's most formidable challenges' are quite often the cause of those problems in the first place.
Like Republicans generally, these guys tend to be people who would rather fund noble sounding Rube Goldberg enterprises for the benefit of mankind than to hand somebody a few thousand dollars a year and say "Here. Have good life. See ya." Because that would work. That would be nice, too. Too nice, by their lights.
They'd rather spend eighty thousand dollars a year punishing a person in a cruel and ineffective (private) prison system, expecting them to return soon after release, than to hand them thirty thousand a year to escape the rat-hole we have created and live a decent life.
1
Clintons job growth was the result of technology.
1
Why not go back to the Tax (and regulatory) structure we had in 1970?
Because it might displease the Koch brothers and their fellow Malefactors of Great Wealth? That alone seems like a major point in favor of a "1969 reset".
We did not have a "homeless problem" in 1969. Or routine medical bankruptcy's or ...
Because it might displease the Koch brothers and their fellow Malefactors of Great Wealth? That alone seems like a major point in favor of a "1969 reset".
We did not have a "homeless problem" in 1969. Or routine medical bankruptcy's or ...
1
We, the former citizens of the US, are in the current age but the playthings of the rich. Having a true understanding of your actual position/function in a society/form of government is the first step in understanding the corrective that needs to be taken.
11
The donations of the wealthy to land-use related projects is especially concerning and too often actually benefits other wealthy people. The Diller park is one such example - Diller gets to determine public space usage, esthetics etc without any consideration of infrastructure impact or long-range upkeep.
And funny thing - the proposed project is situated right by lots of luxury apartments and will benefit the wealthy residents and real estate developers.
Similar examples on the corporate level. Goldman Sachs contributed to a new public library in Battery Park one of the wealthiest areas in NYC.
Google gave more than $10 million to build "hills" on Governors Island...A record number of homeless in NYC, a crumbling subway system etc - yet "hills" are necessary for an already lovely park? A park that is also situated (by ferry) right by the wealthy Battery Park area.
And funny thing - the proposed project is situated right by lots of luxury apartments and will benefit the wealthy residents and real estate developers.
Similar examples on the corporate level. Goldman Sachs contributed to a new public library in Battery Park one of the wealthiest areas in NYC.
Google gave more than $10 million to build "hills" on Governors Island...A record number of homeless in NYC, a crumbling subway system etc - yet "hills" are necessary for an already lovely park? A park that is also situated (by ferry) right by the wealthy Battery Park area.
26
The local schoolhouse has been victim to the outsized voice of a large pocket book for over a decade. Like the fiasco in New Jersey, large donors have been able to experiment with schooling models--and our children's lives--by side stepping school boards, unions, and sound research. It is dangerous to let a single voice hold sway over a community. The nimble nature of a large donation eviscerates the democratic process. Though taxing has been anathema to much of the electorate, it can level the playing field and create ownership of the process among the hoi polloi.
29
Let's not forget that a portion of philanthropy is tax deductible so it's indirectly government funding
9
It's indirectly government funding, yes, but in effect government is subsidizing the programs of super-wealthy individuals without any input from, or accountability to, the public this forgone tax revenue should serve. These same wealthy individuals secure these tax advantages through their political contributions. This is exactly what is happening in Albany today, for example, where hedge-fund managers (who enjoy extraordinary tax advantages) lobby successfully to cut funds for public education and to advance private charter schools ehy can invest in.
8
Privately directed government spending. Many "philanthropists" spend lots of money working at cross purposes - e.g. Family planning/ right to life, NRA / gun control, Palestinian liberation/ Zionist settlement expansion, etc. All on our tax deductible nickel.
The wealth of most very wealthy people is a function of the publicly funded systems and infrastructure within which they operate rather than their own genius, creativity and hard work. If the employees are healthy and well trained they can do the work that generates the wealth for the owners and the CEO. In the case of a company like Walmart if there were no interstate highway system no Walmart would be possible and without healthy and educated workers Walmart could not produce neither the value for its customers nor for its owners. Progressive taxation is attempt to fairly tax the rich whose wealth is a result of their position that enables them to exploit publicly funded resources like infrastructure and education and healthcare.
When wealthy people like the Mercers can exploit their wealth and the philanthropic laws of the land to support conservative political causes to exert disproportionate political influence the system is in urgent need of reform. When Citizens United ruling give corporate entities free speech rights comparable to real people then the idea of one man one vote no longer exists. The rich can by their databases of all voters and their preferences and install a Bannon in the White House to destroy the administrative state, rather than for the president to serve the American people to create greater opportunity for all Americans. Rules governing philanthropy need reform and taxes should be far more progressive.
When wealthy people like the Mercers can exploit their wealth and the philanthropic laws of the land to support conservative political causes to exert disproportionate political influence the system is in urgent need of reform. When Citizens United ruling give corporate entities free speech rights comparable to real people then the idea of one man one vote no longer exists. The rich can by their databases of all voters and their preferences and install a Bannon in the White House to destroy the administrative state, rather than for the president to serve the American people to create greater opportunity for all Americans. Rules governing philanthropy need reform and taxes should be far more progressive.
16
Exactly! One thing the Founding Fathers agreed on was the observation that democracy is incompatible with inherited wealth. Estate taxes are the fairest way to continuously redistribute wealth, which as you correctly point out, could not possibly have been amassed without the use of publicly-funded infrastructure.
As for publicly-funded education, it seems as though the Waltons of the world would prefer to keep people less well educated in order to be able to pay the lowest possible wages.
The rise of another Golden Age is dangerous – it's the reason the middle class, once the strong backbone of the US, continues to shrink.
Then comes the Revolution?
As for publicly-funded education, it seems as though the Waltons of the world would prefer to keep people less well educated in order to be able to pay the lowest possible wages.
The rise of another Golden Age is dangerous – it's the reason the middle class, once the strong backbone of the US, continues to shrink.
Then comes the Revolution?
1
With the knowledge and resources present in the world, there should be little reason for the life disruptions that occur here and abroad. What dwarfs the collective giving is the amount of our taxes that have been spent on unnecessary conflicts. This amounts to trillions without adding in the loss of life with its attendant resentfulness, lost of talent and energy, and demolished infrastructure.
For example it does little good to eliminate polio do if it rests on a poor medical system, not enough trained professionals, and no way to bring care to remote places. People in those countries still remain poor, uneducated, and without power to direct their lives.
Prosperity comes with a collective sense that decent government is a necessity to break down economic barriers, and improve the welfare of the people. Charitable giving, no matter how well intended, only helps a few while the greater number continues to suffer.
For example it does little good to eliminate polio do if it rests on a poor medical system, not enough trained professionals, and no way to bring care to remote places. People in those countries still remain poor, uneducated, and without power to direct their lives.
Prosperity comes with a collective sense that decent government is a necessity to break down economic barriers, and improve the welfare of the people. Charitable giving, no matter how well intended, only helps a few while the greater number continues to suffer.
7
These people aren't taxed enough. They are sitting on billions that should have been paid to their workers and to governments. They then had think they can gain glory or redemption by fixing problems that their greed created. When we had a graduated tax system and many well funded government programs aimed at reducing poverty, all boats were rising. There were yachts and row boats, but there weren't fleets of private cruise ships for some and a leaky raft for others.
119
Rarely do we read about a City, or State, let alone the Federal Government, where the budget is balanced. More likely we read about the pension fund shortfalls, the deficit, and even the bankruptcy. Yet here we have an advocate for "oversight" of the giving by the super wealthy. More regulations, more dysfunctional legislators getting in the way while trying to suggest they are represent the public's interests on what should be tax deductible, creating added "transparency" rules, and who knows what else. More big government that can hardly govern what it has on it's plate now. We should thank these donors and stay out of their way. They are doing enormous good.
15
Charlie, it depends on what's considered 'good.' Who decides?
The idea that a philanthropist may seek to corner the market on for-profit schools, e.g., doesn't sound like a good idea to many of us, who are strong advocates for public schools. That would mean they also get to dictate the curriculum, and the way things are looking at the moment, that curriculum is swinging far to the right, with a distinct evangelical bent. This strikes me as unAmerican.
(Though government isn't often shown to be very responsive to the will of the majority of its citizens either.)
The idea that a philanthropist may seek to corner the market on for-profit schools, e.g., doesn't sound like a good idea to many of us, who are strong advocates for public schools. That would mean they also get to dictate the curriculum, and the way things are looking at the moment, that curriculum is swinging far to the right, with a distinct evangelical bent. This strikes me as unAmerican.
(Though government isn't often shown to be very responsive to the will of the majority of its citizens either.)
4
Yeah, by paying AS FEW TAXES AS POSSIBLE. Think it will work out in the long run? Think again. Of course, under supply side and Reagan we discounted the long vision. Tough. Now we get the caprice of the top 1% to feed us. Will never work.
1
Stay out of their way?
This is America. We have a constitutional right to get into the face of the ruling class whenever the situation requires it.
This country was founded by overthrowing an aristocracy that refused to be held accountable. We can do it again.
This is America. We have a constitutional right to get into the face of the ruling class whenever the situation requires it.
This country was founded by overthrowing an aristocracy that refused to be held accountable. We can do it again.
1
Look at your own numbers: charitable giving almost equals the non-discretionary spending of the United States government. Anything will generate controversy but the overwhelming effect is positive. Nature abhors a vacuum, and I am grateful that these individuals/foundations are filling in the gaps of our government.
8
That "vacuum" is the sucking of money out of our economy by an economic system and tax code that allows for outsourcing jobs, offshoring money, and worker remuneration that does not support a living wage. We make up the difference in our taxes, social programs, food stamps, and underfunded schools. As a middle class taxpayer, I am as much a philanthropist as anyone. Where are my kudos?
1
We should have an economic foundation built on sound fundamental principles. We don't expect a building to withstand the test of time if we don't build on bedrock. And we should not expect anything more with our economy.
By having an economy that relies on a few principal benefactors is analogous to building on 2-3 pillars. By concentrating wealth we leave it vulnerable to the whims and emotions (remember every human is fallible, even the rich ones) of a few, and ultimately, we have not created a system by which the wealth is automatically distributed, so that we can have more 'pillars' for our economy to stand upon. By building such an economic foundation, we can expect better long term results, more stable systems with fewer recessions, and benefits shared by all.
The problem is that there is a very good reason why we have not yet created such a system in America. It is not in the interest of the American Oligarchy. Because, trust me, commenters in the NYT weren't the first people on Earth to understand these simple principles.
By having an economy that relies on a few principal benefactors is analogous to building on 2-3 pillars. By concentrating wealth we leave it vulnerable to the whims and emotions (remember every human is fallible, even the rich ones) of a few, and ultimately, we have not created a system by which the wealth is automatically distributed, so that we can have more 'pillars' for our economy to stand upon. By building such an economic foundation, we can expect better long term results, more stable systems with fewer recessions, and benefits shared by all.
The problem is that there is a very good reason why we have not yet created such a system in America. It is not in the interest of the American Oligarchy. Because, trust me, commenters in the NYT weren't the first people on Earth to understand these simple principles.
8
The elephant in the room (how appropriate) is the Republican obsession with tax cuts, which have NOTHING to do with fiscal responsibility or good governance.
They have no interest in Government, except to pump our money uphill into the pockets of their donor class.
And the backlog of undone things which will cost much more to solve, simply because they were never on the table with Republican governance.
They have no interest in Government, except to pump our money uphill into the pockets of their donor class.
And the backlog of undone things which will cost much more to solve, simply because they were never on the table with Republican governance.
55
Sadly, Democrats are good at getting rich and taxing the middle class, too.
1
I expect a long line of gripers to fill these pages over the coming hours with a lot of chest pounding about the nobility and necessity of government and recriminations about the accursed rich and the evil designs they impose on society by giving away their money. Before we get there, maybe a few of you can stop to consider who is likely to be a better custodian of the largesse at hand.
Is it a private foundation with a staff that are leaders in the relevant field and directly responsible to the person(s) holding the purse strings?
Or is it a room full of bureaucrats who are spending "other peoples' money", and whose priorities are first to ensure full employment and fully funded pension benefits for themselves, and second to address the ever-changing requirements of an ever-changing political class?
Self-interest is the fuel of private endeavor and the undoing of all the best intentions in government. I suspect a great deal of the appertaining rage to come on these pages will be penned by the bureaucrat class and fueled by indignation at the thought that they will not have a place at the trough.
Rage on.
Is it a private foundation with a staff that are leaders in the relevant field and directly responsible to the person(s) holding the purse strings?
Or is it a room full of bureaucrats who are spending "other peoples' money", and whose priorities are first to ensure full employment and fully funded pension benefits for themselves, and second to address the ever-changing requirements of an ever-changing political class?
Self-interest is the fuel of private endeavor and the undoing of all the best intentions in government. I suspect a great deal of the appertaining rage to come on these pages will be penned by the bureaucrat class and fueled by indignation at the thought that they will not have a place at the trough.
Rage on.
8
Well thanks for the permission to talk, Bruce.
Nice move, by the way, and classic "I got nothin'" Conservative: try to foreclose the debate by mocking what you know is the superior argument before it is delivered. Well done, if ineffective and arrogant still.
First the so-obvious-even-you-couldn't-miss-but-you-choose-to-anyway-so-...: Your private foundation's staff and leaders are also using other people's money. And they and their jobs are beholden to those other people. And other people do not typically remain consistent or reliable and therefore have a hard time sustaining an impact beyond the initial splash, however long that lasts.
That private foundation will, as it should, reflect the interests and convictions of the founder(s), and them alone. As we have so often seen in conditions of such singular influence innovations become articles of faith and immune to new knowledge or developing evidence.
Worse, as you guys are demonstrating so well and so painfully at the moment, articles of faith become attempts and then demands to control the behavior of everyone within reach, and a mindless need to punish those who won't acquiesce.
Worst from your perspective, if you had one beyond the party line, is this way of thinking represents your intellectual capitulation to the rich. Its the only Republican idea that ever lasts: "Hey, the guy's rich. He must know what he's doing". It's a sure sign you have abandoned your country, your responsibility, and your brain.
Nice move, by the way, and classic "I got nothin'" Conservative: try to foreclose the debate by mocking what you know is the superior argument before it is delivered. Well done, if ineffective and arrogant still.
First the so-obvious-even-you-couldn't-miss-but-you-choose-to-anyway-so-...: Your private foundation's staff and leaders are also using other people's money. And they and their jobs are beholden to those other people. And other people do not typically remain consistent or reliable and therefore have a hard time sustaining an impact beyond the initial splash, however long that lasts.
That private foundation will, as it should, reflect the interests and convictions of the founder(s), and them alone. As we have so often seen in conditions of such singular influence innovations become articles of faith and immune to new knowledge or developing evidence.
Worse, as you guys are demonstrating so well and so painfully at the moment, articles of faith become attempts and then demands to control the behavior of everyone within reach, and a mindless need to punish those who won't acquiesce.
Worst from your perspective, if you had one beyond the party line, is this way of thinking represents your intellectual capitulation to the rich. Its the only Republican idea that ever lasts: "Hey, the guy's rich. He must know what he's doing". It's a sure sign you have abandoned your country, your responsibility, and your brain.
4
Nope. You miss a huge point.
1
BBB
By the by, Detroit and Flint, the sparkling water capital of the rusty mid-west, can be laid squarely at the well-manicured feet of Republican Governor Rick (let's run government like a business) Snyder.
As can the entirely grudging and ineffective response.
No doubt another of your heros.
By the by, Detroit and Flint, the sparkling water capital of the rusty mid-west, can be laid squarely at the well-manicured feet of Republican Governor Rick (let's run government like a business) Snyder.
As can the entirely grudging and ineffective response.
No doubt another of your heros.
1
First, there is a wrong presumption that Government is withdrawing from problems. In fact, total government spending on an absolute basis has ballooned and as a % of GDP over the last generation has grown by about 15%. Secondly, the wealth gap is not a function of a knowledge economy with extreme value associated with creating knowledge companies. The fact that some of these business leaders are recycling the monies within their lifespan is laudable and there is little evidence that their efforts are worse than the ineffectiveness of government in deploying the their growing tax revenues. That said, I do believe that inheritance tax cuts are completely wrong and that they should be used to force a decision by wealth creators, either distribute the monies yourself to charitable purposes or give it to the government. We should not be encouraging multi-generational wealth by dint of birth. Finally, some of the most enduring institutions were the charitable works of some of our greatest business leaders from our major research universities, to art museums, to supporting efforts to combat disease and poverty. Government decision making is not the collective wisdom of the electorate but rather the collective self interest of a small group of politicians who seek re-election and do little to invest in the long term future of the country. I'd rather take my chances on the editorial choices and disciplines of entrepreneurs and business builders
10
Philanthropy is defined as "...an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes". Nowadays it appears to be defined as a gift that yields a return on investment.
When philanthropists in the Gilded Age donated money to build libraries and national parks, they did so with the noble intention of making valuable resources available to less advantaged Americans. I am not so certain that the motives of today's philanthropists are quite so pure. When the Waltons donate to expand "choice" they appear to be doing so to bring their model of cutthroat competition to schools. In the long run that would lower the cost of schools, lower wages of school workers, and thereby lower their tax burden and increase their profits... especially if some of their billions help underwrite for-profit charters. When technology billionaires donate to public schools to encourage the use of Big Data they, too, stand to benefit from their "gift".
I don't think Andrew Carnegie increased his bottom line when he built scores of libraries... nor did the Rockefellers benefit from donating Acadia and the Tetons to the National Park system.
When philanthropists in the Gilded Age donated money to build libraries and national parks, they did so with the noble intention of making valuable resources available to less advantaged Americans. I am not so certain that the motives of today's philanthropists are quite so pure. When the Waltons donate to expand "choice" they appear to be doing so to bring their model of cutthroat competition to schools. In the long run that would lower the cost of schools, lower wages of school workers, and thereby lower their tax burden and increase their profits... especially if some of their billions help underwrite for-profit charters. When technology billionaires donate to public schools to encourage the use of Big Data they, too, stand to benefit from their "gift".
I don't think Andrew Carnegie increased his bottom line when he built scores of libraries... nor did the Rockefellers benefit from donating Acadia and the Tetons to the National Park system.
59
WF
You write: "Philanthropy is defined as "...an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes". Nowadays it appears to be defined as a gift that yields a return on investment. "
And you're correct, as far is you go, but nowadays philanthropy is defined as "a gift to a Foundation." Period, full Republican stop.
We have reified the concept 'foundation' in a way to give it all the political and emotional clout of an act of caring and generosity, but have purposely left the legal (and functional) definition far from those supposedly selfless shores.
So we have Donald and all the little Trumps having, making, giving to foundations that will pay for their socks and underwear, their pictures of themselves, their access to Saudi money, and dancing around in gauzy reputations, pretending they care about people who aren't them.
At least philanthropists in the Gilded Age had the chutzpah and lack of social conscience to to just say, "this my money, this what's good for you, and you're gonna take, and you're gonna like it".
Our philanthropists today drape themselves in deep caring and Godliness and, like the DeVos Debacle, proceed to try to run everything and usually run it into the ground. And, as you point out, make big money in the process.
I would dearly love to see the MIM FOUNDATION for INCOME EQUITY and a CLASSLESS SOCIETY, founded and managed by Marla, Ivana, Melania Trump for the benefit of all mankind. I could support that one.
You write: "Philanthropy is defined as "...an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes". Nowadays it appears to be defined as a gift that yields a return on investment. "
And you're correct, as far is you go, but nowadays philanthropy is defined as "a gift to a Foundation." Period, full Republican stop.
We have reified the concept 'foundation' in a way to give it all the political and emotional clout of an act of caring and generosity, but have purposely left the legal (and functional) definition far from those supposedly selfless shores.
So we have Donald and all the little Trumps having, making, giving to foundations that will pay for their socks and underwear, their pictures of themselves, their access to Saudi money, and dancing around in gauzy reputations, pretending they care about people who aren't them.
At least philanthropists in the Gilded Age had the chutzpah and lack of social conscience to to just say, "this my money, this what's good for you, and you're gonna take, and you're gonna like it".
Our philanthropists today drape themselves in deep caring and Godliness and, like the DeVos Debacle, proceed to try to run everything and usually run it into the ground. And, as you point out, make big money in the process.
I would dearly love to see the MIM FOUNDATION for INCOME EQUITY and a CLASSLESS SOCIETY, founded and managed by Marla, Ivana, Melania Trump for the benefit of all mankind. I could support that one.
1
"When the Waltons donate to expand "choice" they appear to be doing so to bring their model of cutthroat competition to schools." Cutthroat competition? Are you suggesting we continue with the traditional public school monopoly which has failed generations of our most disadvantaged children? When was the last time competition hurt any end product? Did General Motors lead to improvement with Ford? Has Samsung injured Apple products? How about Comcast versus Verizon? Maybe we should just have one cable provider so they can then really rip off the public.
1
The US is beginning to look more and more like a plutocracy, evident even more acutely with the current administration. It is sad to see that our citizens are not willing to fight tooth and nail for democracy. I have an idea for Jeff Bezos: get out of the way.
65
Carnegie gave us libraries, universities, museums, music and art. Rockefeller gave us universities and medical breakthroughs. Much of what makes America what it is today can be traced back to the competition to give that these two frenemies deployed during their later years.
If our current billionaires can do the same good imagine where we will be in a century. But our government needs to step up and do their part. America in decay isn't a myth.
If our current billionaires can do the same good imagine where we will be in a century. But our government needs to step up and do their part. America in decay isn't a myth.
31
True, but what about the labor abuses of which those men were guilty? At what cost did their wealth, and thus their great philanthropy come?
33
Since political candidates in all parties are basically funded in their elections by the wealthy in all sectors of the economy their response to their donors is far in excess than to the general public .So the movement of the wealthy into support for their preferences is merely a separate area wherein their influence is already supreme. That is the state of public control today and it should be recognized as a major factor.
6
During the period of the Great Recession since 2007 and growing inequality and shrinking middle class in America, the Gates Foundation was giving 75% of its grants to help people around the world.
Today we have Republican control of all three branches of government.
Today we have Republican control of all three branches of government.
3
One of the best articles I've seen on this growing source of societal instability.
From each according to his inclination, to each according to his luck.
From each according to his inclination, to each according to his luck.
36
Forbes 400 with a net worth of at least $2.4 trillion. Isn't that about the same amount of offshore corporate profits owned by US multinationals that have yet to be repatriated and subject to tax by the IRS and the 44 states that tax corporate income? That figure does not include the pre-tax US profits of foreign corporations that have been shifted offshore that are NOT subject to repatriation and will never be taxed in the US. Does anyone have an estimate on that number?
19
I live right next to a large hospital in a residential zoning district. This hospital is part of a very wealthy non-profit healthcare company in Massachusetts and sometimes there are conflicts between me and this hospital regarding zoning and building.
I recently requested the public records about a recent conflict. It appears that whenever I write the town about an issue, my letter is automatically forwarded to the hospital's lawyer and he controls the content of the town's response to me. I was really shocked by this and feel that I effectively have no government where I live.
Beware the rich. They are generous as long as you are not in their way. If you are in their way, you will find there is no law to protect you - because the rich are now more powerful than the government.
I recently requested the public records about a recent conflict. It appears that whenever I write the town about an issue, my letter is automatically forwarded to the hospital's lawyer and he controls the content of the town's response to me. I was really shocked by this and feel that I effectively have no government where I live.
Beware the rich. They are generous as long as you are not in their way. If you are in their way, you will find there is no law to protect you - because the rich are now more powerful than the government.
192
They also ARE the government.
3
@DWS: Have you seen the movie "Spotlight"? It was about the Boston Globe's attempts to gain access to public documents about child-abusing priests that the Catholic church managed to suppress because of the power it held in that city. The film does a remarkable job of showing how a wealthy, respected institution can get around the law. It also has a happy, hopeful ending. The little guy wins, literally.
2
I have a daughter who looks very good in teal. I would like for her to have a more form-fitted business style because I believe it will enhance her ability to find and keep a better paying job. So, what do you think is going to happen if buy her a form-fitted business wardrobe in varying shades of teal?
I like to give money, when I can, to a charitable cause. I like to choose the cause that is going to get my money.
Now you see the problems that result between the receiver and the philanthropist.
One of the reasons there is such a wide gulf between the wealthy and the newly poor is taxation. Reagan's trickle down theory doesn't work because having wealth doesn't necessarily build more jobs in a time when more and more jobs are lost to automation and robots. For example, I was able to save myself $300 per month by buying a robot vacuum, a robot mopper, and a robot lawnmower. I save myself more than 15 hours every week by ordering my grocery list online and picking it up via the drive-thru. Imagine, I am retired and disabled and I am staving off a housekeeper and lawnsman plus a person to help me shop. I'm not even my own business but I have lessened the chances of 3 people to make a living wage because of system changes. Baby Boomers retiring is not the big problem. The BIG problem is system which allows companies to replace workers with automations without considering the problem they just made for society.
I like to give money, when I can, to a charitable cause. I like to choose the cause that is going to get my money.
Now you see the problems that result between the receiver and the philanthropist.
One of the reasons there is such a wide gulf between the wealthy and the newly poor is taxation. Reagan's trickle down theory doesn't work because having wealth doesn't necessarily build more jobs in a time when more and more jobs are lost to automation and robots. For example, I was able to save myself $300 per month by buying a robot vacuum, a robot mopper, and a robot lawnmower. I save myself more than 15 hours every week by ordering my grocery list online and picking it up via the drive-thru. Imagine, I am retired and disabled and I am staving off a housekeeper and lawnsman plus a person to help me shop. I'm not even my own business but I have lessened the chances of 3 people to make a living wage because of system changes. Baby Boomers retiring is not the big problem. The BIG problem is system which allows companies to replace workers with automations without considering the problem they just made for society.
12
“Philanthropy will increasingly slide into the driver’s seat of public life, with private funders tackling problems that government can’t or won’t.”
Over the past half century, we have watched the corrosive ideology [neoliberalism and austerity] damage and diminish the ability of Government to thrive, function and manage our commonwealth for our betterment.
At the same time, the lopsided enrichment of a few against the many has enabled a few bloatedly rich individuals to pose as Philanthropists. Having expropriated peoples’ rights to natural and common resources, they now wish to return resources as charity.
The decisions in these cases will never be the decisions of free citizens but always the decisions of their masters.
Over the past half century, we have watched the corrosive ideology [neoliberalism and austerity] damage and diminish the ability of Government to thrive, function and manage our commonwealth for our betterment.
At the same time, the lopsided enrichment of a few against the many has enabled a few bloatedly rich individuals to pose as Philanthropists. Having expropriated peoples’ rights to natural and common resources, they now wish to return resources as charity.
The decisions in these cases will never be the decisions of free citizens but always the decisions of their masters.
108
If you are saying that the wealthy further their own interests by making donations that further their own agenda, I agree. For example, it is pretty clear the DeVos has no interest in furthering education; but rather an absolute interest is destroying the public school's teacher's union, and, making sure kids are taught her religion in school.
12
No amount of private philanthropy can compensate for Federal funding for infrastructure. One factor alone amplifies this: population growth over the last 50 years. Sewering, water systems, aging utility delivery systems, bridges, mass transit, and vehicle fleets all are under duress. In smaller towns headcount cannot ever produce a tax base sufficient to update infrastructure costs that are often in the billions. Add to this longer term settlement. The larger cities in the northeast have pipes that were installed in the 1800s that are simply failing leaking water, sewage and gas. D.C. needs real leadership and a reminder that some areas were not built out recently. That leadership will not come from the GOP or ideologues like Bannon, Ryan, and their ilk.
76
Having lived both in the EU and the US, working with government, non profit and philanthrophic organizations, I can say there are plusses and minusses with each system. The US has never had the culture of social welfare as Europe has had (at least in last century) and likely never will, outside of a major paradigm shift. While we have wealthy individuals and families who are earnest in their desire to share wealth to aid social and environmental causes, I'd suggest more effort to measure and reward collaboration and efficacy of their efforts.
9
The grand plan becomes then to shift massive amounts of wealth to a very few and hope that it comes trickling down somehow. Far better than this would be an equal distribution of wealth (all you have to do is restore progressive taxation and link compensation to productivity) in the first place which would adequately fund government to improve the lives of those who (supposedly) have a voice in a democracy.
140
Yup, the government will make it all better.
Hi, is that a surprise? That is why most Europeans governments channel their aid programs through public budgets so everybody can see and influence through the political process. I suggest you have a look at the totals of International assistance with EU double that of US.
87