This is rather the point matey

“The reaction of the world’s most notable billionaires has been commendable,” you say (“Austerity is out of the question: the wealthiest must help pay for this crisis”, Business leader). Really? Donations of $100m to food banks, $1bn towards the pandemic and $100m for vaccines respectively from Jeff Bezos, Jack Dorsey and the Gates Foundation are not significant portions of their wealth but the difficulty with charitable gifts is that the donors decide what they give and what are worthy causes.

The claimed answer being to tax it off them then the peeps get to decide what it’s spent upon.

The point of not taxing it off them being that the donors decide what they give and what are worthy causes. As someone or other did in fact say, money fructifies in the pockets of the populace….

6 thoughts on “This is rather the point matey”

  1. A lad in the Dog & Duck recently told me the only career advice his father had given him was to remember that he was a Scouser, and that Scousers warmed their hands in other people’s pockets. It chimed with my understanding of what is euphemistically referred to as a ‘fair and progressive tax system’.

  2. ‘We need an overhaul of these standards that must recognise the adverse health effects of lack of space and crowding, including the spread of infectious diseases, unintentional injuries and mental ill health.’

    If people could afford bigger homes, they’d have them.

    ‘Charitable provision is no way to provide comprehensive healthcare.’

    You’ve got the NHS, dumbass.

    ‘The wealthiest must indeed share the cost of the crisis according to their means’

    Straight from Marx.

    ‘but far better they are made to do this through a fair and progressive tax system’

    Pick one; you can’t have both.

    ‘to which everyone contributes’

    Except the lower 50% of earners.

    ‘and which incorporates harsh penalties for serial avoiders’

    “I’m packing every pet issue I have into this paragraph.”

    ‘Universal social priorities can then be decided by democratically elected representatives and those representatives held to account.’

    Killing rich people and taking their stuff is okay if duly voted on.

  3. If you look at the progress made on malaria since Bill Gates started ploughing money in versus what happened since 1945. Lots of highly targeted money donated by people with objectives does seem to make a difference

  4. @Diogenes.

    That may be because, while haphazard and depending on generosity, this kind of donations cut through a lot of Red Tape…
    Even if half is spaffed away, it’s still far more than several rounds of anilingus with government/formal funders would get you ( if they listen to you at all…). And it’s provided by people who have heard of a thing called “efficiency”, and tend to expect it…

  5. “while haphazard and depending on generosity”

    That is the best feature of private charity, be it my penny in the poor box or Bill Gates spending his pocket money, in aggregate lots of people making up their own mind about priorities and who are the deserving poor.

  6. Plus, djc, when local, people see if their money was properly used.

    You can get away with buying a Cadillac with money from Washington, but not with local money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *