iYuck: Sour Apples

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It the prime motivator for charitable donations in the US...

What a shitty reason to give to charity

Like a hooker's hungry child, I don't care where the money comes from.

[klr]

Far be it for me to stand up for Bill Gates, but the amount of money he's given/promised to charity far exceeds any tax that he may have avoided or even evaded over the years.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Left unfettered capitalism will devour it's own children.



Not because it is evil - but simply because that is what it does.

The answer is to harness Capitalism to serve mankind - not to bow down before it in worship, whilst offering sacrifices

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Far be it for me to stand up for Bill Gates, but the amount of money he's given/promised to charity far exceeds any tax that he may have avoided or even evaded over the years.

His tax lawyers are the übermenschen of the genre.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Far be it for me to stand up for Bill Gates, but the amount of money he's given/promised to charity far exceeds any tax that he may have avoided or even evaded over the years.

He could afford to pay tax and give to charity.


You know - like poor folks would.

[Seth]

Just to address one of Pappa's points - the Mini Huxley's school uniforms were made just down the road

But otherwise, you are basically stuffed. Seth's point is undermined by the fact that, in the West, the incomes of the lower and middle-income workers have stalled or are actually falling, while the wealth of the rich continues to accumulate at the same rate as ever. The problem is not the poor demanding more than they are worth, it is the rich being GIVEN more than they are worth by supine Govts.

Cue the usual billionaire's fan-boy stuff from Seth about how the rich are somehow another species of human, who magically secrete money that the rest of us should be grateful for....

Except that the facts prove you wrong, at least here in Capitalism Land. The facts (directly from the Congressional Budget Office) are that since the 1970, the rich have gotten richer...much richer...and both the poor and the middle classes have also gotten richer. The middle class by some 40 percent, and even the poorest by some 18 percent. The standard of living in the US has never been higher for everyone, and that is the product of capitalism, where the rich earn their wealth and then redistribute it voluntarily by creating jobs and businesses and by investing in them so the middle class and poor will have jobs and paychecks. Moreover, more people have moved from the middle class to the upper 10 or even 1 percent of the wealthy than ever before, demonstrating that economic mobility is strong.

Now, I don't know what the situation is in the EU, and it wouldn't surprise me if wages are falling drastically, but that's not the fault of capitalism, that's the fault of socialism. TANSTAAFL

[Seth]

Left unfettered capitalism will devour it's own children.



Not because it is evil - but simply because that is what it does.

The answer is to harness Capitalism to serve mankind - not to bow down before it in worship, whilst offering sacrifices

Pure lie. Capitalism cannot exist without creating upward economic mobility because capitalism depends on free-market trade and commerce, and the destitute don't have any money to spend as consumers, so it's always in capitalism's best economic interests to make sure that it's customers have enough disposable income to support commerce. It all balances out very nicely when the markets are left to operate naturally and without redistributive regulation.

[Drewish]

Just gonna leave this here...

http://byuu.org/articles/computing/osx-1072

[Seth]

Strange days when Bill Gates is considered a saint - or at least not the scum of the earth.

True, but then, when you use iTunes, you realise that even Windows Vista is not so bad....

All power to Sir William of Gates and his charitable billions.

Just as long as we never accept the notion that charitable giving is an acceptable substitute for paying one's taxes.

Why shouldn't it be? In the US you can claim charitable donations as deductions from your total income.

Because the state needs you tax money,

No, the state WANTS your money, usually to fund the lifestyles of the bureaucrats who run the state.

and what you give to charity usually does not go anywhere near where it would actually benefit the country.

Absolutely untrue. Individual NGO charitable work not only serves the needy much more efficiently than government does, it also does so much more economically, without the bureaucratic overhead of the government to pay for. That's why, if I give, I give directly to the guy flying a sign on the median. No middlemen at all. He gets charity, I get to be charitable, and he enjoys the full value of my charitable impulses.

That's why governments give tax breaks for charity in the first place, because people who actually understand the issue, even the ones in government, know that private charities are much more effective at getting the money to the people who actually need it than government is.

Plus, if you 'give to charity' with money that would otherwise go into the taxmman's coffers, that's not charity, that's depriving your country of needed resources, which should be a treason level crime.

Well, let's examine that particularly stupid and illogical statement: First, it presumes that everything you make or own is the property of the government and that disposing of your wealth as you wish, as opposed to as some bureaucrat wishes, is a "treason level crime." That's just stupid and illogical. Second, the only reason that money you spend on charity wouldn't go into the taxman's coffers is because you don't owe that money in taxes in the first place, so that's a stupid and illogical assertion. Third, if the government passes a law making charitable deductions lawful, for whatever reason the bureaucrats and politicians decide, then that money isn't "depriving the country of needed resources" because the government has decided that the country gets more bang for the buck if it forgoes collecting the charitable giving as a tax and allows that money to flow to the more efficient, more economical private charity system.

So, you're pretty much wrong on every level here.

[MiM]

Capitalism cannot exist without creating upward economic mobility because capitalism depends on free-market trade and commerce, and the destitute don't have any money to spend as consumers, so it's always in capitalism's best economic interests to make sure that it's customers have enough disposable income to support commerce. It all balances out very nicely when the markets are left to operate naturally and without redistributive regulation.

Hmmm, very interesting concept "capitalism's best economic interests"

Who or what is this capitalism, that can have interests of its own? Are you absolutely sure you are not bowing to a God here?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Capitalism cannot exist without creating upward economic mobility because capitalism depends on free-market trade and commerce, and the destitute don't have any money to spend as consumers, so it's always in capitalism's best economic interests to make sure that it's customers have enough disposable income to support commerce. It all balances out very nicely when the markets are left to operate naturally and without redistributive regulation.

Hmmm, very interesting concept "capitalism's best economic interests"

Who or what is this capitalism, that can have interests of its own? Are you absolutely sure you are not bowing to a God here?

The Almighty Dollar, of course.

[Clinton Huxley]

Latest research I have read is that social mobility in the US is lower than most european countries. Anyone can be potus? Fat chance.

[Seth]

Capitalism cannot exist without creating upward economic mobility because capitalism depends on free-market trade and commerce, and the destitute don't have any money to spend as consumers, so it's always in capitalism's best economic interests to make sure that it's customers have enough disposable income to support commerce. It all balances out very nicely when the markets are left to operate naturally and without redistributive regulation.

Hmmm, very interesting concept "capitalism's best economic interests"

Who or what is this capitalism, that can have interests of its own? Are you absolutely sure you are not bowing to a God here?

It's a semantic shortcut, nothing more. I could have said "it's in the best economic interests of Capitalists, who want to make money, to make sure that their customers have money to spend," but I thought most people here were smart enough to understand such things.

Please excuse me for making that mistake with you.

[Seth]

Latest research I have read is that social mobility in the US is lower than most european countries. Anyone can be potus? Fat chance.

I wasn't discussing social mobility, I was discussing economic mobility. Certainly in socialist societies where gifts of money and other largess from the government are lavished on the poor they will have "social mobility," but it doesn't last because they cannot sustain it without constant government support, which cannot be sustained permanently by any society because when the OPM runs out, the welfare state collapses.

Capitalism gives everyone equal opportunity to succeed, or fail, on their own merits. You can succeed a lot, or a little, or not at all, depending entirely on your own skills, abilities and willingness to take advantage of capitalism to improve yourself. If you don't want to improve yourself, you won't have much economic or social mobility, but that's your problem, not everyone else's.

And no, not anyone can be POTUS, there are qualifications (which our current POTUS doesn't appear to meet) but his station as POTUS does prove that nearly anyone can be POTUS if they have it in them.

[MiM]

Capitalism cannot exist without creating upward economic mobility because capitalism depends on free-market trade and commerce, and the destitute don't have any money to spend as consumers, so it's always in capitalism's best economic interests to make sure that it's customers have enough disposable income to support commerce. It all balances out very nicely when the markets are left to operate naturally and without redistributive regulation.

Hmmm, very interesting concept "capitalism's best economic interests"

Who or what is this capitalism, that can have interests of its own? Are you absolutely sure you are not bowing to a God here?

It's a semantic shortcut, nothing more. I could have said "it's in the best economic interests of Capitalists, who want to make money, to make sure that their customers have money to spend," but I thought most people here were smart enough to understand such things.

Please excuse me for making that mistake with you.

But that statement is far from a truism, and it requires much more from the said capitalists, especially it requires them to be altruistic (at least among each other). The biggest problem, as I see it with the global capital market today, is that the capital is anonymous and separated from the people (the workers and spenders), and for the average single capitalist with big money to spend todays markets creates the best opportunities for those who bet their money on fast revenue, and completely disregards employees and customers long term well being.