Billionaire philanthropist and author MacKenzie Scott announced Tuesday she is giving $640 million to 361 small nonprofits that responded to an open call for applications.
Yield Giving’s first round of donations is more than double what Scott had initially pledged to give away through the application process. Since she began giving away billions in 2019, Scott and her team have researched and selected organizations without an application process and provided them with large, unrestricted gifts.
In a brief note on her website, Scott wrote she was grateful to Lever for Change, the organization that managed the open call, and the evaluators for “their roles in creating this pathway to support for people working to improve access to foundational resources in their communities. They are vital agents of change.”
Disagree. I’m happy for billionaires to be taxed at 80% effective or higher.
100% inheritance tax on billionaires though.
Cool. Please explain how it’s possible for someone to work hard enough to deserve 1000 years worth of earning 1 million dollars a year. That’s 1 billion dollars. No one deserves that kind of money. Period. If you work hard and are very talented you should earn more than others. Fine. A billion dollars though? Not possible to work that hard or be that talented.
Invent something that 1bn people will pay. $1 for.
What is immoral about numbers greater than 10**9 specifically? Plenty of houses in Japan cost more than 1bn JPY.
Millions of Taylor Swift fans disagree with you.
HOWEVER
My initial statement was based around economics. Billionaires are very mobile and can live almost anywhere in the world. Would we prefer to tax 80% of 100 Billionaires or 100% of zero Billionaires?
There’s nothing immoral about a number you dimwit. The immoral part is that one billion AMERICAN DOLLARS (capitalized so you understand that numbers tend have labels attached to them that make them mean something different depending on the label) represents an amount of resources that no person needs in even a hundred lifetimes.
Humanity is generating enough resources for every person on the planet to be fed, housed, provided healthcare and have extra for non necessities. So why are children still starving to death? Why are people homeless and without healthcare? Why are people working for slave wages for 80 hours a week when all of these resources exist with plenty to go around? It’s because the richest people have concentrated this wealth for themselves even though they could never use it all.
It doesn’t matter how many people like Taylor Swift’s music or how many one dollar things Jeff Bezos has used those making slave wages to create for five cents. That amount of money should not ever be in the hands of one individual. Or in this case the hundreds of billionaires who control the resources that were generated by the billions of people on this planet that actually create those resources. You’ve been brainwashed into thinking that it’s normal but it is a crime against humanity.
Your final statement is the most ignorant of all. It doesn’t matter where billionaires live if they’re not able to exist. Force them to share the resources that they have extorted from the people who created that wealth or relieve them of their heads. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
So why are you are fixated on the billion number?
Not when you used them.
So why not also target multimillionaires?
OK, so it’s poverty you are against, not billionaires.
No. Billionaires are small potatoes. The federal government spent $6.13 trillion in FY 2022. $1.62 Trillion on the militarily PER YEAR. A billionaires life’s work owns less than 0.1% of that.
Yes it does. It’s an excellent example of hard work and skill that is valued >1Bn. It is empirical evidence that your opinion is incorrect.
OK, so now you are back on poverty. Not billionaires.
Poverty, yes. Billionaires no. I’m not actually defending billionaires. I’m trying to show that your anger is not correctly targeted.
So you are proposing a worldwide movement against billionaires, overriding all national sovereignty. You are more likely to get support for poverty to be outlawed than billionaires.
You’re just being obtuse now and straw manning even harder than before. I don’t actually believe you’re stupid enough to not understand that I’m not upset with the existence of a number instead of what the number represents in context. I don’t actually think you’re stupid enough to not understand that concentration of wealth is causing poverty. I don’t think you’re stupid enough to believe that government spending on an entire nation should be compared to a single person’s wealth (Although I agree that the military budget is far too high, it employs millions of people so your comparison is moronic). You’re a troll and a capitalist simp. Kindly go fuck yourself.
If there are any actual humans reading this I’m sure they understand what I’m talking about since it was stated quite plainly.
You’ve been blocked as you’re not worth conversing with. Cheers!
You picked a billion. People with 50 million have more money than they need.
Weath Inequality and poverty are completely different topics. You can have no poverty and many billionaires. You can have no billionaires and also have poverty.
Sure it can. It illustrates that there are bigger, better targets than 750 people.
I’m pointing out that maximising income from billionaires doesn’t occur when you tax them at 100%.
Calling for an 80% tax bracket is not simping for capitalism.
Go get your toys and put them back in the pram.
Because you can’t handle a different opinion.