433
MacKenzie Scott donates $640M -- more than double her initial plan -- to nonprofits
(abcnews.go.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
433 points (97.6% liked)
News
23655 readers
3426 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Every billionaire's priority should be to not be a billionaire anymore. She's doing a great job so far both trying to get to that goal and being an example of what we should expect from these people.
As a side note it should not even be up to them. Billionaires should be taxed enough that it's not possible to be a billionaire but in the absence of an effective government I'm glad she's doing this instead.
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.