"… conspicuous philanthropy—which is the basis of the Giving Pledge and, even more, the Keeper Pledge—allows a few wealthy individuals to capture a large portion of the surplus and then, privately, to define what it means to make the world a better place."
In a capitalistic system, I don't see that this is all that bad. The real issue is the distribution system that allows a very small number of people to capture so much of the surplus in the first place.
Occasional Links & Commentary
The Keeper Pledge
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
Maybe Ruccio was thinking along the lines expressed in usuncut's "Why Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Charity’ is a Scheme to Dodge Billions in Taxes"
ReplyDeletehttp://usuncut.com/class-war/mark-zuckerberg-charity-scheme/
This is at the heart of it, Art. The entity has to be crafted legally to qualify as a tax-exempt non-profit but allow Chan-Zuckerberg to control the distribution, similar to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with it if the funding is for a bona fide non-profit.
"I don't see a problem with it if the funding is for a bona fide non-profit."
ReplyDeleteWell other than the real crowding out of the state and productive function by the 'charitable' demands of a charity directed by the few not the many.
It very quickly becomes the case that cats, donkeys, etc. end up getting looked after better than humans.
We know charitable philanthropy doesn't fix social problems. We tried that in the UK in the 19th century and had to invent social security to actually fix the problem.
No reason to allow charity to crowd out public works since government doesn't need to get money. The issue is to prevent hoarding.
ReplyDeletePublic and private funding of socially desirable goals can be complementary. The US approach used to be to impose exorbitant progressive taxation and a high inheritance tax that could be offset by tax-deductible charitable contributions. A lot of philanthropy was for this reason.
Shares of "Facebook" are part of the surplus?????
ReplyDelete"No reason to allow charity to crowd out public works since government doesn't need to get money."
ReplyDeleteIt crowds it out in real terms. Nothing to do with money.
I've got Victorian Alms houses by the bucket load around me here. It didn't stop the Victorian poverty.
Shares of "Facebook" are part of the surplus?????
ReplyDeleteFictitious "capital" that is part of the rent.
Rent should be taxed away when realized or used, e.g., as collateral.