Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Charity or Philanthro-Feudalism?
Twenty nine million unemployed or looking for work, that's the
latest
estimate, and you'd think it'd concentrate the mind in Washington.
Twenty-nine million, or over 16 percent of us, need jobs and services
and help to
stay afloat, to pay mortgages and grocery bills and - sigh - private
health insurers.
With an election coming up, the pundit-class are brow-beating politicians to look away. The panic in their voice is all about -- you got it -- deficits. And while they're famously unworried about the condition of the unemployed, they won't tolerate any talk of new taxes to solve that problem. The unemployed get lazy when you give them extended benefits; the rich give back, they say. Except they don't, or they haven't. As we've commented before. This so called recovery's been accompanied by tremendous hoarding by super affluent.
Paul Krugman wrote this week, "In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally...- they're choosing the latter."
And just when you might begin think ill of billionaires, headlines trumpet 40 of them are taking a pledge from Warren Buffett to give half their wealth to charity. The Oracle of Omaha's getting plaudits from the investor-invested media, but his timing couldn't be more deadly.
What's the message of Buffett's "greatest givers" plan? Massive wealth's alright, as long as those who have it share some. Some even have a word for it: philanthro-capitalism. But it's a face-saver, not a state-saver.
The wealthiest Americans have seen incomes skyrocket since the 90s, growing 409% between 1992 and 2007, while their effective tax rate fell to just 16% -- less than yours and mine. During the same period, two out of every three US corporations paid no federal income taxes at all." Welcome to the root of the shortfall.
If we're going to depend on the goodwill of 40 rich guys to pick who gets help, we ought to declare Philanthro-Feudalism and stop wasting money on elections. But we might regret leaving the decision making up to the mighty and flighty. In New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who's sitting on an $18 billion fortune, gives to charity, but the transit system is still hiking fares and public schools are crumbling and segregated. We saw what T. Boone Pickens' idea of giving was back when he bankrolled the swiftboaters against John Kerry.
Let's not forget, money donated to charity is tax-free, so giving to charities actually deprives the government of revenue. Long-term change will require government, the people's representatives, not the profiteers' action, growing an economic system that works for more of us. Instead of urging a pledge to give to charity, world's billionaires could do some good. Buffett's joined the good fight for higher taxes on his income. Now he needs to get real about higher taxes on corporations. We need government which has the might and the revenues to run a state. Not rich guys with whims and PR dollars.
95 Comments so far
Show AllEver since Ronny Raygun's 1986 "tax reform" Americans need to be able to itemize income tax deductions in order to get a tax deduction for charitable contributions.
With each passing year, this change in the law has resulted in fewer Americans of average means being able to deduct charitable contributions, thereby reducing the amount they contribute, resulting in charities whose funds are directed where the big donors want them directed, not where you and I want the funds directed.
I thought it was 1981, not 1986.
Although Raygun did "reform" all types of taxation from the time he took the solar panels off the white house roof in 1981 until he forgot who he was and left DC in 1989, hundreds of income tax "reforms" appeared on 1986 income tax forms thereby creating an unprecented shift of the tax burden away from corporations and the top 2% onto the backs of workers.
Too bad Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the rest of the billionaires do not pledge half their fortunes to stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, that would be REAL charity.
This the "Power of Capitalism" to "Create wealth".
All that is being created is debt. While I have always felt GDP a terrible way to measure an economies strength, using it does help expose the fallacy of the "Friedmanian" economy.
As example. At the end of the second world war, the US economy was 50 percent of the Worlds GDP by size. It is now 20 percent and falling. It is estimated that by 2025 it will be closer to 10 percent.
At the same times US debt as a percentage of total world wide debt is now 25 percent. This is exclusive of State debts . Furthermore this figure would more then double using Standard accounting practices (As example the US does NOT count money owed to itself while other countries do).
By the year 2025 this is expected to climb dramatically and will be close to 40 percent of the worlds total "debt".
All of these "Monies" will be owed to Someone or some Country. The "Warren Buffets' will in essence own the United States of America, lock stock and barrel and the workers will labor for them to "repay the debt".
Wealth is NOT being created. Calling this wealth creation is like calling a person who charges credit cards to the max to buy things "wealth creation".
The United States is NOT "The Wealthiest nation in the history of mankind". It is its most indebted. Other nations in the World and in history might well use debt to INVEST in their futures. Since Reagan the USA has allowed infrastructure to collapse. They are using their debt to finance tax breaks and war.
Just wanted to remind all of what Ralph Nader says and writes often, not that he is the originator (he credits his mother in Crashing the Party) or only one: The more justice a society has, the less charity it needs.
That we need so much charity pretty much says it all about the justice we have.
The donations are not bad in themselves, but they reflect poorly on our system and society. Finally, we do not know yet where these donations will go. The "charity" of the very rich is often given to organizations like the opera, or elite universities that mostly only other rich people can access.
This is well put Bruce.
While some of the money does go to some good causes, some are completely ridiculous like building buildings named after these people on campuses or the bill and linda gates foundation giving around 10 million to a creationist think tank. No scientists believe that and it is ridiculous to think of that being put in our schools.
Also this from wikipedia...
'The foundation invests the assets that it has not yet distributed, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the Foundation is attempting to relieve poverty.[52] These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world.[53] In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility.[54] It subsequently cancelled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices.[55]'
I'd rather see it go directly to public services, small businesses or getting people into jobs. Although I'll never make that much money, so I guess I'll never be able to do it.
When I hand a dollar to one of the ever increasing numbers of homeless people I pass by on the way to work each day, that dollar is 100% utilized to sustain that person (yeah, I know they all buy rotgut booze with it).
If I give a dollar to a charity, somewhere between zero and 65% of that money will be used to sustain an impoverished person.
Since I can't get a tax deduction for charitable contributions, I will keep handing dollars to homeless people.
If you have ever filled out the forms to apply for a grant from a foundation, you probably know how complicated the forms are, and you probably also know how stilted the language is that you are forced to use. After filling out forms, you have to wait to see if you qualify. Usually, the process is quite lengthy. Foundations love paperwork.
Reminds me of a scene from "Oliver":
"Pul-eee-eeze Sir.....may I have some more???"
Pass the gruel....
People will reluctantly accept charity if there is no other help. What they really want is a meaningful job with a living wage. So where could proposals for job creation be sent?
In current corporate fascist USA, the most utilitarian use of those proposals might be to wipe your arse with them and send them down the flusher.
Can Obama be buried at Arlington even if he was never in the military?
Perhaps being commander-in-chief counts?
Point well taken, however.
Obama knows that while the Secret Service can keep Billy Joe Jim Bob and his racist buddies from snuffing him, if the global corporations finger you, nobody can save you.
"We" live off table scraps of the wealthy. "We" should serve them better food.
The net effect of putting Americans back to work would be less wealth for the Philanthro-Feudalists. "We" won't live in rabbit hutches!
It won't be long before your metaphor degenerates to us being the birds you see at the zoo living off elephant dung.
Our corrupted political system.
Actually, pretty much every institution here has been corrupted.
Imploding from within.
These titans of industry have made their fortunes through cutthroat business practices, and exploitation of the working class. Remember the Microsoft lawsuit that was filed because Gates was classifying employees as part time so he wouldn't have to pay benefits, etc, or the destruction of competeting intellectual efforts which threatened his monopoly? How many takeovers and subsequent job losses do you suppose the Oracle of Omaha has benefitted from. None of these billionaires made their fortunes by playing fair and being generous. Now they want to offset their tax liability, polish up their images as human beings and maybe buy themselves a lot in the "Promised Land". It seems a little late and a lot disingenuous. Why are they not using their wealth to help right an unjust system of laws, tax codes and traditions?... Because they are not really what they try to represent themselves as. These are the royalty of a predatory class and there is no doubt in my mind they will use their "philanthropy to shape the world to their desires and design. A wolf in sheeps clothing does not begin to describe their ambition of population reduction and genetic exclusivity.
These business people are sociopaths. I have an idea! Let's institute the practice of eugenics and begin at the economic top. That way we could eliminate the top ten percent of the business sociopath gene-pool each year until trickle down begins to work.
Andrew Carnegie built more than 2500 libraries all over the country (and in Britain, Ireland, Canada, & other countries) in the late 19th & early 20th centuries, in an attempt to pay back some of the wealth he had taken (by means up to & including what we would call murder) to build up his steel empire. I guess he thought he could die of old age and go right to heaven for his good works, while the damage he caused to so many lives in the process would be forgotten by the big guy in the sky. Rich people thought that way, then / maybe they still do ......
It simply defies logic that "The wealthiest Americans have seen incomes skyrocket since the 90s, growing 409% between 1992 and 2007, while their effective tax rate fell to just 16% -- less than yours and mine. During the same period, two out of every three US corporations paid no federal income taxes at all." Welcome to the root of the shortfall."
Is there any fairness at all in this situation - in a country where "all citizens are created equal???????"
There is no coherent reason whatsoever why the wealthy don't have to pay the same percentage of income tax as the average citizen.
There is, however, an explanation. The wealthy are the ones who can afford to "buy" our Congress and therefore are able to get their way!
We DO NOT live in a DEMOCRACY and let's STOP calling it that. It is an out-and-out PLUTOCRACY which means "rule by the rich." And the "rulers" get to decide what they're going to pay in taxes. And, I might add - what we're also going to have to pay in taxes as well.
Let's face it, my friends, the United States is broken beyond repair and it will only get worse and worse as time goes on! There seems to be no real remedies being proffered to halt this decline - in fact, it's only getting, as I said, WORSE!!! I can't imagine what life will be like in the U.S. in 10-30 years. My heart goes out to the young of our country!
What I have been repeatedly asking... why aren't the "young of our country" recognizing what is happening, protesting, getting in the streets en masse, and basically trying to change now what will hurt them for decades to come?? Most can certainly understand the concept of net neutrality and what deals such as those being proposed by Google and Verizon will do to future "communications", yet what are they doing to stop just one of many corporate takeovers of our society? The 20 somethings have one of the highest unemployment rates, yet how many are at local community town halls asking for solutions or demanding the President and Congress do something constructive regarding jobs? Why are the primary protesters (both in the streets, in communities, and everywhere) basically the "older" citizens? Do we now have an apathetic younger generation or do they have "learned helplessness"? Please... we are all in this together and we all need to work together to save this country.
"What I have been repeatedly asking... why aren't the "young of our country" recognizing what is happening, protesting, getting in the streets en masse, and basically trying to change now what will hurt them for decades to come??"
I don't know, I guess some are still trying to compete for college and scarce jobs by not failing to be perfect; some have burnt out from trying to be perfect; some can't compete and have given up on themselves; some are seeking entry into the last bubbles of our homeland industries like "health care," prisons, police, Wall St banksters, weapons manufacturing, drugs, sports and whatever else it is we still do.
Still I trust that many of them are wise and aware, just haven't been able to unite any better than we have. Shouldn't we start initiatives where older citizens lead and reach out to unite with young for common cause?
And some are majoring in economics! I defy you to find alternative economic models classes being offered by the economics departments of colleges and universities. Those departments are also at the "service" of the plutocrats...and indeed are there to glorify the corporatist stars and celebrities. Call it the cult of the ruling class.
The most universally beneficial and enduring cause for this philanthropy would be to create and fund--or prop-up--an existing federal third party dedicated to challenging the corporatocracy represented by the two-headed ruling party.
This would bring true democracy to the US, but it would take the hundreds of billions of dollars being donated to be able to fend off the corporatocracy challenges/attacks. This may need to be coupled with a truly independent news media to balance the MSM propaganda the masses are spoon-fed on a regular basis.
I know, I know, it's never going to happen for a multitude of reasons... but it's what I would do if I were Warren Buffett.
Or, if we can't wait for the rich to save us, could we get one hundred million folks to each pay $10 for every billion we need to pay for our representation to fight back? and/or tax corporations AND megarich individuals (U PLAY U PAY PLAN) and/or withhold our taxes UNTIL WE ARE REPRESENTED. Plus boycott the greedy, buy local or buy nothing, barter, start coops.
Maybe the rich and the super rich can "Swift Boat" our entire nation. When you play Monopoly the game is over when one person gets all the money. What does that mean? The game starts over. Starting over redistributes the money evenly to all of the players. This is called a revolution.
true that. just what people people need: Pete Peterson contributing billions more to his foundation.
All wealth is based on theft and exploitation.
From the liberal class we will hear such bleating as, "we need to solve poverty", when a deeper analysis informs us that poverty is not the problem it is a symptom. Wealth is the problem and poverty is it's natural offspring.
Until we attend to these colossal bandits who are the wealthy the eradication of poverty shall be unattainable. And there is no way to stop this form of obscene wealth until we address and eliminate the system that creates it- capitalism.
It's not about how much wealthy folks can give, so much as how much less they take.
=========
“I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me. And yet assure myself and others, that I am very sorry for him and wish to lighten his burden by all possible means. Except, by getting off his back.”
- Leo Tolstoy
Well said... true clarity and insight.
Charity is donating bandages after your shooting spree.
This 'charity' is worse than that. The rich bastards get to choose who gets funding. They still have control of the ill gotten funds. Let them pay taxes as was the case before Ronnie Raygun gave us 'trickle down'. I personally am tired of being pissed on.
I have my penion (well, as of today I do) but two of my sons and my grandson are out of work. Tax these rich bastards and reinstate the WPA and CCC. Plenty of work to be done. The super rich are not about to save us. They like being super rich and they purchased Congress to keep things nice for them. I want our tax funds to be used to serve the needs of the people and to protect our environment, and NOT FOR WAR!
We should spend our tax funds (including what these super rich owe) to get our ecomomy up and running again. We also need public finance of politcal campaigns and the repeal of NAFTA and the Patriot Act. Hell, there is a lot we need to do and the bastards in Congress will not do it, that is obvious even to people who bought Obama's hope and change PR. Throw out the corrupt and let's start over with independent candidates not beholden to the those coporations with their legal 'personhood'.
Wantrealdemocracy is ON THE MONEY!
Wantrealdemocracy for President! :)
Indeed. Or as someone else pointed out, burning down the house and then offering to help sweep up the ashes.
Ever notice Gates is always piping up for more H1-B visas? He could use some of his wealth to train and employ American workers.
Why does he have to look for cheap imported technical workers when there are locals who would jump at the chance to enter a training program?
And please, no BS that there is a shortage of people in this country smart enough to learn to do the job with a bit of training.
Between outsourcing and insourcing, U.S.A.ans are losing their jobs at a rapid rate. Has anyone seen Bill Gates testify before Congress, telling our very own elected officials that U.S.A.ans are NOT smart enough to do the jobs necessary, and therefore, Congress needs to raise the number of H1b visas offered each year? Our elected officials don't even press Bill Gates for details and/or facts.
Bright Future Jobs is a Chicago-based organization that evolved out of the ever-heightening numbers of unemployed IT workers here in the U.S. As stated in your post, redwriteman, the Department of Labor advertises for jobs, stating -- U.S. citizens need NOT apply. On their website, Donna Conroy, the director of the organization, talks about the complicated issues that are involved, and you can actually see the ads.
If you are interested in learning more about these issues:
http://brightfuturejobs.com/
Years ago I LOL'd when Warren Buffett announced he was giving away a huge amount of his wealth to.....another hugely rich bastard, Bill Gates.
Later on I read that poor Warren Buffett lost millions in the global financial crisis.....and I almost shed a tear.....not!
The insanely rich got that way by being backstabbing, conniving, cheating bastards who'd stop at nothing to get their way. In the case of Bill Gates he's was never satisfied with becoming number one but also insisted on destroying his opponents and monopolising everything.
I've never gone for the total acceptance of people to hold such bastards in high esteem, to hang upon their every word as if they were gods and to consider their words and wants above those of wholly much more deserving people in society who try to make things better for everyone.
Perhaps there's the inbuilt carrot-on-a-stick mentality of capitalism that people have, that perhaps if they too work hard they'll become as rich as them as so can do what they like as well. - It's almost a religion.
I don't see Rupert Murdoch suddenly becoming pious and contrite, nor the like of Conrad Black et al.
Perhaps Gates can make a one-laptop-per-child policy come true.....just as long as Windows was on each one and an annual license fee was paid as well as updates each year......
Perhaps Murdoch could save billions of eco-valuable trees by offering quality cheap e-readers and doing away with newspapers completely.....just as long as they had a mandatory subscription to his newspapers and kept peddling mainstream propaganda and advertising......
And poor Conrad Black......dear old soul that he is rotting away in jail.....but he might soon be able to get out and who knows, he might go over to England, become a politician and invest public funds in duck ponds and moats all whilst holding a glass of Chardonnay in one hand and a part-time girlfriend fifty years his junior hanging off his arm......
Rich people like to think they know better than anyone, that they are the guiding hand of progress and possess the one true beacon of enlightenment shining out of their arses, but the only thing they ever have is an utterly selfish view of life and humanity and a determination to keep it that way no matter what.
Such lively, pungent verbal grapeshot will keep you young forever!
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
The money they are giving to charity was not earned, it was stolen through tax cuts, and it belongs to the citizens of the United States. Let them pay our taxes for a few years, and see how fast the economy will boom, and watch employment increase.
Here are the Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
From 1945 to 1963 (a time when the "middle class" was growing), the top US marginal income tax rates (taxable income over $200,000 to $400,000), ranged from 82% to 94%. These rates do not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, but did provide incentive to invest within our country in manufacturing etc. Today, the wealthy have very little "incentive" to invest in the U.S. and will invest wherever the biggest bang for the buck is. Most corporations are either multinational, pay little to no corporate income taxes, have huge tax loopholes and subsidies and very little incentive to invest in this country.
"Buffett's joined the good fight for higher taxes on his income."
Laura, get real, if Buffett were really serious he could buy enough Congress critters to make it happen. Besides which, with his "charitable donations" as tax deductions, he wouldn't wind up paying it anyway ....
Royce
Laura's story is going to need follow-up. Especially as regards "charity." Because if they equate "charity" with "non-profits", then that would include right-wing think tanks. Anyone know for sure?
Great Article ... Great comments. I wish my everyday discussions with people were this intelligent and enlightened.
In this age, they don't want to own the means of production, only the means of communication.
In this age, they don't want to own the means of production, only the means of communication.
In this age, they don't want to own the means of production, only the means of communication.
Great insight re "charity" and "faith-based initiatives" and what good government should do.
Charity is a construct for masking real problems. Charity distracts everyone from solving the root problem of society's ills, including warfare in the name of empire: economic injustice & inequality. I would prefer to live in a world where charity is NOT needed.
Watch this brilliant piece by Slavoj Zizek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
While I agree that some charitable organizations attempt to disguise social problems by throwing proverbial crumbs to quiet the masses (especially oversized and coercive organizations like the United Way), I strongly disagree that all nonprofit charters should be revoked and that no one should volunteer their services.
First of all, stating that "the whole system ends up doing what good government should do" is at worst irresponsible and at best uninformed and naive. Even without corporatist cronyism, "good government" is often an oxymoron because in a nation this large, nearly everything the government does is hierarchical and bureaucratic by design. In addition, I don't want to sit back and be a mindless consumer while our so-called "great leaders" take care of everything and everyone! If I hadn't donated time, money, and blood during the Bush/Cheney years, I think I would have died from despair. . .or at least gone insane.
FYI: http://cla.umn.edu/news/claToday/spring2006/snyder.php
Laura is wrong when she writes that charitable donations are 100% tax-deductible (apparently she's never made any, or at least has never claimed them on her own taxes). Charitable donations are approximately 30% tax-deductible. I don't donate what I can afford primarily to receive tax deductions, but I'm grateful that what I give to my local public library and the ACLU Foundation means that I pay a little less to fund Blackwater and Cheney's pension!
Finally, not everyone who donates money has a six-figure (or higher) income. People who have been in need are more likely to be generous than wealthy people, precisely because they remember what hardship is like. If more people voluntarily shared what they have with each other, we wouldn't need so many "big government" social programs OR large charities.