US billionaire clears 400 student loans.
Discussion
dvs_dave said:
Fittster said:
dvs_dave said:
Fittster said:
21TonyK said:
I
Just goes to reinforce the point that many modern wealthy people realise they have far more money than they need and that they can do a far greater good be it through donations, foundations or legacies.
Although rather than relying on the whims of the 0.01% it would be possible to change the tax system.Just goes to reinforce the point that many modern wealthy people realise they have far more money than they need and that they can do a far greater good be it through donations, foundations or legacies.
Yea, I think I know which way works better.
Looking at inequality measures in the US I'm sure I know what is right. As a recent UK report stated, a good way of looking at this is:
"To understand whether inequality is a problem, we need to understand the sources of inequality, views of what is fair and the implications of inequality as well as the levels of inequality. Are present levels of inequalities due to well-deserved rewards or to unfair bargaining power, regulatory failure or political capture?
Yes, of course all that extra tax income would be spent exclusively on higher education by the government. As opposed to just entering into a black hole of unaccountable waste, or as you seem to think, some sort of anti-inequality scheme. It's not as Billionaire agree with you.
"Warren Buffett doesn’t think the rich in America are paying enough in taxes. “The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population,”
Bill Gates, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”
Positive discrimination can be tricky, as on one hand it helps close gaps in inequality but on the other, it always leaves me uncomfortable when people aren't chosen on merit - all female shortlists in political parties for instance
However when it comes to private individuals choosing where to gift their legally earned money, people should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. Whether that's black people, women, christians, whatever. It's very common in the UK for minorities to donate to causes that primarily benefit said minority - what on earth is wrong with that ?
And if it holds huge tax benefits, I say great - win win. Perhaps if those tax benefits weren't there the donations wouldn't be made. I get the feeling some people might prefer that, just so the donor doesn't get the credit (both the recognition and the tax break), even though it means the recipients no longer get the money. It really is astonishing
These days if a rich person spends his money on flashy trinkets, they are criticised for not donating the money to charity. If they donate to charity, its just a tax dodge. If they assist their kids with private education and healthcare, its not fair on less privileged kids. But if they don't use their money for anything and leave it in the bank, quite literally everybody is worse off. Providing people earn or inherit) their money legally and pay their full tax share as dictated by the laws of the country they live in, they can spend their money however they want.
However when it comes to private individuals choosing where to gift their legally earned money, people should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. Whether that's black people, women, christians, whatever. It's very common in the UK for minorities to donate to causes that primarily benefit said minority - what on earth is wrong with that ?
And if it holds huge tax benefits, I say great - win win. Perhaps if those tax benefits weren't there the donations wouldn't be made. I get the feeling some people might prefer that, just so the donor doesn't get the credit (both the recognition and the tax break), even though it means the recipients no longer get the money. It really is astonishing
These days if a rich person spends his money on flashy trinkets, they are criticised for not donating the money to charity. If they donate to charity, its just a tax dodge. If they assist their kids with private education and healthcare, its not fair on less privileged kids. But if they don't use their money for anything and leave it in the bank, quite literally everybody is worse off. Providing people earn or inherit) their money legally and pay their full tax share as dictated by the laws of the country they live in, they can spend their money however they want.
chow pan toon said:
Someone clears millions of dollars of student debt, directly removing a millstone from hundreds of young people's necks right at the beginning of their lives and literally the first post is a sneer because most of them were black.
I think NP&E has just been completed.
Don’t forget about tax breaks and tax rates.I think NP&E has just been completed.
PH really is populated with depressingly joyless people.
Randy Winkman said:
Noodle1982 said:
Black Loans Matter.
Or "men's loans matter" since it is all-male. In fact, it seems to be more male than black. Reason for that is that it is a very expensive private college, up there with Ivy League. The other historically black colleges were value for money oriented, so have become much more mixed.
But if you are non Black, and wanting to spend that much on college, Ivy League has more kudos. But for a certain section of well off Black Americans, Morehouse still has ‘pull’
I guess the UK equivalent would be Ampleforth vs Eton. You would be unlikely to send your kid to Ampleforth, unless you are Catholic from a upper crust background, even though you don’t have to be catholic to go there
Ironic that he donated to a college where the students are relatively well off. The less prestigious ‘black’ schools would have students with more need (ie Kentucky State, Tennessee State)
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 21st May 08:31
Fittster said:
Why on earth would you believe taxation simply results in a 'black hole of unaccountable waste'? Look around you and you'll see huge amounts of public services. Do you really think all health and education spending is waste?
It's not as Billionaire agree with you.
"Warren Buffett doesn’t think the rich in America are paying enough in taxes. “The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population,”
Bill Gates, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”
It's not as Billionaire agree with you.
"Warren Buffett doesn’t think the rich in America are paying enough in taxes. “The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population,”
Bill Gates, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”
So you think that the government spends all of its tax income extremely wisely and with out excessive waste? Therefore the extremely wealthy should be taxed much more because their additional contributions (the total of which is actually negligible in the grand scheme) would be stewarded with equal diligence and efficiency for the absolute best of the the country and its citizens.
Seriously?
Fittster said:
dvs_dave said:
Fittster said:
dvs_dave said:
Fittster said:
21TonyK said:
I
Just goes to reinforce the point that many modern wealthy people realise they have far more money than they need and that they can do a far greater good be it through donations, foundations or legacies.
Although rather than relying on the whims of the 0.01% it would be possible to change the tax system.Just goes to reinforce the point that many modern wealthy people realise they have far more money than they need and that they can do a far greater good be it through donations, foundations or legacies.
Yea, I think I know which way works better.
Looking at inequality measures in the US I'm sure I know what is right. As a recent UK report stated, a good way of looking at this is:
"To understand whether inequality is a problem, we need to understand the sources of inequality, views of what is fair and the implications of inequality as well as the levels of inequality. Are present levels of inequalities due to well-deserved rewards or to unfair bargaining power, regulatory failure or political capture?
Yes, of course all that extra tax income would be spent exclusively on higher education by the government. As opposed to just entering into a black hole of unaccountable waste, or as you seem to think, some sort of anti-inequality scheme. It's not as Billionaire agree with you.
"Warren Buffett doesn’t think the rich in America are paying enough in taxes. “The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population,”
Bill Gates, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”
dvs_dave said:
So you think that the government spends all of its tax income extremely wisely and with out excessive waste? Therefore the extremely wealthy should be taxed much more because their additional contributions (the total of which is actually negligible in the grand scheme) would be stewarded with equal diligence and efficiency for the absolute best of the the country and its citizens.
Seriously?
In the US, the (to me) idiotic Citizens United ruling (money = freezpeech) has given the extremely wealthy on both sides way too much influence.
While I do think the market is by far the best way to allocate resources, where it breaks down is when the ultra wealthy start spending money in a non market driven way - whether that be Soros, Koch Brothers, or even something as trivial as the disruptive impact of sugar daddies in the EPL. Because they have the power to disrupt the market.
Some have alluded to it here- is it good for society if a billionaire decides to give (say) all but only black males free college education? It would be wrong for a government to discriminate like this.
chow pan toon said:
Someone clears millions of dollars of student debt, directly removing a millstone from hundreds of young people's necks right at the beginning of their lives and literally the first post is a sneer because most of them were black.
I think NP&E has just been completed.
100% this. It wouldn’t have been mentioned if Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson paid off the student loans of a load of white kids at Oxford. I think NP&E has just been completed.
Why not look at it this way, even if this guy has done this for less than as altruistic reasons, even if it was for tax reasons, he has done it and it will make a huge, tangible difference to the lucky recipients. Yes he could have given to any charity then seen how much % actually went to help the cause in question. Jeez, this is a good thing that has been done regardless the motive, and even if it was racially or culturally motivated it is A GOOD THING. Can we all, at least, agree on that?
biggbn said:
Why not look at it this way, even if this guy has done this for less than as altruistic reasons, even if it was for tax reasons...
There seems to be some confusion here. In the US, charitable gifts are deductible from your pre tax income. For example if you earn 50 million and give away 10 you can deduct the 10 and report an income of 40. If your income tax rate is 40% then you're giving away 10m and not paying 4m in tax on it. You're still 6m worse off than you would have been if you just kept the money and paid tax on it. wisbech said:
Define waste and wise expenditure... a 300m usd mega yacht is an amazing thing, but not a wise thing, and arguably a waste vs the same on infrastructure.
That depends on what your remit is. A mega yacht bought for a voted in public official with public funds would be very unwise. For a billionaire, it’s their money so why not? Would you rather they had that money directly taken off them in the form of a punitive tax on the mega rich? It’s not like it doesn’t help support a whole industry of highly paid jobs, and suppliers, all of whom pay significant taxes themselves.What would the government then do with that tax? Would tax take on the mega rich be ring-fenced and only permitted to be spent on what someone like yourself regards as a worthy cause? Infrastructure, higher education, NHS, unemployment benefits? Or would it just disappear into the pot, never to appreciably be seen again? What do you think would happen?
Some simple examples; the UK government wastes billions by poorly managing the NHS who are constantly asking for more funding. They have plenty of funding, they just need to manage it better and not constantly be stepping on their own dicks with endless stupid descisions/contracts. Countless stories over the years to corroborate this. The civil service is also a massive black hole of bloat and expense (particularly under labor stewardship) that breeds inefficiency and subsequently jobs for the boys.
Name one government agency that has a reputation for being frugal and wise with its expenditure whilst also achieving great results, and not endlessly requesting more funding.
fblm said:
There seems to be some confusion here. In the US, charitable gifts are deductible from your pre tax income. For example if you earn 50 million and give away 10 you can deduct the 10 and report an income of 40. If your income tax rate is 40% then you're giving away 10m and not paying 4m in tax on it. You're still 6m worse off than you would have been if you just kept the money and paid tax on it.
Yup, I got that...still, a good thing to have done, thoughtful, makes an instant tangible difference.dvs_dave said:
Name one government agency that has a reputation for being frugal and wise with its expenditure whilst also achieving great results, and not endlessly requesting more funding.
The problem is that the way I understand the funding works is : IF you are frugal and wise, next year your budget is reduced. But if you spend the lot, your budget next year may be increased....... This is why at year end suddenly roads get fixed to empty the budget.... 
chow pan toon said:
Someone clears millions of dollars of student debt, directly removing a millstone from hundreds of young people's necks right at the beginning of their lives and literally the first post is a sneer because most of them were black.
I think NP&E has just been completed.
No, that's not right at all. Where's the sneer apart from in your head?I think NP&E has just been completed.
First sentence of my post 'Good on him'.
Second sentence, 'Was it just blacks?'
The point being if a white philanthropist decided to clear only white student loans there would be a hue and cry about racism.
Looks like you're reading what you want to read.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff