Notre Dame is burning - aka capitalism/wealth distribution discussion.

[Grim Lock]

Oh please, 60% return tax on gifts only serves the ones that indeed do donations of 100k or more. And again it's france we are talking about they've got a bit of history of problems with rich people.

And although im all about using taxes for social engineering, this is one i disagree with. So you went a bit to far as in trying to "educate" me on what taxes are for.

[BugMeister]

,,,Why does it have to be turned and bent into some nutty sociopoliticalphilosophical argument that must, inevitably, yield only ever one conclusion?

- hmmm..
- 'cos we're human..

- how can we be sure you're not a bot..??

[Morkonan]

...- how can we be sure you're not a bot..??

A bot would probably construct better posts.

Oh please, 60% return tax on gifts only serves the ones that indeed do donations of 100k or more. And again it's france we are talking about they've got a bit of history of problems with rich people.

And although im all about using taxes for social engineering, this is one i disagree with. So you went a bit to far as in trying to "educate" me on what taxes are for.

Yeah, those pesky rich people, always causing problems.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to "educate you." I don't know France's tax code. Maybe a 60% credit is fair over there? Or, maybe it's an adjusted credit that maxes out at 60% when other factors are calculated?

[Chips]

That article is pretty dire to be honest.

First, gift aid in the UK is pretty much what is referred to - in the sense that when I gift a pound, it's assumed I paid tax up to rate 20% on that pound, so the charity gets £0.20 as well as the £1. If you're higher rate, you can claim the extra 20% back.

Likewise, in inheritance you can do the same - leave to charity, and it's deducted from the tax bill. Indeed, this is the same for France, UK, USA... we all treat it the same.
So saying "it reduces their tax bill" - yes, it does. It is done to encourage being charitable. Do those individuals or companies get a tax break? Depends who is giving the money - the company, or the individual? If it's the individual, they've already paid tax on that income. If it's offsetting their current years tax bill, then okay, understand your gripe. They could give and look good instead of not giving and letting the state take it.
But the same goes for all of us. Companies get similar tax breaks if they invest - hence why Costa and the like manage to pay near zero corporation tax - because they can offset that Corporation tax (i think it's corp tax) against the cost of investment/expansion.

If such encouragement from the Government(s) nconcerns you so much - next time you give to Charity and have the option "Claim gift aid", you should not tick it - but instead donate 20% more. That'll settle anyone's own internal hypocrisy.

Adita Chakribati or whatever the Guardian writers name is (too lazy to look it up again) ignores the fact that ANYONE could donate and do the same, not just the super rich - but complains why it takes a disaster to get them to do anything?

Why is it we have to wait for Children in Need each year? Or "Red Nose Day". Or why wait for a particular disaster in some part of the world to be charitable? It's easy... the size and shock impacts and motivates people to give; being aware motivates people. No-one gave to the Notre Dame "we need funds to preserve" (despite the fact that's what caused the fire - the preservation work) because they either were unaware, or the plight didn't seem that big/immediate.

Castigating individuals and seeking to say "but it's tax beneficial" and "they're making themselves seem great when it just highlights inequality" is just, literally, sour grapes. "Why didn't you do this earlier? Why didn't you solve poverty". We've had 2000+ years to solve poverty, a one off £200,000,000 donation won't make a single difference to poverty. Individuals can't change society, they're not rich enough by half (Jeff Bezos, worlds richest man, couldn't even keep the NHS running for a year... and if he did, it wouldn't mean we suddenly had no issues ever again... it may delay it for a year) and it requires society as a whole to act.

You don't solve poverty by throwing money at it - much like solving Africa's starvation issues doesn't consist of throwing food at them for a year; it's an ongoing problem that needs some serious adjustments to address.
You can, however, rebuild a church by throwing money at it - and it's own normal fund raising and other activities will hopefully keep it going thereafter.

Yes, they may get a "tax break", but they're still losing £170 million. They may "look good" for doing it? So what? Stop being so callous and shallow. How much has Adita given? Sweet FA I imagine, but more than happy to criticise/lay into and get on their high horse at those who do.

[Mightysword]

It's great to see there are others who are able to see through and willingly to speak against cynicism.

It is sad to see it's necessary even during an event like this.

[BugMeister]

...- how can we be sure you're not a bot..??

A bot would probably construct better posts.

- touche..!!

[Morkonan]

That article is pretty dire to be honest.?..

Here's one: Billionaires raced to pledge money to rebuild Notre Dame then came the balcklash

...The Pinault family similarly released a statement saying: “The donation for Notre-Dame de Paris will not be subject to any tax deduction. The Pinault family considers that it is out of the question to burden French taxpayers.”...

They're refusing the tax credit.

And, this morning, I woke up to see news coverage of people rioting in France because of "rich people."

Rich People are something the majority of people are capable of hating, so they're an easy target. I'm sure everybody hates Bill Gates, no matter how many of his billions he's giving away. Warren Buffet gets the same treatment. Everyone loves Elon Musk, though, because he does "cool stuff" like "spaceships. He does some charitable stuff, too, but I think it's a bit more focused on tech development and the like. Oh well, nevermind, he's "rich" so there's a group somewhere that hates his guts, I'm sure.

These are all "rich people" though and surely worthy of hate. Hatred is easy. It's cheap, plentiful, and has a ready, built-in, motivation for people to add "blame" to it. "Hatred and Blame" mix well together and don't take a lot of thought or energy to apply to any situation, whether or not that situation is real or imagined.

[Chips]

Hatred is easy. It's cheap, plentiful, and has a ready, built-in, motivation for people to add "blame" to it. "Hatred and Blame" mix well together and don't take a lot of thought or energy to apply to any situation, whether or not that situation is real or imagined.

For me I can kind of understand the hatred (if we're all born equal, then it's opportunity perhaps in their mind, so they're envious they didn't get the same start... despite the fact it isn't just opportunity, but it helps). But it's articles like that one that annoy me intensely. The "Someone does good, but they deserve castigating for doing it, or not doing enough". Or they could do NOTHING and escape criticism and/or blame? Why are we trying to discourage charitable giving by the super rich? It should be encouraged - not sneered at and vilified. Who'd want to try and do good but be bashed again?

But it's the way some media outlets approach things. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/ ... ers-author

Several large grouse moor estates and Beeswax Dyson Farming, a farm owned by pro-Brexit businessman James Dyson, are also high on the list.

"boo, hiss, he's pro Brexit AND rich". Not a single other name listed had their political (or Brexit-ical) leaning listed. Why does it matter? Media opinion shaping, rather than just reporting. Because Guardian readers are very much remainers, and adding that line will indeed stoke some extra dislike for him. "Why, Brexit AND owns land that poor people should have?". Can't just name him, have to accentuate with further labels that fuel hate at the moment, to ensure getting the response they want. Utter contempt and hate, mixing Brexit hate to ensure the desired rich hate.

The article isn't there to examine land use, it's there to "highlight inequality in land ownership". Give everyone their half acre then, am sure they'll sell it back for monies in weeks...

[Grim Lock]

School shooting happens: No no we shouldn't be laking about guns right now, lets pray for the victims.
Iraqi war happens: No no we shouldn't be talking about america lied to get us involved, saddam is bad man
Church burns, Many donations are made while there's a stupid tax-exemption in effect: No no don't talk about the talk exemptions, the church, THE CHURCH!

Hmm when something can and cannot be spoken of sure is hard to follow.


Ps: if i had a problem with rich people in general, i'd have a hard time getting along with my brother, sisters and brother in law, i don't, i just can't be bothered with writing those essay long posts you have to if you want to nuance everything and be PC to everyone, then again i don't have to since so many rush to defence whenever such simplifications are used (even when it should be obvious that they're simplifications.)

Ps2: in this bold new post Trump era, doesn't that make me straight talker!?!? HAHAHA

[Morkonan]

For me I can kind of understand the hatred (if we're all born equal, then it's opportunity perhaps in their mind, so they're envious they didn't get the same start... despite the fact it isn't just opportunity, but it helps). But it's articles like that one that annoy me intensely. The "Someone does good, but they deserve castigating for doing it, or not doing enough". Or they could do NOTHING and escape criticism and/or blame? Why are we trying to discourage charitable giving by the super rich? It should be encouraged - not sneered at and vilified. Who'd want to try and do good but be bashed again?

But it's the way some media outlets approach things. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/ ... ers-author

Agreed.

There's the "Human Rights" side that is pretty simple to understand - All human beings are equal. That's generously applied to "under the Law" and, in the most hopeful cases, in "opportunity." It's applied to basic needs and humanitarianism and empathy and a host of other issues. BUT, it's applied proactively, not retroactively.

Here is the stuff, do with it what you will <-Proactive
"I don't have the same stuff you do, give me the same stuff" <-Retroactive

The defining difference is how a cutlure/society defines the individual and their empowerment and responsibility in determining their own fate. IF the society is truly concerned about such things, the individual will be afforded all the same "opportunities" for life, liberty and the pursuit of stuffs as anyone else. The rest is up to them, supposedly. For those in special circumstances or where they have been unable to get their stuffs through no fault of their own, there are entitlement programs and government agencies working for their benefit to help them.

And, then there's the newly-minted twenty-something who's studying "Ancient Basket Weaving in the Iron Age" in a government funded learning institution while wearing an "Eat The Rich" hoodie at the "UNFAIR ECONOMY RALLY." ... ... No responsibility. Few bills of any significance. Has never actually been hungry before. Balls dropped yesterday... And, they're screaming "Eat the rich?"

Sorry, it's been a bad day. The point is that there are surely undeniable inequalities in life that our societies must respond to. We have to. It's why we want to have "societies" in the first place and we want to be "good" people, right? Right! But, some of this crap is oversensationalized to such a degree that it's getting a bit dangerous. "Rich People" aren't inherently "Evil." And, "Poor People" are not inherently "Lazy" either!

"boo, hiss, he's pro Brexit AND rich". Not a single other name listed had their political (or Brexit-ical) leaning listed. Why does it matter? Media opinion shaping, rather than just reporting. Because Guardian readers are very much remainers, and adding that line will indeed stoke some extra dislike for him. "Why, Brexit AND owns land that poor people should have?". Can't just name him, have to accentuate with further labels that fuel hate at the moment, to ensure getting the response they want. Utter contempt and hate, mixing Brexit hate to ensure the desired rich hate.

The article isn't there to examine land use, it's there to "highlight inequality in land ownership". Give everyone their half acre then, am sure they'll sell it back for monies in weeks...

This is why individual responsibility in consumption of information is important.

But, it's not easy.

John Q Public might be working 80 hours a week. His favorite sports page just happens to be sponsored by that news site. What's he supposed to do? Spend an hour just reading background articles and citations or comparing alternative views and dissenting opinions? OR, is he going to read that article after dinner and then get ready for work the next day before going to bed? He's not stupid. He's just got "real life" to go live. He's got stuff that needs doing. It's no mystery that "landed gentlemen" and "aristocratic naturalists" were the primary philosophers and scientists back in the day - They had the time to sift through stuffs. And the money... And the resources... and who they knew.

A disparity exists between the rich and the poor. We know this. What causes it? We do. Why? Ahh... there's the rub.

For myself, as long as The People agree to it and do not seek to persecute the minority of those that may not and as long as whatever it is faithfully serves the Greater Good, I'm fine with whatever eco-poltiical institution any nation wants to set up for themselves. Eating the rich or the poor, however, would not be something I'd agree anyone should do.

Note: For On-Topic purposes, the thing here is that a group of people have managed to turn this true travesty of an event into a "political platform." It's not really unusual, I guess, since most major events are used by some people to propel themselves to the forefront in some way. But, it seems to have hit a big nerve in France and I don't really know enough about how most citizens feel about things nor exactly why some seem to feel so strongly. Are they trying to string up the Pope? If not, why not? He's "rich." What's their opinion about J.K. Rowling? She's still "rich" even after giving away a lot of money. Or, is it just the "rich people" that they don't like? Maybe just the ugly ones? The ones with speech impediments or a lazy eye? Anyway, the subject wasn't just raised in this thread for no reason - It's happening in France as a direct result of the Notre Dame fire an the outpouring of public support for restoring it. Apparently, when money is needed to restore a church, it shouldn't be donated by rich people...

[Grim Lock]

It's not hatred chips, and mork it's not just about rich people (it's more about the power that comes with wealth) but to really understand why in France this is particulary a sensitive subject, you'd either really have to read up on their history and culure today, or go live there for a while, French culture compares very badly to English and American culture when it comes to money and status.

But in general i will say this: It's almost never the wrong time to adress something that's a problem.

[Morkonan]

...But in general i will say this: It's almost never the wrong time to adress something that's a problem.

First, though, one must define the "problem."

That's something that people have a very difficult time doing these days. It is not an infrequent occurrence that someone who may have their own motivations for something, which differ from the subject at hand, stands up and yells that there is a "problem" and starts putting forth inflammatory or near-violent ways to solve it... without first proving that it's a problem.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying that we can't fix something if we don't know what's broke, first.

[Bishop149]

To sum: If they hadn't donated in the first place, nothing much would have likely changed in their year-to-year tax liability to begin with. (Unless their investment advisors were idiots, one assumes.) With the donation, converting investments into ready cash which would likely cause a taxable event, the rich person donates 100 million monies and is gifted with a 60% credit for that, leaving 40 million monies as a taxable amount.

If that was true then they wouldn't be jumping at this potential tax write off like a starving man for a crust of bread.
The capitalists are treating the fire as a cash grab . . . . it's as simple as that.
Last I heard they were pushing for a 90% write-off

I'll also just share this bit of good news thanks to " the power of social media".
It was pointed out with complete accuracy that whilst Notre Dame will certainly get it's money, whether from the French government, populace or donations (well intention ed or otherwise :roll), three churches in Louisiana that were burned down as a result of racist arson attacks probably wouldn't . . . . indeed at the time Notre Dame went up I think the campaign below was sitting at around $20,000 / $1,800,000.
Well, I'm glad to report that thanks to several high profile people picking this point up that campaign is now fully funded.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/church-fires ... a-ministry

[Morkonan]

If that was true then they wouldn't be jumping at this potential tax write off like a starving man for a crust of bread.
The capitalists are treating the fire as a cash grab . . . . it's as simple as that.
Last I heard they were pushing for a 90% write-off

And, the ones who are refusing the tax-credit? They're treating it as a cash-grab, too?

[Bishop149]

And, the ones who are refusing the tax-credit? They're treating it as a cash-grab, too?

And who would those be?
I googled it and found two prominent examples. . . . both of whom are in fact simply ineligible because they have already hit their limit for tax deductions this year.
But yes, I suppose there might be some capitalists out there for whom this would be TOO comicbook villian-like even for them.

[Morkonan]

And, the ones who are refusing the tax-credit? They're treating it as a cash-grab, too?

And who would those be?
I googled it and found two prominent examples. . . . both of whom are in fact simply ineligible because they have already hit their limit for tax deductions this year.
But yes, I suppose there might be some capitalists out there for whom this would be TOO comicbook villian-like even for them.

So...

They've already hit their limit in deductions? So, either they lost a bunch of money or they donated a bunch of money already.

If there is just one righteous rich person, will you spare them? Just one.

[Mightysword]

So let me ask a simple question: you would prefer these people not to donating "anything" at all?

I'm willingly to bet that if that is the case, then there are going to be some people out there yelling that "THE RICH IS SELFISH AND NOT CHARITABLE".

[Usenko]

If I may be a little blunt, I think at least part of the REAL issue behind the upset for many people is:

"These people are donating to causes that I don't approve of, and I don't like it."

[Bishop149]

So let me ask a simple question: you would prefer these people not to donating "anything" at all?

Do you honestly not understand the economic difference between me donating £20 and billionaire donating £200M?
This is not an issue that can be boiled down to a black and white answer.

Nevertheless, to attempt to answer your question with the nuance it deserves:
I would prefer that such obscene wealth did not exist and this was a question that therefore didn't require asking.
I would prefer that charitable donations could safely be assumed to be motivated by altruism rather than it's exact opposite due to the built in inequalities of capitalist economics.

[Mightysword]

Do you honestly not understand the economic difference between me donating £20 and billionaire donating £200M?
This is not an issue that can be boiled down to a black and white answer.

Nevertheless, to attempt to answer your question with the nuance it deserves:
I would prefer that such obscene wealth did not exist and this was a question that therefore didn't require asking.
I would prefer that charitable donations could safely be assumed to be motivated by altruism rather than it's exact opposite due to the built in inequalities of capitalist economics.

In another word, this is all about you and not about those in need isn't it?

I don't know what is this "difference" you are referring to between a $20 and a 200M, but let's me tell you one difference that I know: that $200M - no matter what is the intend behind it - will help a lot more of the people in need than the $20 can. As someone who can only afford to donate $20, I know that $200M will go a lot farther reaching the people in need, and in the context of charity that's the most important things matter for me.

I expect nothing less for an answer really, after all I had stood many time against this kind of thinking. Instead of typing it out again I'll just copy and paste my latest from a few months back:

... I think there are 4 types of people involved in the Charity circle:

- Type 1: the people who are in need. They desperate, they look for comfort and sign of hope. And when you provide their next meal and a piece of clothe, they'll say thank you and god bless you. Rarely would they ask what is your motive or where the stuffs you gave them came from.
- Type 2: the "charity is from the heart" people. They do charity work for the shake of charity, and they know full well there will always be more of those in need then those who give. That's why they welcome any help they can get (as long as you don't rop a bank to donate), but because they believe charity is from the heart, most don't turn it into a hard obligation. That's where the "give as much or as little as you want, even one dollar will help" slogan at most charity work comes from.
- Type 3: the people do charity with ulterior motive. Usually the big players, but they may no tnecessary giving to help. Doesn't change the fact their donation will help as much as those from type 2 though.
- Type 4: and here is what I call the Kool-Aid people. Some does a bit of charity themselves, some often does nothing. But they are the one who walk around with a loud speaker, on one hand will say "YOU EARN A LOT SO YOU CAN GIVE A LOT MORE, WHAT YOU'RE DONATING IS NOT ENOUGH!!!", and on the other hand they will say "YOU ONLY GIVE THIS MUCH TO AVOID TAX, OR TO BUY FAME, YOUR CHARITY DOES NOT COUNT SHAME ON YOU!"

And I can assure you, even though we all have different background and circumstance, most of the Type 1, 2, and 3 tend to look at Type 4 and wonder "what the **** is your problem?". See, when the type 4 make these arguments, they don't make it for the shake of the people in need, they make it for their own ego. It's the samething for the this situation though, I don't remember a lot of people were trying to make a case on behalf of those who suffered ...

Try to approach an argument and not making it about you sometime, it'll help, and it's called perspective.