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

[Bishop149]

. . and it looks REALLY bad.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1117837195950399488
Last I saw most of the roof had collapsed and the spire was all but burnt away.

Absolutely tragic, probably the 2nd most famous historic structure in France, irreplaceable.
I can only hope that noone has been hurt

[Warenwolf]

Sad day

Most likely cause, according to the officials, is the renovation work which Notre Dame was undergoing - ironically since the purpose of that project was an effort to save the deterioration of the almost 1000 year old building.

[Alan Phipps]

It made me think back to the disastrous fire at Windsor Castle in 1992, but this one is even more tragic for the country's people and national heritage.

[Morkonan]

A terrible thing... Let's hope that it can be saved. The damage is extensive, claiming important architectural achievements significant for us all. I'm still waiting like many to learn the full extent of the damage, so it's really hard to cope with what happened with so little information right now. Just gotta wait.

[Bishop149]

Its looking like it could have been much worse.
Near complete destruction of the roof and spire but much of the underlying stone structure looks intact, only a portion of the vault collapsed.
Even many of the windows look intact, which I admit surprises me.
Also apparently due to the renovations much of the art and items of religious significance had already been removed.
Most importantly only one person was hurt, a firefighter has been "seriously injured". . . . here's hoping for a speedy and complete recovery.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47945465

[RegisterMe]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47947745

[Morkonan]

Some stuffs from Imgur. (I'm a big fan and lurk there all the time. Good stuff from people all over the world as long as you sift through the crap. Also - Run a script-blocker, just 'cause. They had issues with bad ads awhile back.)

Rose Window survives fire - https://imgur.com/gallery/gUIUjPn

Short vid taken two days before the fire - https://imgur.com/gallery/RzddXXl

[Usenko]

I have a jumble of thoughts about this. Some of which will be a little counter cultural. Anyways . . .

1) It's awful to see a historic building damaged.

2) The church was not affected. The building is not the church; the church is the people who meet therein. The church could meet in the local public school hall whilst their building is repaired.

3) In a hundred years, this event will be part of the history of this building. Repairs should not merely ape what was there previously; instead they should honour the previous roof, but also represent the best of what today's craftsmen and women can achieve.

[Observe]

2) The church was not affected. The building is not the church; the church is the people who meet therein.

True. Sometimes we create a false narrative about an object that overshadows the true meaning of it.

There is something to be said about the lessons from Tibetan Sand Mandalas. These incredibly intricate and beautiful paintings are painstakingly created and then destroyed shortly thereafter. This is intended to demonstrate that all things are impermanent and that we should not become attached to things that are transitory.

From my Bible study years, I always found Matthew 6:19 and 6:20 to be relevant:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

[BugMeister]

- and yet..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inequality

- hmmm...

[Morkonan]

- and yet..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inequality

- hmmm...

How dare rich people try to give money for a good cause!

[Grim Lock]

The main problem is that apart from one or two exceptions, they'll get 60% back through taxes, so if a guy would donate 100mil, it will put a strain of 60mil on the treasury. So in the end a rich dude doing a nice donation isn't actually him doing most of the donating it's the tax-payer.

So mork, more going on than just bashing rich dudes for beeing rich.

[Morkonan]

The main problem is that apart from one or two exceptions, they'll get 60% back through taxes, so if a guy would donate 100mil, it will put a strain of 60mil on the treasury. So in the end a rich dude doing a nice donation isn't actually him doing most of the donating it's the tax-payer.

So mork, more going on than just bashing rich dudes for beeing rich.

...

Are you saying that the French government will be responsible for paying "back" 60 million monies to a rich person who donates 100 million monies?

This is how they make sense of taxes in France?

If one wishes to really try to make sense of deductions and tax-xredits, a donation of 100 million monies likely involves the liquidation of at least some short-term assets and investments, liquidations that would have otherwise, if the rich person hadn't decided to donate, have not taken place. And, if they had not taken place it is very unlikely the assets would have presented an otherwise appreciable tax event. (Depending on the instrument and how France does the whole tax stuff thing...)

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. The intricate details of the French Tax-System being unknown by this poster, I can see where it could benefit a rich person to donate some monies... But, that is why such tax credits and deductions exist in the first place. Nations like to encourage such things.

But, it's hardly fair to say that France will now have to pay the rich person 60 million monies. It's not even known what their total tax liability would have been in the first place. Presumably, they have the funds to take advantage of all the already-existing loopholes and deductions by structuring their investments accordingly.

And, if France itself had to step in and fund 100 million additional monies to help reconstruct a national icon and a world-heritage site because rich people didn't donate monies? Well, that's OK then, right?

It's their money. If they want to donate some of that why can't people just say "Thank you" or "mercy buckets" and just move on? Why does it have to be turned and bent into some nutty sociopoliticalphilosophical argument that must, inevitably, yield only ever one conclusion?

[Grim Lock]

Because that's the state of society right now, and in France this is more relevant if you look at their history.

Personally i don't understand at all why we should stimulate generous behavior through taxation, i'd rather have taxes be used to discourage greedy behavior, there's a big difference.

[Morkonan]

Because that's the state of society right now, and in France this is more relevant if you look at their history.

Personally i don't understand at all why we should stimulate generous behavior through taxation, i'd rather have taxes be used to discourage greedy behavior, there's a big difference.

One of the uses of a nation's implementation of a "Tax System" is to encourage or discourage consumer/economic behavior. It's one of the things a government can do in order to direct fiscal policy at the lowest levels. Governments can manipulate the economic behavior of citizens and industries by instituting certain tax policies. These can even be temporary in times where something like "investment in economic infrastructure" would be critical for the overall health of the nation's economy.

Back around a hundred years ago or so, private institutions that did things like "care for the poor, indigent, and hungry" were all the rage. And, for the most part, these things were successful. Mostly run by religious groups, churches and similar institutions and benevolence societies, they "worked." They managed to do something that was critical for social and political stability. They "gave bread to the masses" and if they hadn't done that, the "masses would choose to take the bread by force."

Today, however, that's just not possible. It can't be done in most modern Western societies. Some would complain that this is because people hoard wealth and it's the fault of the rich that the poor don't have money. (All avialabe moneies - rich people's monies x (handwaving) => Poor people) Some would say it's the chosen political system and that others would be more effective, even though its doubtful widescreen televisions would have been invented in such societies. BUT, no matter the "why" the fact is that all societies have some form of an indigent population and these people must have their basic needs met by some sort of means else they will act to destabilize society.

If teh gubbermint can't, through some way or another, ensure these things are cared for, things will go badly wrong..

But, there are other things that are necessary, too. Things like "art" and "social needs" and "cultural enrichment" and all that other stuff which is the reason we work and try to make monies in the first place. These are things that keep us from becoming ants or wrench-turning monkeys. We do place value on things other than our chosen political systems and what political party is screaming at the other, if we have the luxury of multiple political parties. We like going to the park and sometimes enjoy free music and like watching artsy-fartsy stuff on free television channels. We like museums and learning about history and nature and where milkshakes come from.

If a government decide something is needed and it can't or won't provide for it, it can encourage private citizens and institutions to provide such things instead. And, it uses Tax Incentives as the primary economic tool to do that. In Western societies, these forms of incentives are what help encourage critical social and cultural needs being met without the government otherwise having to provide it itself, which may cause greater problems and expense.

Sorry for the length and sorry about being a blowhard, but tax incentives and the like are good things and are necessary and too many people try to use them to prop up arguments for which they really aren't suitable. Not saying you're doing that, but many groups with political messages they're trying to promote try to use them to support their own arguments and it's just not right.

[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.