(no subject)
Jun. 10th, 2006 02:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't care what anyone says. I very much like and respect Bill Gates and his family. Not only for his Foundation (which is currently in talks with the drug company about distributing the cervical cancer vaccine to developing countries), but also for this (actually by his father, but it shows the family he came from).
At the root of the opposition to the tax is a complete failure to recognize the source of wealth in our society. Individual entrepreneurs, investors and business owners are engines of economic activity and wealth - and should be rewarded for their risks and efforts. But without a robust system of public investments, infrastructure and government-funded research, they would be unable to make or keep their wealth. ...
But many U.S.-born wealthy people subscribe to the "I Did It Alone" theory of wealth creation. They don't acknowledge or feel any obligation to pay our society back for the fertile environment that made their wealth creation possible.
It is appalling that there are people with estates valued at more than $50 million or $100 million or $1 billion who are resentful at being able to pass on only 65% or 75% of their wealth to their heirs. There is no great societal goal served by massive amounts of inherited wealth.
I greatly resented the state funeral given here to Kerry Packer. He was a man proud of the fact that he didn't pay tax. Yes, he was a good businessman, but he didn't do it alone, it was partly inherited and his wealth creation was made possible by our society. He didn't consider himself a part of our society, so I don't know why our money was spent on him.
At the root of the opposition to the tax is a complete failure to recognize the source of wealth in our society. Individual entrepreneurs, investors and business owners are engines of economic activity and wealth - and should be rewarded for their risks and efforts. But without a robust system of public investments, infrastructure and government-funded research, they would be unable to make or keep their wealth. ...
But many U.S.-born wealthy people subscribe to the "I Did It Alone" theory of wealth creation. They don't acknowledge or feel any obligation to pay our society back for the fertile environment that made their wealth creation possible.
It is appalling that there are people with estates valued at more than $50 million or $100 million or $1 billion who are resentful at being able to pass on only 65% or 75% of their wealth to their heirs. There is no great societal goal served by massive amounts of inherited wealth.
I greatly resented the state funeral given here to Kerry Packer. He was a man proud of the fact that he didn't pay tax. Yes, he was a good businessman, but he didn't do it alone, it was partly inherited and his wealth creation was made possible by our society. He didn't consider himself a part of our society, so I don't know why our money was spent on him.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 09:22 am (UTC)Except that there is a far better developed tradition of philanthropy in the US. It's not just the Gates Foundation: Ted Turner regularly pays the entirety of the US's UN dues, for example. The rich here in Australia seem to have avoided this particular tradition.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 02:28 pm (UTC)There will always be giving people and then people like Kerry Packer who waste millions on things like gambling. They're in every country. I understand the first type, I in no way understand the second type.