Fair enough, but not something personally agree with - why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government, so that they can choose where it goes. If you don't agree with the way the government works or spends, then it's time to help change that through voting and engaging in politics.
Otherwise only pet projects and passions get funded, while the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined.
Except "rich people trying to influence politics" is an easy attack line for those that disagree with the changes you are trying to make.
Mr Feeney is clearly someone who prefers operating out of the limelight, which is the exact opposite of the kind of personality who can use money to drive political change.
It also, in a very Carnegie fashion, shows the other way rich people can influence state spending. Offering money if the state does something (usually give money as well) in return. Carnegie used to give money for a town library if the town would pay for it's upkeep, Feeney offers money for universities and tech parks if the state chips in as well.
Much better than running a nebulous "I think government should be like this" campaign.
I say that because the term 'wealth redistribution' when it's used usually carries with it a loaded connotation, which I'm not sure if you meant to communicate across or not.
It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
Wealth redistribution is a term of art that has a meaning which isn't necessarily a negative.
In general, the problems with these programs is that they create dependency, and cannot be cut. When rough times come around, the first thing to be slashed are the citizen facing (and often job impacting) functions like street cleaning, police patrols and staffing at the city clerk's office.
As an example, in my US State, the Department of Transportation hasn't pruned trees and has reduced mowing at the roadside since 2009. The result? Traffic signs are obscured by branches (safety hazard), and the road drainage systems are going to be clogged by leaves and brush. This builds an implicit debt, as mowing grass and cutting trees is cheaper than rebuilding roads early and dealing with the human and financial costs of accidents. In the meantime, Medicaid spending automatically increases as much as 10-15% a year.
> It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
Many people disagree and believe that this end is much better served through charity than through (wasteful, bureaucratic, inherently un-personal) redistribution.
Tax planning for the purpose of charity is just "putting your money where your mouth is".
Social Security in the US is supposed to have minuscule overhead.
In Canada, even the government can't always be trusted to not give money to charity groups that are anti-gay -- individuals might find that a feature, not a bug, of the charity :P.
Knowing an accountant, I know that many charities put barely any of their income towards the actual charity (the legal minimum is 2%.. two percent!).
Breast cancer gets huge amounts of donations, while less glamourous, but more lethal cancers get much less.
I know that if I were to hit hard times, I'd rather have something not too personal, rather than feeling beholden to random people, nice and generous as they may be.
Plus, do we really want selfish people to keep the most money? :) Screw those people, give with the rest of us, with professionals deciding where the money goes, not random people's pet interests :P
Wow, did not know the US spent so much on healthcare, considering that it is not free for all. In the UK we spend about 10% GDP and it's free for everyone. Different set ups I know, but seems crazy to spend more, and then ask people to spend loads on health insurance.
"why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government"
1) Because governments, particularly democratic ones, tend to spread themselves very thin, change direction often, and serve to many masters, and lack an entrepreneurial surge of passion, they are less capable of unique, inspired, risk/reward, value proposition changes like talked about here.
2) Several inspired people taking different radical approaches is more likely to happen upon one that works. In short, he and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are hackers of super-scale.
Earning money needs a wealthy country to support you and your business. Why shouldn't you support the country that provided your wealth? And if your answer is that you will give to charity, then please answer the rest of my question above.
please enlighten me with your fully documented study supporting your conclusions. It does not take a wealthy country, it takes an individual willing to work hard and sacrifice. Anything else is just blame shifting.
We do support the country that provides our wealth - we participate in the local economy. We give to charity. We provide a valuable service to the community. We help others in need.
You seem to conflate paying taxes with supporting a country/region, when that is not the case.
First I ask the same of you, and the answer to my question, where are the charities cleaning the streets or changing street lights?
And good luck out side of the western world getting by with a hard working business owner to run any kind of high flying business. Good luck with the bribes you'll be paying the old USSR or India for example. Why do you think people are so keen to join our countries (presuming you are from Europe or the USA)?
Otherwise only pet projects and passions get funded, while the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined.
Just my 2pence