I’m seeing lots of schadenfreude about the guy “losing” $200 billion. It benefits no one. A better way would be to tax the megabillionaires fairly: i.e., returning the bulk of their wealth to the society that made them rich in the first place.
I’m seeing lots of schadenfreude about the guy “losing” $200 billion. It benefits no one. A better way would be to tax the megabillionaires fairly: i.e., returning the bulk of their wealth to the society that made them rich in the first place.
@JamesGleick
Andrew Carnegie, once one of America's richest, supported heavy inheritance taxes as a means to return "the people's share" upon one's death. In 1906, he wrote in "The Gospel of Wealth -II" that:
"Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are always silent partners."¹
So, he supported your suggestion for taxes on billionaires with the aim of "returning the bulk of their wealth to the society that made them rich in the first place."
@bobwyman @JamesGleick
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of Carnegie supporting heavy inheritance taxes.
Buffett famously does too and declared back in '86 that his kids would receive only “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”
Meanwhile, each kid has been gifted $2b+ to each of the foundations the kids run.
That's not exactly supportive of an inheritance tax—quite the opposite. Watch what they do, not what they say.
@bobwyman
I should have been clearer. You wrote:
"Andrew Carnegie, once one of America's richest, supported heavy inheritance taxes as a means to return "the people's share" upon one's death"
An inheritance tax suggests that the government gets the money upon death. Neither Carnegie nor Buffett has or will "returned the people's share" upon death. Their money went to foundations and charities of their choice, not to taxes.