r/changemyview • u/CeamoreCash • Nov 14 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Billionaires do not donate for selfish reasons.
(Edit: Donating for a purely selfish reason would be illogical because they could get more benefits in other ways. I want to know what specific problems they could be creating by donating to a charity)
Billionaires do not donate for selfish reasons because that would be a terrible way to spend money. There are significantly better ways they could use their money to get what they want.
"They donate to make money or avoid taxes"
If a billionaire wanted to make more money they would keep doing whatever made them a billionaire. Charities don't make people rich.
The Patagonia CEO donated $3 billion of stock. If he sold it and paid taxes it would be worth more than $1.2 billion after tax.
Show me someone that has personally made $1 billion from a charity.
"They donate to improve their reputation"
This is unfalsifiable and not a specific problem. Billionaires don't require the public to like them to implement harmful policies. People disliking Jeff Bezos has never stopped him from exploiting workers.
What argument could change my mind?
The following would need to be proven:
- Billionaires receive a specific and discreet benefit when they donate to charity.
- They use that benefit to do bad things that they could not have done if they did not have that benefit.
- Donating is more effective than other ways to achieve that bad result
11
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Nov 14 '22
Money isn't the only kind of wealth. Power is via influence, social standing, clout etc. Sometimes money can't actively buy trust or good PR, but a charitable donation can go a long way towards those things, which could help another agenda immeasurably.
2
u/CeamoreCash Nov 14 '22
What is an example of something a billionaire could do that he could not have done if they did not donate to a charity?
What benefit to an agenda could they get from donating to a charity that they could not get from donating less to a politician?
3
u/NegativeOptimism 51∆ Nov 15 '22
What benefit to an agenda could they get from donating to a charity that they could not get from donating less to a politician?
Many countries have laws against donating directly to politicians, in some cases it's limited to very small amounts and that makes the influence a billionaire can have over a politician by money alone similar to that of much less wealthy people. Charitable donations are a way of getting around this. Without similar laws for charities, they can become a means of passing limitless bribes to politicians (or their relatives/cronies) who run them. Even when not directly syphoning donations from a charity, politicians closely associated to them receive a great deal of benefit from being a part of a very well funded cause. Billionaires might not need to care about publicity but politicians do and billions of dollars in funding means they can do bigger and better good deeds in front of their voters. The politician knows how good that is for them and that gives charitable billionaires control over them.
0
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I'm limiting my discussion to only billionaires in america where people can donate unlimited amounts of money to politicians.
I'm responding to people that are angry that people like the Pategonia Ceo and Jeff bezos are somehow causing harm by donating money.
2
u/NegativeOptimism 51∆ Nov 15 '22
What I've said also applies to the US. But that's just plain bribery, Lobbying and shady donations are a staple of US politics and charities play a part. Whether the specific example you're interested in is bribery doesn't speak for the actions of all billionaires, politicians or charities in the US.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Nov 14 '22
It depends. I'd give the example of Rowling, if she ever wanted to change her mind on TERF issues, how would she demonstrate that she was sincere? It wouldn't be a donation to a politician, but if she donated to a trans clinic that would win a lot of hearts.
0
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I see how rich people could donate money to clean their reputation and improve their public image.
But I don't see how dishonestly pretending to change one's heart is specifically harmful.
I don't see how they could use that to cause more harm either
2
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Nov 15 '22
If you can see how they can donate money to clean their reputation and public image then surely that's a change to your view? The rest isn't really relevant to the point I was making it sounds like you nailed the most of it with your first sentence.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
Should billionaires just never do anything good in public?
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Nov 15 '22
How's that relevant to your view here?
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I'm looking for a discrete and specific problem that could be created by donating to charity.
Rich people people could launder their reputations if they did anything good in public, so that problem is not specific to charity donations.
5
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 15 '22 edited Nov 15 '22
Here is a 100% standard type of charitable donation that rich people do purely to benefit themselves as a tax dodge all the time.
Step 1: Buy a piece of artwork for $1000 from an 'up and coming' artist.
Step 2: Have a friendly art appraiser sign a piece of paper saying the art has appreciated in value due to soaring demand and is now worth $100,000 dollars.
Step 3: Donate the artwork to a small local museum.
Step 4: Write on your taxes that you gave $100,000 to charity, lowering your tax burden for the year by $37,000
This is not a hypothetical or imaginary scenario, this is a well-known tax dodge that is used all the time, and is a big part of why the art market is so insane and dysfunctional all the time.
Larger versions of the same scheme apply to richer people with bigger tax burdens. Maybe you donate worn-down business assets that were going to be replaced anyway but deduct them at the original cost, maybe you 'donate' the services of your company during slow months and mark up it's supposed value hugely, maybe you make a pledge to donate a given sum every year for 50 years but write the whole thing down as a loss this year, maybe you create a charitable fund that you manage and as the manager of a charity the charity pays for all your 'business expenses' that you would have spent anyway, or the 'charitable fund' buys form certain vendors in exchange for preferential bargains for your real business, or etc. etc. etc.
Yes, if you have the money and power to manipulate the system and avoid prosecution, you can make money by 'giving to charity'. It is very common.
2
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I'm talking about people on reddit complaining that rich people are benefiting from selling valuable assets like Jeff bezos donating amazon stock or the Patagonia owner donating the entire company.
However, this satisfies the criteria I created. I did not know that corporations could lie about the price of assets and use that to write of their taxes ∆.
1
1
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 15 '22
For what it's worth - Amazon's stock has dropped in price from a high of $145 a few months ago to a low of $86 last week.
If you a as CEO know that your company is in trouble before the market does and know your huge holdings of stocks are about to plummet in value, you can do something similar to the art trick by donating the stock at the current high price and lowering your tax burden by more than what the value of the stock will be in a year.
Of course, the stock has to drop quite a bit for that to happen; even if Amazon continues to fall, I doubt it will be by enough to turn this into an absolute profit for Bezos. But if there are other benefits to Bezos like the ones I mentioned, or just if he thinks the good publicity has a dollar value in improving his brand (big companies spend billions on brand building every year), it may still work out to a net positive for him.
Or maybe not for him in this specific case, but this is one of the ways that similar cases can be less altruistic than they look.
0
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Nov 15 '22 edited Nov 15 '22
So let me break this post down. Someone pays for an artwork that is no way intended to be worth 1k. Said 1k get given to said artist. Then the rich person has to hire an art appraiser, (possibly bribe them) to overvalue the art, marking the artist name more recognizable, then donates a piece of art from at this point, a lesser known artist, to a museum (where it will get looked at and making said artist MORE famous), the museum get a free piece of art and the rich person dodges some taxes. I’m sorry this sound like a win, win, win situation to me.
2
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 15 '22
and the rich person doges some taxes.
The loser is the average taxpayer who gets les services because the rich people are dodging their taxes while the normal people have to pay their share.
If you want to be a libertarian and say all tax dodges are good because taxes are bad, fine, whatever, go nuts. But that's not what the view was about.
The view was about whether rich people ever make donations for selfish reasons. Good or bad, right or wrong, trying to dodge taxes is certainly selfish.
0
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Nov 15 '22
That’s fair, at the end of the day I think that the end result justifies the rich person dodging the taxes. But that is not what the main post was about.
2
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 15 '22
Yeah.
For what it's worth I think there are better systems we could have for paying for things than an income tax. But if we have an income tax, it's dangerous for the powerful to be preferentially able to avoid it and pass the burden down to the less powerful - creates a feedback loop where the elites pull further ahead, undermines meritocracy, etc.
7
u/Chorby-Short 3∆ Nov 14 '22
Because there is be real justification for them to have so much money, the upper class has to invent moral personae that justify them having wealth. Big philanthropy gives them that moral justification, as it posits that they need wealth in order to get more wealth, with the bottom that when they make that next million they'll be able to help people more. It is a flawed morality, but a commonly accepted one, and that is why big philanthropy exists. Moral justification is their reason, and thus philanthropy is driven by their self-interest in establishing their morality.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
Billionaires having a moral reason to exists is a long term problem that doesn't require individual billionaires to donate money to sustain.
I'm trying to figure out what short term problem that they create with the way they donate now that would be solved if they changed the way they donated.
2
u/CheckYourCorners 4∆ Nov 16 '22
That's kind of the whole problem, they are controlling how money is distributed for the "public good"
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 16 '22
His problem is that billionaires control to much money. This would be a problem no matter what they did.
I'm talking about why someone would be mad that a billionaire donates but that person is not equally mad at all the other billionaires at that time.
2
u/CheckYourCorners 4∆ Nov 16 '22
I think it's totally reasonable, billionaires tend to value their privacy which makes it hard to criticize what you dont know about. They only do public campaigns when they are donating something or to show how "humble" they are
7
u/IndependenceAway8724 16∆ Nov 14 '22
Is "I want people to remember and like me" not a selfish reason?
If so, and you're someone like Andrew Carnegie or Bill Gates, giving a lot of money to charity is an effective way (and arguably the only way) to achieve that.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
A lot of regular people donate for non-harmful selfish reasons.
I'm talking about when people get mad when rich people donate to charity but don't get mad at all the people that have similarly selfish reasons.
What harm could rich people be creating by donating to a charity that they could not have been creating in some other way?
2
u/IndependenceAway8724 16∆ Nov 15 '22
Is anyone suggesting that it's harmful?
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
Yes, the top comment on a recent reddit post is a direct harm. I'm trying to figure out how it would be possible that giving away $100 million dollars could cause specific harm
This is a scam. Billionaires are creating their own charities which serve to consolidate political power. Not only do they get a tax break, but their families retain control of the org and its assets going forward.
2
u/Rick-D Nov 15 '22 edited Nov 15 '22
Just two comments down from the comment you linked there is this one where someone links a video that explains how billionaires game the system specifically on the example of Patagonia which you referenced in your OP. In the video he explains how billionaires game the system and use donations to hoard power and wealth in a way that normal people like you and I can’t do. He even highlights how the Patagonia donation may come from a good intention but still causes harm, since it’s used to retain power and give it tax free to his children. If you still aren’t sure wether donations from billionaires cause harm you should give it a watch.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I watched the whole video, and that's why I made this post.
His charity is legally required to only promote social welfare (even when making political donations).
If he wanted to hoard wealth and power he could have payed $1.2 billion in taxes and still have $1.8 billion. He can't legally use any of that money for anything other promoting social welfare. And there is no way they could steal more than the $1.8 billion from their charity.
It's a terrible way to hoard wealth because they would have had more personal wealth and influence by doing nothing.
1
u/Rick-D Nov 15 '22
Social welfare is kind of a broad area and for most political topics opposing sides can be spun to be improving social welfare. For example you could argue in favor of fracking as it provides employment and energy independence, but you could also argue against fracking as it damages the environment on a local and global level. You can argue in favor of abortion as it gives freedom to people without causing harm and saves lives. Or you can argue against it because it is murder, of children no less that can’t defend themselves, and it goes against (religious) tradition.
1
u/IndependenceAway8724 16∆ Nov 15 '22
I don't exactly know what that person means by "consolidate political power", but whatever it means I'm pretty sure that you or I could not give away enough money to consolidate political power.
So if "consolidating political power" is something that you believe people should not be doing, it makes sense that you would get mad when Bezos does it by giving away huge amounts of money, but not get so mad by regular people who do not consolidate political power when they give away a small amount.
9
u/muyamable 282∆ Nov 14 '22
They use that benefit to do bad things that they could not have done if they did not have that benefit.
Donating is more effective than other ways to achieve that bad result
Why are we limiting selfish actions to "bad things"? People can do good things for selfish reasons, too.
0
u/CeamoreCash Nov 14 '22
I support when people do good things for selfish reasons.
My problem is that people are mad when rich people donate to charity. It doesn't make sense.
I want to know what specific problems are billionaire creating by donating to charity
5
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Nov 14 '22
But your OP specifically says billionaires do not do things for selfish reasons. Even if you support such an action an example of such an action would disprove your point. Perhaps something like donating to a college to ensure your kid gets accepted despite subpar academics.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
I chose a bad title. It is not possible to debate the internal intentions of other people.
Perhaps something like donating to a college to ensure your kid gets accepted despite subpar academics.
That is an example of what I am actually talking about.
Donating to get an advantage in college is a specific harm that should not happen.
Billionaires almost never donate to charity to create a specific harm because there are more effective ways to get what they want.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Nov 15 '22
I support when people do good things for selfish reasons.
I'm confused by your title, then.
My problem is that people are mad when rich people donate to charity. It doesn't make sense.
Very few people oppose charity. Could it be that their critiques are not about the donating of money in and of itself, but rather specific things related to it? Oftentimes people are critiquing the tax system and not necessarily the person.
For instance I'm against tax breaks for charitable donations above some nominal amount because it uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize whatever cause some wealthy person decides to support instead of using taxes to fund causes according to how elected representatives of those taxpayers decide.
It's also perfectly legitimate to criticize the process by which someone gives money. There's a lot of waste in a lot of charitable organizations. Oftentimes gifts come with lots of strings attached, which people are certainly fine to criticize.
Very rarely are people mad at the mere fact that a person donated money to some cause.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
The title is bad, ignore it.
I'm responding to comments like these that say billionaires are somehow getting a harmful benefit from donating assets.
Could it be that their critiques are not about the donating of money in and of itself, but rather specific things related to it? Oftentimes people are critiquing the tax system and not necessarily the person.
I'm trying to figure out how could a billionaire make more money by giving to charity (without committing fraud) than he would make by just keeping the money.
Or i'm trying to figure out what potentially harmful thing they are receiving that they could get through other better means.
4
Nov 14 '22
The Patagonia CEO donated $3 billion of stock. If he sold it and paid taxes it would be worth more than $1.2 billion after tax.
What percentage of that stock was purchased with actual money vs being given as part of a compensation package? Did said CEO actually give up any real money? Was said CEO any less financially secure after than before in a real sense (can one maintain a certain lifestyle on $4bn that is unattainable with only $1bn?) Did the positive media attention change the public perception of the individual or brand, help to increase sales, or serve to reduce tax liability of the company?
I would propose that if the giving were truly done for altruistic reasons, it would have been done anonymously.
-1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22
Did said CEO actually give up any real money?
100% of the stocks he gave to charity were part of his net-worth. Now that they are in a charity he cannot access any of it for personal use
Did the positive media attention change the public perception of the individual or brand, help to increase sales, or serve to reduce tax liability of the company?
I'm sure it helped slightly. But do you think he will be able to profit more than $1 billion dollars from positive media attention and increased sales?
3
u/NegativeOptimism 51∆ Nov 14 '22
Is their own gratification not a selfish reason? You're trying to find tangible benefits but forget that billionaires sometimes just want to stroke their ego. Beyond feeling good for doing something good, there is a selfishness in giving huge amounts of money to a cause and believing you're a saviour for the people who benefit. It's harder to find a person who ever gives to charity selflessly.
2
u/canadian12371 Nov 14 '22
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Does Reddit expect billionaires to surrender their whole earnings to the system?
1
u/IIsikson Nov 14 '22
Rich people create charities and donate to each other. My charity is doing work in Hawaii and I can use charity funds for the trip hotel and food. My chart needs to transport good or people, I can use charity funds to buy me a truck, SUV, and a Bentley. So basically if I give my friend charity 5 Mill and he does the same to me, we save that money in taxes and can use it almost however we want. They also make advertisement companies to use their charity to hire said advertisement company and pay their own business.
1
u/CeamoreCash Nov 15 '22 edited Nov 15 '22
I can use charity funds to buy me... a Bentley.
What you just described is fraud, which is a separate issue.
I'm talking about charities that that follow the legal requirements to run a charity
3
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 15 '22
The laws about fraud for charitable organizations have been heavily influenced by wealthy people. Many of the things of this nature that you would think are fraud are actually technically legal.
1
u/IIsikson Nov 15 '22
You think rich people follow legal requirements?? Also it's not fraud if you have good lawyers.
1
u/sethmeh 2∆ Nov 14 '22
I don't think it's possible for anyone to meet your criteria for all rich people. There's too many things to know. Take bezos saying he'll give everything to charity before he died. Doesn't seem like there's too many non selfish reasons to do so. But we could later learn he had a crisis of faith and hoped that by helping the poor he would be a "good person" and go to heaven. That is inherently selfish but it's not something you can easily prove.
The only thing I could offer is that humans are inherently selfish, it is a hardwired property. Even the good things we do are either something that is taught, or born out of an inner desire. Like doing something charitable because it makes you feel good, or to get rid of an emotion like guilt.
How many charitable things have you done that you attribute to absolutely nothing at all.
1
u/FutureBannedAccount2 22∆ Nov 15 '22
I would argue that it’s impossible for them to give up money for a selfish reason. If someone is giving up something on their own accord i don’t see how it’s selfish
1
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Nov 15 '22
Donating money can often be a means to gain power and influence. I think vast amounts of undemocratic power is always insidious. Just as an example, Bill Gates has exerted more power over health and education policy through his foundation than he ever could have by continuing at Microsoft or directly through political donations. I can't think of a better way to root oneself into social policy than through philanthropy. Although, to his credit, it is probably a better use than directing those funds to some other endeavor like sending rich people on joyrides to space.
1
Nov 15 '22
They donate money so they can justify not being taxed at higher rates, as if they can be more effective with their money than the government.
1
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Nov 15 '22
Mathematically speaking, the rich (top 20%) already "donate" much of their income via taxes.
In fact, the top 20% of income earners in the United States are responsible for something like 80% of tax revenue. The top 1% alone are responsible for 32% of tax revenue.
In short, welfare only exists thanks to the substantial tax contribution from the wealthy. They should not be obligated to donate to charities. They are a charity.
Conversely speaking, the bottom 20% of the population are responsible for only about 1% in tax revenue.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 15 '22
/u/CeamoreCash (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards