Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[PocketZeven]

Yea, I looked into a donor-advised fund this year (I posted about it in the premium section). Basically you can set money aside for charity, take a deduction on it, and then dole it out to charity at your discretion.

Once you give the money to a DAF, it's for charity. You just haven't allocated the charity yet. The article you linked treats it as though it's some kind of fantastic tax break that wealthy people are hungry for. Not really, they're literally giving that money away. It's not saving them money, it's just giving them control over where it's going to go. The issue people have with DAFs is not that they allow the owners to avoid taxes, or shelter their money somehow, but that there is a timing discrepancy. They were supposed to owe taxes on it this year, and instead it got donated to charity... later. That's not a loophole, it's literally what DAFs are for.

It's a good vehicle for smoothing out donations, but I can see how it might be suboptimally used if someone is putting money in there and never really donating it because they can't be bothered to figure out who to donate it to. Then it gets donated years later by a beneficiary, and along the way some financial institution like Schwab, Fidelity, or Vanguard has wet their beak out of it every year.

This is not a big issue though, and people who are complaining about it are really picking nits. They see DAF balances and think "that money should be getting used" instead of "that money would never have gone to charity if it weren't for this program, and it will eventually go to charity".

Edit:

Bottom line, rich people contribute to charity. It might not be your favorite charity, it might be something like cancer research, doctors without boarders (gasp... outside of the country!!!), or caring for animals. But they do, a lot. Most people have a drive to do something that will ripple beyond their own lives, and it's why charity becomes such a motivation and a passion for so many wealthy people. Instead of whining that the money should have gone to the government, just be glad that some of these charities get any funding at all - because they wouldn't if it were left up to voters.

Are these funds on paper only? Or are they regulated that the funds are actually physically in an escrow or in a seperate account? It does seem they are misused regulary. Especially if your assets depreciate (for example stock). You get the maximum tax write off.

https://thehustle.co/tax-loopholes-gopro-netflix/

 

[Danoff]

Are these funds on paper only? Or are they regulated that the funds are actually physically in an escrow or in a seperate account? It does seem they are misused regulary. Especially if your assets depreciate (for example stock). You get the maximum tax write off.

https://thehustle.co/tax-loopholes-gopro-netflix/

They go into a separate account. You never get them back.

Your example above is basically like me donating DIS to a charity and the charity not cashing it out before it goes down in value. That's legit. I'm sure that happens a lot in DAF, that the value goes down after donation. Of course also the value can go up in the DAF account, and that's also one of the points - to allow money that has been donated to charity but not allocated yet to be invested and grow while it awaits donation. There is risk in that though.

It's still not a loophole, and it's still not a problem with income inequality.

 

[PocketZeven]

They go into a separate account. You never get them back.

Your example above is basically like me donating DIS to a charity and the charity not cashing it out before it goes down in value. That's legit. I'm sure that happens a lot in DAF, that the value goes down after donation. Of course also the value can go up in the DAF account, and that's also one of the points - to allow money that has been donated to charity but not allocated yet to be invested and grow while it awaits donation. There is risk in that though.

It's still not a loophole, and it's still not a problem with income inequality.

Let me address the ethics of being a multi-billionaire is. People sometimes don’t realize how much a billion dollars is. You know how many years a billion seconds are?

 

[Famine]

Let me address the ethics of being a multi-billionaire is. People sometimes don’t realize how much a billion dollars is. You know how many years a billion seconds are?

31 years, 8 months and two weeks.

 

[Northstar]

People sometimes don’t realize how much a billion dollars is.

People sometimes don't realize how much $100 is, what's your point?

 

[PocketZeven]

31 years, 8 months and two weeks.

That is how long it takes to become one, if you don’t spend a cent, don’t sleep and earn 3600 dollars an hour.

Is it ethical that someone has that much wealth and a person who works multiple jobs, contributing to the same economy and has difficulty to make ends meet?

 

[Exorcet]

Is it ethical that someone has that much wealth and a person who works multiple jobs, contributing to the same economy and has difficulty to make ends meet?

Yes, they have nothing to do with each other, and the latter person gets as much help per dollar no matter who those dollars come from.

 

[Famine]

That is how long it takes to become one, if you don’t spend a cent, don’t sleep and earn 3600 dollars an hour.

I know. That's why I didn't even have to hesitate to answer the question (try it sometime), because this example comes up literally every time someone wants to demonise the wealthy.

A million seconds is 11.7 days, they say, but a billion is nearly 32 years. We're supposed to respond "OMG! You're right! Things that take a long time are evil!"... but that's just how orders of magnitude work. A billion is a thousand million. 12 becomes 12,000. Gosh, numbers.



If you want a fun fact, the national debt of the Netherlands is five hundred billion Euros. Want to know how many seconds that is at a Euro a second? It's almost 16,000 years - longer than the whole of recorded human history. The UK's is £1.8tn, which at £1/s is 57,000 years - longer than humanity as a species has existed in Europe. The USA's is $23tn, or almost 750,000 years - that far back, Homo sapiens didn't even exist yet.

Hey, if you could travel a mile a second, it'd take you 3 years to reach the Sun, but 800,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. Wooooooooooow!

Is it ethical that someone has that much wealth and a person who works multiple jobs, contributing to the same economy and has difficulty to make ends meet?

Yes.

I mean, it depends on circumstances - if the wealthy person is somehow directly responsible for the poorer person's lack of wealth by... I don't know, holding their family hostage so he can pay them a far lower wage. But otherwise the wealthy person's wealth is not related to the non-wealthy person's non-wealth, so yes.

What's wrong with having "that much wealth"? Why is accumulating a billion dollars always bad?

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes.

I mean, it depends on circumstances - if the wealthy person is somehow directly responsible for the poorer person's lack of wealth by... I don't know, holding their family hostage so he can pay them a far lower wage. But otherwise the wealthy person's wealth is not related to the non-wealthy person's non-wealth, so yes.

What's wrong with having "that much wealth"? Why is accumulating a billion dollars always bad?

Let me formulate it differently. A wealthy person owns and has enough food to feed 100 million people in the same country where 10 million people struggle to feed their family and a 1.000 people die, because they can’t afford to eat. Is that ethical?

 

[Famine]

Let me formulate it differently.

It doesn't matter how you formulate it, the answer will be the same. If the wealthy person accumulated their wealth in a manner that directly resulted in the non-wealthy people losing theirs, it's not ethical. If they did not, it is ethical.

A wealthy person owns and has enough food to feed 100 million people in the same country where 10 million people struggle to feed their family and a 1.000 people die, because they can’t afford to eat. Is that ethical?

Did they acquire the wealth through unfairly exploiting those 10 million people? No.
Did they acquire the wealth without unfairly exploiting those 10 million people? Yes.


You didn't answer - which puts me at three for none by the way, so you know, you need to answer some questions soon just to make it fair and balanced and all, rather than me hoarding all the answers - but why is accumulating a billion dollars always bad?

 

[BobK]

Let me formulate it differently. A wealthy person owns and has enough food to feed 100 million people in the same country where 10 million people struggle to feed their family and a 1.000 people die, because they can’t afford to eat. Is that ethical?

Absolutely, so long as the wealthy person is not responsible for the poor being poor.

Now, is forcibly confiscating some of that wealth at gunpoint if necessary in order to give it away to others ethical?

 

[Northstar]

Let me formulate it differently. A wealthy person owns and has enough food to feed 100 million people in the same country where 10 million people struggle to feed their family and a 1.000 people die, because they can’t afford to eat. Is that ethical?

The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to anyone with any amount of money saved, not just the uber-rich. Is it ethical that you can have enough to feed 10 people but decided you wanted to buy the new Playstation instead of providing them food?

 

[PocketZeven]

It doesn't matter how you formulate it, the answer will be the same. If the wealthy person accumulated their wealth in a manner that directly resulted in the non-wealthy people losing theirs, it's not ethical. If they did not, it is ethical.

Did they acquire the wealth through unfairly exploiting those 10 million people? No.
Did they acquire the wealth without unfairly exploiting those 10 million people? Yes.


You didn't answer - which puts me at three for none by the way, so you know, you need to answer some questions soon just to make it fair and balanced and all, rather than me hoarding all the answers - but why is accumulating a billion dollars always bad?

it isn’t always bad. I am addressing the ethics in income inequality. The point is not that accumulating a billion dollars is bad. But accumulating so much excess of a resource or item, mostly using it to acquire even more, within a society where a fellow countrymen dies, because he has none or not enough.

libertarians view the world from the individual. As long as I don’t violate other people’s rights. Even if half the country dies of hunger and I own 80% of all the food in the country. I am doing nothing ethically wrong. But if someone steals one piece of bread from me. That person is a criminal and I am not. I even have the right to defend myself and hurt or even kill him.

Absolutely, so long as the wealthy person is not responsible for the poor being poor.

Now, is forcibly confiscating some of that wealth at gunpoint if necessary in order to give it away to others ethical?

When I keep thinking about it. I would say yes. Violating the right of some to save the many. (The tyranny of the majority)

edit

The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to anyone with any amount of money saved, not just the uber-rich. Is it ethical that you can have enough to feed 10 people but decided you wanted to buy the new Playstation instead of providing them food?

That is thinking absolutes. Your skipping over the gray area. There is a difference between extreme excess (food for a million) and having comfortably more (food for 10).

 

[ryzno]

it isn’t always bad. I am addressing the ethics in income inequality. The point is not that accumulating a billion dollars is bad. But accumulating so much excess of a resource or item, mostly using it to acquire even more, within a society where a fellow countrymen dies, because he has none or not enough.

libertarians view the world from the individual. As long as I don’t violate other people’s rights. Even if half the country dies of hunger and I own 80% of all the food in the country. I am doing nothing ethically wrong. But if someone steals one piece of bread from me. That person is a criminal and I am not. I even have the right to defend myself and hurt or even kill him.

So what's your point? Everyone should make the same amount?

 

[Exorcet]

it isn’t always bad. I am addressing the ethics in income inequality. The point is not that accumulating a billion dollars is bad. But accumulating so much excess of a resource or item, mostly using it to acquire even more, within a society where a fellow countrymen dies, because he has none or not enough.

You keep focusing on the "rich" though. Why? Having billions isn't killing the person who has nothing, nor does it prevent that person from receiving help.

That is thinking absolutes. Your skipping over the gray area. There is a difference between extreme excess (food for a million) and having comfortably more (food for 10).

It's exactly the same situation.

 

[PocketZeven]

So what's your point? Everyone should make the same amount?

No. In business your company is only as good as your worst employee.

In a country or society having extreme wealth should not be a problem, if the poorest in the same country or society don’t die from Poverty.

You keep focusing on the "rich" though. Why? Having billions isn't killing the person who has nothing, nor does it prevent that person from receiving help.


It's exactly the same situation.

nope it isn’t. But that answer is very libertarian.

How is having 10 or 1 million the same? Let’s say there are 23 people. 21 people have nothing to eat. 1 has enough for 10 and 1 has enough for a million. Is the situation the same for both?

 

[Northstar]

That is thinking absolutes. Your skipping over the gray area. There is a difference between extreme excess (food for a million) and having comfortably more (food for 10).

I'm thinking in absolutes because it is an absolute. If something is ethical for one person it's ethical for everyone and vise-versa. Also, the amount of money doesn't really matter to my question, so I'll just remove it altogether. Is it ethical if someone has "x" amount of money but decides to do something for their own gratification instead of helping those in need?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm thinking in absolutes because it is an absolute. If something is ethical for one person it's ethical for everyone and vise-versa. Also, the amount of money doesn't really matter to my question, so I'll just remove it altogether. Is it ethical if someone has "x" amount of money but decides to do something for their own gratification instead of helping those in need?

because it does matter how much one has. Someone who has a million and gives away 21 to feed 21 Still has 999.979. Someone who has a 10. Will save 9 and 12 people will die.

 

[Northstar]

because it does matter how much one has. Someone who has a million and gives away 21 to feed 21 Still has 999.979. Someone who has a 10. Will save 9 and 12 people will die.

Sony has sold over 100 million PS4's, at the current MSRP of $300U.S. that's 30 Billion dollars that could have been spent aiding those in poverty. We could end poverty tomorrow if we really wanted to, rich people aren't the ones stopping us, which is why I say the amount of money one has doesn't matter.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sony has sold over 100 million PS4's, at the current MSRP of $300U.S. that's 30 Billion dollars that could have been spent aiding those in poverty. We could end poverty tomorrow if we really wanted to, rich people aren't the ones stopping us.

Sony is a japanese corporation. Japan has less problems with income inequality then the USA. Guess why.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/why-inequality-is-different-in-japan/

I am speaking of individuals within a society. Some having extreme excess and many struggling within that society.

 

[ryzno]

In a country or society having extreme wealth should not be a problem, if the poorest in the same country or society don’t die from Poverty

The poorest people in this country actually have a good chance if they go in for an emergency.
That said we have many government programs to help those really in need.
IMO if you see a kid here who looks like a kid we see in commercials that needs help, it's totally on the parents.

 

[PocketZeven]

The poorest people in this country actually have a good chance if they go in for an emergency.
That said we have many government programs to help those really in need.
IMO if you see a kid here who looks like a kid we see in commercials that needs help, it's totally on the parents.

I guess you never lived outside the USA. You don’t know the feeling to have free/cheap healthcare and easy access to higher education regardless of income.

 

[Northstar]

Sony is a japanese corporation.

You obviously didn't get the point, Sony's Playstation was just used as an example. The point is people spend an insane amount on frivolous things instead of helping those less fortunate. Again, we could solve poverty tomorrow without the help of rich people, but we choose not to.

So with that being said, let's see if third time is the charm and I can finally get an answer!

Is it ethical if someone has "x" amount of money but decides to do something for their own gratification instead of helping those in need?

 

[Exorcet]

How is having 10 or 1 million the same? Let’s say there are 23 people. 21 people have nothing to eat. 1 has enough for 10 and 1 has enough for a million. Is the situation the same for both?

Because there is a choice to give or to not give. The person with enough for 10 can give away any amount between 0 and 10. Unless that person gives away 10, they're choosing to put themselves ahead of someone else, which is understandable and certainly isn't immoral. The person with a million does the exact same, just with a different value given/withheld. You can't pick a point where someone has enough or too much because value is subjective.

 

[PocketZeven]

You obviously didn't get the point, Sony's Playstation was just used as an example. The point is people spend an insane amount on frivolous things instead of helping those less fortunate. Again, we could solve poverty tomorrow without the help of rich people, but we choose not to.

So with that being said, let's see if third time is the charm and I can finally get an answer!

Is it ethical if someone has "x" amount of money but decides to do something for their own gratification instead of helping those in need?

We do. By paying taxes.

X amount is a very big deal. The answer is different ethically if I have 10 and use 1 for own gratification or having a million and using 100 for gratification.

we can’t solve world hunger because the world is divided in nations. A single nations government can solve hunger in their own country and has does so throughout history.

Because there is a choice to give or to not give. The person with enough for 10 can give away any amount between 0 and 10. Unless that person gives away 10, they're choosing to put themselves ahead of someone else, which is understandable and certainly isn't immoral. The person with a million does the exact same, just with a different value given/withheld. You can't pick a point where someone has enough or too much because value is subjective.

it is subjective to a certain degree. Some might say 1 million is not that much. But 1 billion is subjectively and objectively in almost every society (excluding perhaps oil nations) excessive wealth.

 

[ryzno]

I guess you never lived outside the USA. You don’t know the feeling to have free/cheap healthcare and easy access to higher education regardless of income.

No and I've never lived outside of GA so...
I don't know why you think healthcare and education is so hard here.
I've explained how it was actually cheaper for me to pay cash instead of Obama's ACA.
And I literally got paid $1800 a quarter to go to a technical college aka trade school.

 

[Famine]

it isn’t always bad.

Right, so we can agree that having a billion dollars isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I am addressing the ethics in income inequality.

The ethics of income inequality? What ethics?

The point is not that accumulating a billion dollars is bad. But accumulating so much excess of a resource or item, mostly using it to acquire even more, within a society where a fellow countrymen dies, because he has none or not enough.

Unless the person is accumulating "so much excess" (please define what figure 'excess' starts at) and causing a fellow countryman to die through not having enough, it's irrelevant how much they have accumulated.

libertarians view the world from the individual.

No. Libertarians - and I would even add the qualifier "some" at this point - view the world starting at the individual. As I pointed out - and as you agreed:

You can't have "collective rights" without individual ones. The smallest collective is the one.

That's the start point - the individual. Everything else stems from there. All other rights start with the individual, and if you're taking an action that violates the rights of the individual the action is wrong.

As long as I don’t violate other people’s rights. Even if half the country dies of hunger and I own 80% of all the food in the country. I am doing nothing ethically wrong.

Did you come by your 80% of all the food in the country without violating anyone else's rights? If so, what's the problem?

I mean, it's moral for North Korea to shrink its population by starvation after all...

But if someone steals one piece of bread from me. That person is a criminal and I am not. I even have the right to defend myself and hurt or even kill him.

Theft is a criminal act, yes, and you may defend yourself against that act. What's the problem?


Between them, Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's control 75% of the UK's food supply. If you went into a supermarket and stole a loaf of bread, would you suggest you should not be prosecuted for shoplifting because they control 75% of the UK's food supply and a billion seconds is 32 years?

 

[Northstar]

We do. By paying taxes.

The U.S. government is insanely inefficient, private charities can provide significantly faster service and make the money have go much further.

X amount is a very big deal. The answer is different ethically if I have 10 and use 1 for own gratification or having a million and using 100 for gratification.

It's the same in both cases. Either way you are denying someone essential needs for your own self gratification.

we can’t solve world hunger because the world is divided in nations. A single nations government can solve hunger in their own country and has does so throughout history.

Oh but we can, we just have to forgo things we don't really need. As I demonstrated above, just by using the money we spend on video games to fight poverty we could go quite a ways towards the goal of ending poverty. Rich people aren't stopping us, we are stopping ourselves.

 

[PocketZeven]

No and I've never lived outside of GA so...
I don't know why you think healthcare and education is so hard here.
I've explained how it was actually cheaper for me to pay cash instead of Obummers ACA.
And I literally got paid $1800 a quarter to go to a technical college aka trade school.

I can go to my personal doctor as much as I want, without cost by paying ca. 1200-1500 a year in insurance. I can have a bypass surgery and it is covered.

But can you study to be a doctor for 1600 a year?

Right, so we can agree that having a billion dollars isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The ethics of income inequality? What ethics?

Unless the person is accumulating "so much excess" (please define what figure 'excess' starts at) and causing a fellow countryman to die through not having enough, it's irrelevant how much they have accumulated.

No. Libertarians - and I would even add the qualifier "some" at this point - view the world starting at the individual. As I pointed out - and as you agreed:

That's the start point - the individual. Everything else stems from there.

Did you come by your 80% of all the food in the country without violating anyone else's rights? If so, what's the problem?

I mean, it's moral for North Korea to shrink its population by starvation after all...

Theft is a criminal act, yes, and you may defend yourself against that act. What's the problem?


Between them, Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's control 75% of the UK's food supply. If you went into a supermarket and stole a loaf of bread, would you suggest you should not be prosecuted for shoplifting because they control 75% of the UK's food supply and a billion seconds is 32 years?

There is so much wrong in your questions and answers I can only conclude that I am happy I am not living in a libertarian society.

I pay about 150.000-180.000 a year in personal income, sales and corporate income tax a year. And happy I do and don’t think the government is stealing from me. Because in my country people have access to healthcare and no matter their background children can study to be what they want to be. I guess that is all I have to say about the libertarian ideology.

 

[Exorcet]

it is subjective to a certain degree. Some might say 1 million is not that much. But 1 billion is subjectively and objectively in almost every society (excluding perhaps oil nations) excessive wealth.

It can't be almost objective. I have two computers on my desk here, one because I wanted a laptop to travel with. I don't need it, I don't even need the first computer. My wealth is already excessive in just the same way that anyone else's is. I could have given money to aid people instead of myself and I did not. It wouldn't even have put me in a life or death situation. I don't see how you can set a bar for what is objectively excessive, but if you could I don't know why you have to up to 1 billion to find excess. Excess is anything more than what you need to survive.