Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

Communism main principles is common ownership and does not indentify control.That is where communism got its name.
Communism can also be anarchy. There is a school of thought called anarcho-communism.

In the wikipedia entry, anarcho-communism is indicated as also being referred to as libertarian-communism. It seems to be the notion that voluntary communism can naturally evolve in an anarchistic environment. That's not really how anarchy works. Anarchy is not fundamentally stable, it's a transitional state.

You seem to be defining anarcho-communism as the "pure" form of communism, being without authoritarian elements. I don't agree, but if that's what you want to call it, it's fine with me. Communism requires authoritarianism to remain stable, anarcho-communism, or communism without an authoritarian element, is just anarchy, soon-to-be-followed by something else.

I am against any authorian form of ideology. But also against ideologies that assume individualism (libertarianism) should be the basis of any society.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "individualism".

 

[PocketZeven]

Communism requires authoritarianism to remain stable, anarcho-communism, or communism without an authoritarian element, is just anarchy, soon-to-be-followed by something else.

Perhaps historically and in practice. But I am often annoyed that people presume authorianism and communism are some kind of synonysms.

edit:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "individualism".

I didnt word that correctly perhaps. I am not a fan of ideologies that puts the individual (rights) above the common interest and the basis of a society (government, state, country, society etc.).

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps historically and in practice. But I am often annoyed that people presume authorianism and communism are some kind of synonysms.

Ok but... in order for them not to be you have to hold out a reservation for a hypothetical form of communism that arises in anarchy and cannot persist. So why the annoyance? It's not worth arguing about.

I didnt word that correctly perhaps. I am not a fan of ideologies that puts the individual (rights) above the common interest (government, state, country, society etc.).

Why is it that individuals only become important to you when there is more than one?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok but... in order for them not to be you have to hold out a reservation for a hypothetical form of communism that arises in anarchy and cannot persist. So why the annoyance? It's not worth arguing about.



Why is it that individuals only become important to you when there is more than one?

Because these same people often think that authotarianism is exclusive to communism.

edit:
I am not saying that individuals become more important when more then one at all. I am arguing the ideology behind tax=theft. Which presumes the individuals right is above all. You may have good intentions, but lately the people I meet that have this kind of ideology are selfish and greedy. They dont want to pay a penny to help others, but themselves.

 

[Danoff]

Because these same people often think that authotarianism is exclusive to communism.

I don't think anyone here thinks that authoritarianism is exclusive to communism.

I am not saying that individuals become more important when more then one at all. I am arguing the ideology of tax=theft. Which presumes the individuals right is above all.

That kiiiindof is saying that individuals become more important when there are more of them. You're arguing against then notion that individual rights are on equal footing with the rights of multiple individuals.

You may have good intentions, but lately the people I meet that have this kind of ideology are selfish and greedy. They dont want to pay a penny to help others, but themselves.

Taxation is not the only way to help people, and it does not exclusively help people. Taxation can be used to harm people - both the people taxed, and what the tax money is spent on. Taxation funds war, it funds genocide, it funds totalitarian rule. And while it is possible to use taxation for charitable purposes, it certainly has no monopoly on the prospect, and is often extremely inefficient at it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think anyone here thinks that authoritarianism is exclusive to communism.



That kiiiindof is saying that individuals become more important when there are more of them. You're arguing against then notion that individual rights are on equal footing with the rights of multiple individuals.



Taxation is not the only way to help people, and it does not exclusively help people. Taxation can be used to harm people - both the people taxed, and what the tax money is spent on. Taxation funds war, it funds genocide, it funds totalitarian rule. And while it is possible to use taxation for charitable purposes, it certainly has no monopoly on the prospect, and is often extremely inefficient at it.

Not speaking of the people here, but many righwing pundits that for example keep misleading their following by using venezuala as an "example" of socialism.

Not really. I am arguing the ideology that the individuals rights always is more important when there are more of them. That easily can be interpreted as I am more important then others.

There are individual rights that should be protected, but we should also consider the collective rights. (apart from defense of nation). Individuals cause war and individuals cause totalitarian rule. Individuals are selfish, greedy and lazy. I understand the premise and fundamentally there is a basis for utopia (similar to communism), I think a libertarian society in the real world is going to promote indivualism and a class society and cause even larger income inequality.

 

[Danoff]

I think a libertarian society in the real world is going to promote indivualism and a class society and cause even larger income inequality.

There is no such thing as class, and income inequality is not a problem.

 

[Famine]

There are individual rights that should be protected, but we should also consider the collective rights.

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

 

[PocketZeven]

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

I agree

There is no such thing as class, and income inequality is not a problem.

That is the issue I have with a libertarian ideology. Income inequality is not problem in itself, but no effort in reducing it is a problem or even trying to increase it is a problem to me. Survival of the fittest does not fit in a society I would like to live in.

 

[Danoff]

Income inequality is not problem in itself, but no effort in reducing it is a problem or even trying to increase it is a problem to me.

I don't think libertarians try to increase it, but why would you want to reduce it? Please explain how it poses a problem.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think libertarians try to increase it, but why would you want to reduce it? Please explain how it poses a problem.

edit: I didnt mean to suggest libertarians are actively trying to increase it. I just think it will increase, because of libertarianism.

It also depends on the kind of income inequality. If some people in the same country have Billions of dollars and at the same time poor people die, because they cant afford healthcare, then it is a problem. If people in some poor neighbourhoods have very little opportunity to better there lives (people who are not lazy) then I would say it is a problem. If the standard of living (even the poorest) is good, then I would agree there is no problem.

 

[Danoff]

edit: I didnt mean to suggest libertarians are actively trying to increase it. I just think it will increase, because of libertarianism.

It also depends on the kind of income inequality. If some people in the same country have Billions of dollars and at the same time poor people die, because they cant afford healthcare, then it is a problem. If people in some poor neighbourhoods have very little opportunity to better there lives (people who are not lazy) then I would say it is a problem. If the standard of living (even the poorest) is good, then I would agree there is no problem.

I don't understand what one has to do with the other. So you have someone with billions, and then, completely separately, you have a poor person that can't afford healthcare. What do these two have to do with each other?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Income inequality, as I see it, is a problem in that at the extreme you'll have a lot of miserably poor people (presumably with considerable power via majority status) and a small amount of wealthily happy (or at least very rich...not necessarily happy) people. The poor majority people will invariably decide to benefit themselves (by vote or by gun) at the expensive of the rich few. And a period of chaos and poor governing choices will be made and things eventually will settle out, but not before doing real damage to human progress. Why not just cut out the peaks and the troughs and re-balance things to a less extreme degree periodically? Short-circuit the cycle so it doesn't blow up the whole damn thing.

Side note: I'd be curious to see the income bracket distribution of self-identified libertarians. I'll hazard a guess there aren't many poor ones.

 

[Danoff]

Income inequality, as I see it, is a problem in that at the extreme you'll have a lot of miserably poor people (presumably with considerable power via majority status) and a small amount of wealthily happy (or at least very rich...not necessarily happy) people. The poor majority people will invariably decide to benefit themselves (by vote or by gun) at the expensive of the rich few. And a period of chaos and poor governing choices will be made and things eventually will settle out, but not before doing real damage to human progress. Why not just cut out the peaks and the troughs and re-balance things to a less extreme degree periodically? Short-circuit the cycle so it doesn't blow up the whole damn thing.

Side note: I'd be curious to see the income bracket distribution of self-identified libertarians. I'll hazard a guess there aren't many poor ones.

When I first identified as Libertarian, I was making $8/hr working 20 hours a week, had a roommate, and was slowly working my way through college. I had a negative net worth.

As best I can tell, your description of the problem of income inequality is not a problem with income inequality at all, but a problem with poverty. The rich seem to play no role in the "problem" in your description, only the "unhappy" poor. So your issue is actually with poverty. Why say income inequality then?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

When I first identified as Libertarian, I was making $8/hr working 20 hours a week, had a roommate, and was slowly working my way through college. I had a negative net worth.

Well of course you did. I also think its plainly obvious the difference between a college kid and someone in genuine poverty. I doubt you were lacking for aspiration while making $8/hr.

As best I can tell, your description of the problem of income inequality is not a problem with income inequality at all, but a problem with poverty. The rich seem to play no role in the "problem" in your description, only the "unhappy" poor. So your issue is actually with poverty. Why say income inequality then?

In this scenario, the relationship of the rich to the problem is irrelevant. It's their proximity to what the poor (and their allies) see as the solution! Money! I'm not saying they are correct...I'm saying they already have a lot of votes/guns, and are getting more.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't understand what one has to do with the other. So you have someone with billions, and then, completely separately, you have a poor person that can't afford healthcare. What do these two have to do with each other?

I work 60+ hours a week, but even I dont want lazy people to die from hunger or not being able to afford healthcare. The one with billions could pay more taxes to help the poor person with basic healthcare.

 

[Danoff]

Well of course you did. I also think its plainly obvious the difference between a college kid and someone in genuine poverty. I doubt you were lacking for aspiration while making $8/hr.

How does welfare affect aspiration? The only correlation I've seen there is negative.

In this scenario, the relationship of the rich to the problem is irrelevant. It's their proximity to what the poor (and their allies) see as the solution! Money! I'm not saying they are correct...I'm saying they already have a lot of votes/guns, and are getting more.

So pure jealousy. Regardless of whether they are actually living in poverty, they can't stand that someone else has more. This is not something to be encouraged, this is a child-like immaturity.

I work 60+ hours a week, but even I dont want lazy people to die from hunger or not being able to afford healthcare. The one with billions could pay more taxes to help the poor person with basic healthcare.

They can (and do) just help them directly. Why would they pay taxes to help people when they can just help them? Your problem (still) is not the rich people, or the presence of rich people. Your problem (still) is poverty. Without poverty, there is no issue.

So knock it off with income inequality, it's not a problem. Just say "poverty".

 

[PocketZeven]

They can (and do) just help them directly. Why would they pay taxes to help people when they can just help them? Your problem (still) is not the rich people, or the presence of rich people. Your problem (still) is poverty. Without poverty, there is no issue.

So knock it off with income inequality, it's not a problem. Just say "poverty".

I guess that is your faith in human kind. The reason communism an socialism even exist is that eventually people are selfish and greedy. You assume that as long people erich themselves without violating others rights, they are doing nothing wrong. There might be many rich people who are seflmade and made their money ethically. But there are many more that cheated, exploited and got rich by taking advantage of the naive and innocent.

Income inequality is indirectly one of the underlying causes of poverty. It hinders economic growth, social division, crime, political corruption. Throughout history countries with extreme inequality have often resulted in revolution, because of extreme poverty, exploitation etc.

 

[Danoff]

I guess that is your faith in human kind. The reason communism an socialism even exist is that eventually people are selfish and greedy. You assume that as long people erich themselves without violating others rights, they are doing nothing wrong. There might be many rich people who are seflmade and made their money ethically. But there are many more that cheated, exploited and got rich by taking advantage of the naive and innocent.

It's somewhat tautological in my thinking that without rights violations, they did nothing "wrong".

Income inequality is indirectly one of the underlying causes of poverty. It hinders economic growth, social division, crime, political corruption. Throughout history countries with extreme inequality have often resulted in revolution, because of extreme poverty, exploitation etc.

Please explain how income inequality indirectly causes poverty. Also, pointing to extreme poverty and exploitation does not bolster the income inequality argument in the slightest. You're pointing to other problems. Poverty itself is an issue. Exploitation is an issue. Income inequality is not an issue.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's somewhat tautological in my thinking that without rights violations, they did nothing "wrong".



Please explain how income inequality indirectly causes poverty. Also, pointing to extreme poverty and exploitation does not bolster the income inequality argument in the slightest. You're pointing to other problems. Poverty itself is an issue. Exploitation is an issue. Income inequality is not an issue.

Income inequality prevents wealth trickling down. extreme wealth more often then not is stuck in assets and by using loopholes taxed very little. While the middle and lower class porportionally to their own wealth pay more. The same wealthy people are also all about the bottom line and therefore want to maximize profits by keeping costs as low as possible. This will lead to low wages or outsourcing. Outsourcing will lead to less jobs and poverty.

 

[Danoff]

Income inequality prevents wealth trickling down. extreme wealth more often then not is stuck in assets and by using loopholes taxed very little. While the middle and lower class porportionally to their own wealth pay more. The same wealthy people are also all about the bottom line and therefore want to maximize profits by keeping costs as low as possible. This will lead to low wages or outsourcing. Outsourcing will lead to less jobs and poverty.

So the problem with income inequality is that other countries get jobs?

In the US, almost half of the population (the bottom half, to be clear) pays 0% federal income tax.

 

[PocketZeven]

So the problem with income inequality is that other countries get jobs?

In the US, almost half of the population (the bottom half, to be clear) pays 0% federal income tax.

A problem not the problem. Income inequality also is the fact that considering inflation the wealthy are paid proportionally more and the wages of the in the bottom remain proportionally unchanged. For the same job, increasing the wealth gap.

0%? could you provide a source. The statement misses nuance.

 

[Danoff]

A problem not the problem. Income inequality also is the fact that considering inflation the wealthy are paid proportionally more and the wages of the in the bottom remain proportionally unchanged. For the same job, increasing the wealth gap.

0%? could you provide a source. The statement misses nuance.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tcja-increasing-share-households-paying-no-federal-income-tax

Inflation is hardest on the poor. Everyone's income goes up with inflation, but the poor are less likely to have assets in something other than currency. Still not an income inequality problem.

 

[PocketZeven]

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tcja-increasing-share-households-paying-no-federal-income-tax

Inflation is hardest on the poor. Everyone's income goes up with inflation, but the poor are less likely to have assets in something other than currency. Still not an income inequality problem.

It is when the wealthy prevent opportunities for the poor. Not just on purpose, but simply, because they have too much money to spend. By not spending their money that benefits the US economic growth of the middle and lower incomes. The money flows up and not down. (and a lot of it stays there) Someone like Scrooge Mcduck is not good for the economy.

 

[ryzno]

It is when the wealthy prevent opportunities for the poor. Not just on purpose, but simply, because they have too much money to spend. By not spending their money that benefits the US economic growth of the middle and lower incomes. The money flows up and not down. (and a lot of it stays there) Someone like Scrooge Mcduck is not good for the economy.

I recall what's his name saying he paid around $10B in taxes. Do you not think that's enough? How much of that tax revenue do you think actually went to helping the poor?
And you can't tax wealth. You can only tax income and transactions.
Also us lower income people have our own ways with tax loopholes.

We also have: Earned Income Credit(a little extra for the lower end), dependents(children/elderly parents)almost $6K for 1 kid!), us 1099 can file our losses and expenses...

And wee wouldn't have a lot jobs if it wasn't for said million/billionaires.

 

[Danoff]

It is when the wealthy prevent opportunities for the poor. Not just on purpose, but simply, because they have too much money to spend. By not spending their money that benefits the US economic growth of the middle and lower incomes. The money flows up and not down. (and a lot of it stays there) Someone like Scrooge Mcduck is not good for the economy.

That's not particularly realistic. You have an very hard-baked notion that rich people oppress the poor, when the opposite is generally true - yet you can't seem find find many solid examples where that is the case. You act as though the people are entitled somehow to have the rich spend their money, as though this it is somehow oppressive for someone to save. Savings are a good thing, economies should strive for stored value. The stimulus of spending is short-lived. Economies are more robust, not less, when the people within have healthy savings.

Money that is removed from circulation is generally helpful to all as well, because it creates deflationary pressure. You could view this as paying taxes in the form of supporting inflation.

You might think that offering a property for rent is somehow taking advantage of the renter, but of course that is a service, and a service that many people actually enjoy and seek out. More and more young people seem to be moving away from ownership, in favor of subscription services, temporary housing, and automotive leases. Lots of young people express the sentiment today that owning a home would be "confining" and "too permanent". Renting can be very beneficial. And the rental market is no different than any other market. Property owners must compete for renters by offering higher quality properties at lower rental rates.

I'd like to understand some concrete ways that you think rich people prevent poor people from having opportunities to improve themselves in a free society.

 

[PocketZeven]

I recall what's his name saying he paid around $10B in taxes. Do you not think that's enough? How much of that tax revenue do you think actually went to helping the poor?
And you can't tax wealth. You can only tax income and transactions.
Also us lower income people have our own ways with tax loopholes.

We also have: Earned Income Credit(a little extra for the lower end), dependents(children/elderly parents)almost $6K for 1 kid!), us 1099 can file our losses and expenses...

And wee wouldn't have a lot jobs if it wasn't for said million/billionaires.

Source?

That's not particularly realistic. You have an very hard-baked notion that rich people oppress the poor, when the opposite is generally true - yet you can't seem find find many solid examples where that is the case. You act as though the people are entitled somehow to have the rich spend their money, as though this it is somehow oppressive for someone to save. Savings are a good thing, economies should strive for stored value. The stimulus of spending is short-lived. Economies are more robust, not less, when the people within have healthy savings.

Money that is removed from circulation is generally helpful to all as well, because it creates deflationary pressure. You could view this as paying taxes in the form of supporting inflation.

You might think that offering a property for rent is somehow taking advantage of the renter, but of course that is a service, and a service that many people actually enjoy and seek out. More and more young people seem to be moving away from ownership, in favor of subscription services, temporary housing, and automotive leases. Lots of young people express the sentiment today that owning a home would be "confining" and "too permanent". Renting can be very beneficial. And the rental market is no different than any other market. Property owners must compete for renters by offering higher quality properties at lower rental rates.

I'd like to understand some concrete ways that you think rich people prevent poor people from having opportunities to improve themselves in a free society.

I have watched that series. Quite liberal though.

Concerning Billionaire philantropy and the broken system that is increasing income inequality.

 

[Danoff]

Source?



I have watched that series. Quite liberal though.

Concerning Billionaire philantropy and the broken system that is increasing income inequality.

Yea it is a very liberal series. Doesn't stop me from watching it though. I've seen the philanthropy one before (watched them both again for good measure). Adam likes to leave out little important bits, he doesn't provide a straight shot at the issue, he usually has a bent. That's true in both the home ownership one I posted earlier, and the philanthropy one. I own a home, Adam didn't talk me out of it, even though presents only the side of the story that advocates for renting. My point was that it can be a service that is better, depending on personal circumstances.

My point with that was not that Adam has the truth of it, but Adam has a part of the truth of it. And his commentary on philanthropy is also a part of the truth. One thing that I really don't like about the philanthropy video is that he strongly implies that rich people set aside money that they don't pay taxes on, and then also take a tax deduction for setting it aside. That's not generally correct, you don't take a tax deduction on money you weren't taxed on. If you contribute to charity from your bank account, you're contributing money that you were taxed on, and then can take a deduction on that money. The net result is that you're taxed on it, and then untaxed. So if you donate $1000 to charity, your taxable income is lowered by $1000. It's not lowered by $1000 PLUS a deduction of $1000 ($2000 total). Which is what Adam strongly implies.

There is a way around that, and I literally just exercised it. I just donated some of my DIS to charity. The reason being that I don't want to pay capital gains on it (and it has had a run up recently). So I donated the stock directly to charity. Come tax time, I can take a tax deduction on the full amount, and I never paid capital gains. So for example, DIS is trading at $150 right now. So let's say I bought a share at $100. I "made" $50 pre-tax in gains. I then donate $150 to charity, without paying capital gains (15%) on the $50 of gains. I then take a tax deduction to the tune of 30% of $150 come tax time. The $150 I donated was worth $142.5 to me. The deduction is worth (I'm spitaballing at 30% income tax rate here) $50 to me. As a result, my charitable contribution cost me $92.5. So I donated $142.5 of my money, the charity got $150, and it costs me $92.5. So Adam is right about how it can work, but he's a bit misleading about it.

Here's the point... it costs me $92.5. It's not free money I'm giving to charity, it's still charity.

Adam also points out that only a small fraction goes to basic needs. That's true because a lot of charity goes to things like medical research. I'm considering contributing to the Humane Society this year, I'm sure that's not a "basic public need". But it's still an important charity.

Lastly, he complains about crony capitalism and lobbying. Which, as you know, is a symptom of big government. His implied big government solution will only exacerbate it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea it is a very liberal series. Doesn't stop me from watching it though. I've seen the philanthropy one before (watched them both again for good measure). Adam likes to leave out little important bits, he doesn't provide a straight shot at the issue, he usually has a bent. That's true in both the home ownership one I posted earlier, and the philanthropy one. I own a home, Adam didn't talk me out of it, even though presents only the side of the story that advocates for renting. My point was that it can be a service that is better, depending on personal circumstances.

My point with that was not that Adam has the truth of it, but Adam has a part of the truth of it. And his commentary on philanthropy is also a part of the truth. One thing that I really don't like about the philanthropy video is that he strongly implies that rich people set aside money that they don't pay taxes on, and then also take a tax deduction for setting it aside. That's not generally correct, you don't take a tax deduction on money you weren't taxed on. If you contribute to charity from your bank account, you're contributing money that you were taxed on, and then can take a deduction on that money. The net result is that you're taxed on it, and then untaxed. So if you donate $1000 to charity, your taxable income is lowered by $1000. It's not lowered by $1000 PLUS a deduction of $1000 ($2000 total). Which is what Adam strongly implies.

There is a way around that, and I literally just exercised it. I just donated some of my DIS to charity. The reason being that I don't want to pay capital gains on it (and it has had a run up recently). So I donated the stock directly to charity. Come tax time, I can take a tax deduction on the full amount, and I never paid capital gains. So for example, DIS is trading at $150 right now. So let's say I bought a share at $100. I "made" $50 pre-tax in gains. I then donate $150 to charity, without paying capital gains (15%) on the $50 of gains. I then take a tax deduction to the tune of 30% of $150 come tax time. The $150 I donated was worth $142.5 to me. The deduction is worth (I'm spitaballing at 30% income tax rate here) $50 to me. As a result, my charitable contribution cost me $92.5. So I donated $142.5 of my money, the charity got $150, and it costs me $92.5. So Adam is right about how it can work, but he's a bit misleading about it.

Here's the point... it costs me $92.5. It's not free money I'm giving to charity, it's still charity.

Adam also points out that only a small fraction goes to basic needs. That's true because a lot of charity goes to things like medical research. I'm considering contributing to the Humane Foundation this year, I'm sure that's not a "basic public need". But it's still an important charity.

Lastly, he complains about crony capitalism and lobbying. Which, as you know, is a symptom of big government. His implied big government solution will only exacerbate it.

Another recent popular way of "charity"by the wealthy are Donor advised Funds.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2...d-funds-silicon-valley-philanthropic-loophole


https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/donor-advised-funds-grow-in-popularity-thanks-to-tax-reform

 

[Danoff]

Another recent popular way of "charity"by the wealthy are Donor advised Funds.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2...d-funds-silicon-valley-philanthropic-loophole


https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/donor-advised-funds-grow-in-popularity-thanks-to-tax-reform

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.