Thread by @neverthelessCS

Billionaires giving away half their money doesn't = affordable health insurance.

It doesn't = affordable housing.

It doesn't = higher wages.

It doesn't = lower prescription drug costs.

What it does: allows one person to sponsor their pet cause while everyone else suffers.

Generosity should always be encouraged and celebrated, but it's not a social safety net...not in a world of 7.5 billion people.

I led a discussion group at church on Sunday, and we got into this a little. Someone played devil's advocate and said, "But didn't the billionaire work hard and earn his money...not steal it?"

Well, it depends.

If half the billionaire's employees are on welfare assistance due to piss-poor wages, are they earning thier money...or stealing it?

If the billionaire moves his money into offshore accounts & exploits other loopholes to keep from paying taxes that would maintenance the infrastructure he used to build his business, is he earning his money or stealing it?

If the billionaire dumps toxic waste into our streams and rivers because it's cheaper than proper disposal, is he earning his money or stealing it?

If he engages in business schemes to artificially drive up his company's stock price so he can add a few hundred million to his bottom line, is he earning his money or stealing it?

If the billionaire donates millions of dollars to a political candidate's election campaign because said candidate opposes "inconvenient" business regulations, is he earning his money...or stealing it?

I could go on. There's dozens of ways very powerful businesses interests manipulate the system and exploit resources in order to amass more money.

That's what businesses are created to do: earn money.

Now you might say, "None of that is exactly illegal."

That's not the point. It may not be illegal to dump your toxic sludge into the nearest river, but that is an exploitation of resources. Someone is going to suffer the consequences of that river being polluted.

It may not be illegal to move money offshore to avoid taxes, or to set up factories in Bangladesh to avoid minimum wage laws, but THERE IS A COST TO BEAR. Companies not paying taxes means schools don't get funded and roads don't get paid.

Sorry. *paved

The reason we have so many billionaires in this country is that we have a lot of businesses that don't bear the actual costs of operation. The don't clean up areas they pollute, or pay their fair share of taxes, or take care of the employees they run into the ground.

Agencies like OSHA and the EPA were established to make sure that big companies would bear some of their own costs of doing business.

And for the past 30 years, powerful lobbyists have been doing everything they can to gut these agencies.

The point is, you can't amass absurd amounts of wealth without draining it from another portion of society. Wealth is finite.

And here's where charity becomes problematic.

Billionaires usually have a handful of causes they care about...probably less than a dozen. They'll usually give to their alma mater, a couple of charities that involve kids, and then to a really big cause like curing malaria or ending the clean water crisis.

Don't get me wrong: those are very critical problems that need to be solved. But...

When huge sums of money are held by increasingly fewer people, that means ONLY those causes get the funding they need.

And lack of tax revenue for local issues means more nonprofits start popping up to compete for that money.

For example: imagine if cities had enough revenue to operate their own affordable housing and job training programs.

Would we still need a bunch of nonprofits focused on helping the homeless?

What if our government took on the mantle of funding most of our medical research?

Would we still need The American Heart Association or the Komen Foundation?

And here's the thing: we know from research that lower class families are often far more charitable (by percentage of income) than millionaires and billionaires.

So, theoretically, if lower class families had more security, we'd see more charitable giving all around...

...and, with more social services from tax revenue, we'd have fewer nonprofits competing for those dollars.

We could finally replace those awful water pipes in Flint.

Which, I will point out, no billionaire has done yet.

And what happens when some of your billionaires turn out to be Donald Tr*mp or Martin Shkreli?

See, this is why we shouldn't rely on the generosity of a few wealthy individuals to provide critical services. It's a terrible plan.

People say it's theft or punishment to tax the rich or put regulations on big business. I have another word for it.

It's called economics. And it makes sense.