Replies

From the linked article: "Not surprisingly, some charities fear it could cut donations, although it would obviously have no effect on the behavior of billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who have pledged to give away half or more of their wealth."

Somebody help me here. I haven't had opportunity to donate a billion dollars recently, but it was my understanding that the entire amount would be a deduction against taxes.

Wouldn't the loss of that deduction, especially if the billion was raised through sales of equities not yet taxed, increase the burden of the giver from one billion dollars to 1.3 billion dollars or so?

Are the liberals really trying to claim that charities will not suffer if the cost of giving a billion dollars rises by 30%?

Whatever it is that Bill Gates is willing to give up, if the amount that must go to the state increases, how will the amount given to the charity not decrease?

Your problem is that you're actually thinking (one of the first signs of this is using basic arithmetic, common sense, or quantified reasoning.)

The correct approach is this "argument" based entirely on emotion [No linearity should be inferred from the list format in this "reasoning," these feelings arrive randomly and are connected only haphazardly in actual liberal neurological pathways]:

Anyone who makes more money than me is rich.
I do not make less money than someone else because of any lack of talent, education, ambition, hard work, or choice of profession.
I am a good person.
The rich must be stealing or inheriting their money.
The rich are not good people.
The rich are Republicans.
I love all of Gaia's creatures, except the rich. I hate them.
Taking things from the people I hate feels good.
The government will have more money.
I love government.
The government having more money is VERY GOOD.
The government having more money will benefit anyone who is not rich.
Private charities are bad, because they aren't the government.
Private charities might be funded by Churches. I hate them even more now.
Churches hate homosexuals.
Homosexuals, even rich ones, are good.
Private charities are even worse than I thought.
It would be better if charitable giving were done by the government, unless it's done by NGO's who get money from the government.
It will feel so good to screw those rich people.
My momma said I was special.
I don't really care about money. I'm not materialistic.
People who make more money than me are kind of calling my momma a liar. Even though success isn't about money and I don't really care about money. But I do hate people that care about money even though I really don't.
I'm finally going to get some revenge on all those people who make more money than me.
A lot of them are probably Christians.
Some might even be Icky Joos.
Jews are OK if they live in Hollywood, but otherwise they suck. Especially if they live in Israel.
Oooh, I hate Christians.
Their charities don't fund abortions.
Down with charities, unless they're NGO's.
Rich people money. That's going to be great: we get to hurt people we don't like and have new infrastructure.
Infrastructure is good. Unless it's highways. Then it's bad. Except bridges, they're OK, because Republicans neglect them and make them crumble.
Light rail is good.
Rich people won't use light rail, because it's the good kind of infrastructure.
I REALLY hate those rich people.

You get the idea. It's all kind of jarring and unpleasant up there in the liberal "brain." Mostly just random resentments, and weird ideas about what constitutes morality, science, or economics. I've actually kind of hurt my brain doing it, so I'm going to curl up with Real and Complex Analysis by Rudin for a bit as a nice anodyne. I hope this was instructive. It's been a sacrifice, but you did say you needed help.