Posted on 01/17/2012 4:23:32 PM PST by billflax
What might an imaginary trillionaire do with what Uncle Sam leaves him? He can buy something, give to charity, bury it or (re-)invest seeking greater gains. Clearly these are better conducted by those outlaying their property versus government bureaucrats squandering what others create.
Maybe our nascent trillionaire will donate to worthy causes. Rockefeller reportedly gave over half a billion dollars away. Andrew Carnegie was similarly generous. Worthwhile charity is subjective, but the one who created wealth can better evaluate this than those bestowing others’ taxes to boost their reelection chances.
Few philanthropists would condone massive vote buying welfare schemes where “means testing” discourages marriage, employment and diminishes the benefits of delayed gratification. Public charity contradicts the normal prerequisites for personal advancement.
Washington encourages irresponsibility and rewards unwed mothers. Government must then subsist illegitimacy’s resultant ills as fatherless children roam like feral dogs. Private philanthropists are more circumspect choosing what benevolence buys.
For all his chatter, Mr. Buffett intuitively understands, “I think that [private foundations] do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
as fatherless children roam like feral dogs.
Wow, that has a nice ring to it...
In 2008 he lost a billion dollars speculating on gasoline driving up the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.