• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

When I first toured Wake, I was told the average starting salary for a psych major the previous year was >$120K. One of those psych majors was Tim Duncan.
 
Man I’m learning so many new positions I didn’t know, like philanthropy is bad and abolish all cops. So are you saying that when I worked for nonprofits that got large gifts from wealthy people who cared about the issues we were working for, that’s bad? Yes, I know the tax implications but that’s not the only reason people donate.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Man I’m learning so many new positions I didn’t know, like philanthropy is bad and abolish all cops. So are you saying that when I worked for nonprofits that got large gifts from wealthy people who cared about the issues we were working for, that’s bad? Yes, I know the tax implications but that’s not the only reason people donate.
Click to expand...

It's not bad in a malevolent way. But yes, the non-profit industrial complex is bad because it doesn't address the underlying social cause. It's an oversimplification, but it's giving poor kids violins and having them perform for you to make you feel good, rather than address their underlying poverty.

So little of philanthropic giving goes directly to the people it's intended to benefit, and is not done so in a way that promotes self-determination of those communities.
 
I think it depends on your point of view, if you believe that no person should have that much accumulated wealth then anything they do with it is subject to this ridiculous scrutiny, if you subscribe to the theory that most people with that much wealth took advantage of opportunities and for no fault of their own are now extremely wealthy I think the percentage of giving should then come into play. If you donate your time and money to causes you believe in that are proportional to your wealth in comparison to the rest of the world then there should be no complaints.

The problem comes when it’s like wow he is so generous he donated 50 million but because their insane wealth it is the equivalent of me throwing in 50 dollars for some Girl Scout cookies. It’s like Shark Tank, I know you worked your entire life for this company and it’s everything you have done with your life I’ll give you 200,000 for 50% stake, yeah sure that’s like a 20 dollars normal person money but look 200,000!
 
Colonel Angus said:
So "Med 4 All" isn't a idea/proposal supported by many (most?) on the left?

And late term abortion isn't supported by many (most?) on the left?

Progressive taxation and "soak the rich... they can afford it!11! isn't supported by many (most?) on the left?

Calls for strict gun control isn't supported by many (most?) on the left?

And we know from the past that racism isn't really racism if someone on the left does it, right?
Click to expand...

Umm, that's not what dem platform means and what you state is not what is in the tweet, Donald. But based on the competely different things in your post, I agree with numbers. Your last comment is just dumb.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Man I’m learning so many new positions I didn’t know, like philanthropy is bad and abolish all cops. So are you saying that when I worked for nonprofits that got large gifts from wealthy people who cared about the issues we were working for, that’s bad? Yes, I know the tax implications but that’s not the only reason people donate.
Click to expand...
1. Philanthropy is generally good, yes.
2. The philanthropy of billionaires and millionaires deserves MUCH MUCH more scrutiny.
3. Philanthropy can never be a defense of the ultra-rich deserving their wealth. The most philanthropic billionaire is still a bad billionaire.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Man I’m learning so many new positions I didn’t know, like philanthropy is bad and abolish all cops. So are you saying that when I worked for nonprofits that got large gifts from wealthy people who cared about the issues we were working for, that’s bad? Yes, I know the tax implications but that’s not the only reason people donate.
Click to expand...

then as someone who worked at a NFP, you know how precarious the whole operation is

why do we want a system where the most vulnerable person's options are based on the whims of rich folks?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
then as someone who worked at a NFP, you know how precarious the whole operation is

why do we want a system where the most vulnerable person's options are based on the whims of rich folks?
Click to expand...



We don't want that, but it's much better to have that option than it not to exist at all. It's positive to have an alternative when vulnerable people fall through the cracks.
 
RJKarl said:
[/B][/COLOR]

We don't want that, but it's much better to have that option than it not to exist at all. It's positive to have an alternative when vulnerable people fall through the cracks.
Click to expand...
You need to face the fact that these philanthropists are spending the same or even more money to protect an economic system that creates poverty and thus calls for their philanthropy. You seem to believe that these are seperate unrelated facts, when actually you can't logically seperate them.
 
MHBDemon said:
It's not bad in a malevolent way. But yes, the non-profit industrial complex is bad because it doesn't address the underlying social cause. It's an oversimplification, but it's giving poor kids violins and having them perform for you to make you feel good, rather than address their underlying poverty.

So little of philanthropic giving goes directly to the people it's intended to benefit, and is not done so in a way that promotes self-determination of those communities.
Click to expand...

Good thing taxes go directly to the people they are intended to benefit, no wasteful spending and bureaucratic bloat there.
 
As usual, you have a black and white opinion of the world. There are no good rich people to you when there clearly are.
 
So is one of the complaints about billionaire charity that it’s a tax write off and therefore the government misses out on those tax dollars?
 
RJKarl said:
[/B][/COLOR]

We don't want that, but it's much better to have that option than it not to exist at all. It's positive to have an alternative when vulnerable people fall through the cracks.
Click to expand...

nobody's trying to take away the "option" of philanthropy

they're trying to create a system where large-scale philanthropy needn't exist

and in the meantime, let's call out the bullshit philanthropy that exists as a tax shield or to curry/consolidate political power
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Good thing taxes go directly to the people they are intended to benefit, no wasteful spending and bureaucratic bloat there.
Click to expand...

it's true that challenging corruption goes hand in hand with implementing socialist ideas

but -- at the risk of whataboutism -- there is plenty of financial corruption and immorality in the private sector to the benefit of a few
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Good thing taxes go directly to the people they are intended to benefit, no wasteful spending and bureaucratic bloat there.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you want to have a bloat off between government and charitable foundations.

Most of the people you’re arguing against would be all for removing the layers of bureaucracy and waste between government and people who need the help.
 
I just think until you change the system which involves running a huge deficit anyways then it’s silly to complain about charitable giving being a tax break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top