So far as 538 can figure out, our democratically-elected government has spent less than $10 billion fighting climate change in the past 25 years put together.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-the-governm...

So personally I'm not impressed with our government's ability to allocate funds towards useful causes.

If another billionaire spends their money on a cause I don't care about so much, fine, at least they didn't spend my money on it. And they'd go to prison if they did anything near so offensive as some of the things the government has been up to lately.

Parent was talking about giving a 100% tax break to him because he agrees with the cause.

The post you’re replying to already explained where the democratically elected government is choosing to spend the money. Billionaire seems to be making better decisions.

“Billionaire seems to be making better decisions.”

Don’t buy into that. Otherwise we’ll soon have a dictator who gets things “done”. Part of the problem with democratic governments not working well is that the system gets manipulated by rich guys pushing their personal agenda.

So you suggest taking power away from CEOs, putting into the hands of the government (effectively making it the CEO) which has police, military, and prisons? That is how you get a dictator.

Between CEOs and governments, which has a historically higher body count? Who's jailed more people for not agreeing with them?

You say the problem with democratic governments not working well is that it gets manipulated by rich guys.

What happens when big business and government are the same thing? That makes for even easier corruption.

What you have right now is crony capitalism, where CEOs have a massive influence over government, and use that to enact their agendas (corporate socialism). We're already at big business and government being the same thing.

I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting putting more power into the hands of the government. How about we let the billionaires spend money on the causes they want and just stay out of it (NO tax breaks). That's actually less government.

Because the government is doing a terrible job with the trillions it already spends? What difference would 10 billion make to the US government? Basically nothing.

This sort of knee-jerk antagonism against billionaires spending their money on philanthropic causes is so common these days. I think Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a very good piece on this [1].

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

Nonsense. Parent stated Bezo's should get a 100% tax rebate. I never voted to subsidize Bezo's philanthropy to the tune of 100% of tax revenue, and I like to think I live in a democracy. Nothing I said was knee-jerk antagonism.

I gave $100 to the Girl Guides last week without any expectation of a 100% tax rebate. Who am I to decide that tax payer revenue should 100% go towards the Girl Guides? Maybe other tax payers would prefer it went towards something else?

As far as $10 billion being basically nothing... we wouldn't be talking about it if it was $100, but my opinion wouldn't change.

You're right, but also what are we doing in the meantime? What's the point of having that kind of money except to do huge initiatives like this?

Hey I don't care what he does with his money as long as it's legal. I'm not going to give him a big huge tax break so he can decide where my taxes go though.

> Does this still work if he puts this money towards a cause you're not keen of?

This also applies in reverse. Here's an interesting article on some of this stuff if you're looking for another opinion - specifically #4 and on: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...