I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.

I do not think that would matter as much as you think.

As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.

He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".

>>but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".

One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.

Yes there's definitely a negative feedback loop currently where:

- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not

- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes

Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.

It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.

It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.

"I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people."

I might sound cynic, but personally I could only held up that belief, if I never open my eyes again and never open any newspaper anymore, or turn on the tv. Usually I read sentences like this in satire articles, but I think I understand the motivation behind it. Sometimes you have to give trust first, to make something work. I am just very sceptical in this case.

I think you would really enjoy the Nautilus article about Game Theory of anonymous philanthropy:

https://nautil.us/larry-david-and-the-game-theory-of-anonymo...

The opening call out is pretty great, too. Ever see the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry's big donation is upstaged by Ted's anonymous donation?

Visible philanthropy is not a simple system of rewards. It's much more interesting than that.

I remember that episode!

I think it'd still work - you'd just have to tweaked it a bit - could definitely have the list ordered with most patriotic "anonymous" tax contributors listed in order and then reward the first three non-anonymous highest tax contributors with the full 'bio'/backstory in the magazine spread.

When I worked for what was the fastest growing public publisher in London over thirty years ago, salespeople actually shared their tax slips to boast. "Super tax" was the euphemisms for how much was calculated you needed to have deducted from your payroll every time you hit a campaign out the park and increased your tax offices estimate of your annual return. Which we did. Often. See the Guinness records book for the PGA tour guide of'93 which was the apotheosis and the end of that lark. (Almost all advertising it weighed six pounds or something crazy but quite sane compared with the first dollar points paid to direct sales)

Does anyone still care about Forbes covers? this is not 2001 anymore. Forbes along with Fortune are just shity user contributor content farms now. They got in early on the content farm bandwagon.

well, sacrificing long term viability for short term gain would seem to be very on-brand for them.

> right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people.

If you want to throw money straight down the fucking drain, go for it. The federal budget is already not balanced. No matter what rich people donate extra, the money will be squandered exactly the same way it is today but you can’t even attach stipulations.

Statistically speaking, you money will just into the military.

I would much rather have the rich use their influence to push for good things the government doesn’t care about (hunger programs, drug rehab, housing, etc).

Well its more of a glass is half full outlook - their making the tax payments regardless. They might as well wear the t-shirt emblazoned with "I paid my taxes and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" with pride, no?

That seems like healthier political discourse would need to precede (rather than naturally follow) such a system.

There are several causes I support; none of them are close to and just slightly more effective than giving that money to the government.

The real problem comes though when you actually do research to try to find a good charity to give to.

Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the charity pulls on the heart strings the better chance it is a scam too.

Me too. I researched, part of a graduate school assignment: detailed following of the money, and beyond direct gifts to local food banks or directly to people in need I honor no organized charity. The well was poisoned decades ago, and now charities are simply not charities.

A Captain of Industry who pays a lot in taxes might also indirectly use public goods like roads (for their logistics). They are not some baseline citizen with one white-picket-fence house who contributes above and beyond.

> Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.

This is irrelevant. Rich people already rule the world. If they want better PR they can just buy it.

You can worship rich people all you want, but it would be for your own pleasure and wouldn't be relevant to the billionaires or whoever it is that we're talking about.

The OP was talking about the top tax payers, which is a specific subset of rich people. Maybe it is a good idea to come up with some soft incentives. Tax collection generally relies on "whip", but "sugar" isn't useless either.

Yes - some sugar/recognition/appreciation could go a long way.

Imagine Organization A (i.e. non-profit organization) offers to accept your gift for $N and throws you a gala with you as the beneficiary.

Then imagine Organization B (i.e. the government) forcefully accepts your a gift for $N that you are willing to give regardless of the subtle implied threat of force because you are appreciative of what it does for you and your community but there is no recognition and parts of Organization B are bragging about how they are taking money from you/villifying you and actively being rewarded with promotions for doing so.

I'd imagine most would be more happy with Organization A.

And if one is firmly committed to a "soak the rich" outlook, you can just think of this as a way to massage their ego for free.