Re:Basic income as an answer to all out automation
by Avshalom on Monday June 24, 2013 @11:42AM
(#5933614)
I can't help but notice that they are still super rich.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Basic income as an answer to all out automation
by rthomas6 on Monday June 24, 2013 @12:29PM
(#5933968)
What has that got to do with anything? If someone donates half their wealth to charity and keeps the other half for their heirs and family, is that morally wrong? How does them still being super rich in any way negate their massive charitable contributions?
At what point is it enough? 50%? 70%? 90%? I bet I can find examples for each of those percentages where billionaires gave up about that percentage of their wealth. Surely that disproves the OP's claim that the super rich NEVER give significant portions of their wealth to charity.
Re:Basic income as an answer to all out automation
by Avshalom on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:10PM
(#5934243)
> If someone donates half their wealth to charity
They haven't yet have they.
Re:Basic income as an answer to all out automation
by rthomas6 on Monday June 24, 2013 @02:26PM
(#5934724)
Do you suspect that they are lying? I guess only time will tell. I sincerely, for the good of all of us, hope that you are wrong. But there are many wealthy philanthropists who have already given away the majority of their wealth. For instance, John Templeton and Chuck Feeney. And perhaps you're forgetting about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?