This reminds me of this: Anand Giridharas on why the plutes hate to pay taxes but love to donate. Rich people use “philanthropy” to purchase power, and that may be even more pernicious than when it’s a straightforward scam. I’ll just transcribe the whole thing:
“What we see in France is part of a larger pattern: the plutes often hate to pay their taxes but love to donate.
Now, you might say, what’s the big difference? Why do you hate paying $100 million in taxes but relish paying $100 million in a philanthropic gift?
One reason is that the donation is tax-subsidized, in many cases. So the $100 million donation may actually cost you way less than $100 million, even though it will be reported in the media as such.
Another reason is reputational. Paying taxes doesn’t give you much esteem. To paraphrase Chris Rock, one doesn’t get credit for doing what you’re supposed to do.
But donations, especially well-publicized ones, buy you reputational benefits that in effect also defray the cost.
What I mean by “defray the cost”:
If you’re rich and powerful, you may have various interests that make you dependent on decisions by public actors, and various things you want to avoid (antitrust rules, regulations).
So, having a moral glow, being seen as a good guy, pays.
So when you donate, you may drop $100 million. But (a) you get some of that back via deduction. And (b) many donors will also derive some intangible reputational and access benefits. If a $100 million check makes it easier to call a senator, that could be worth millions.
So you’re now out only $50 million, but you have stories out there saying you spent $100 million, and maybe you have general reputational benefits or specific access benefits that help you get a project approved or avoid some legislative crackdown, which sweetens the deal.
But we haven’t yet talked about the biggest differentiator for many of the plutocrats I have reported on. The biggest differentiator is control.
The problem with taxes is that you wire them in, and they go into a big pile with everyone else’s, and they go where they go.
This offends many plutocrats in a few distinct ways.
One, they just like controlling things, deciding things. That’s often how they make and keep their money. They are, or think they are, good at it. They want to do the same deciding here.
But with taxes, they can’t.
Even if you pay a lot of taxes, your money isn’t special when it takes the form of taxes. More of it doesn’t buy you more esteem, more discretion, more of a say in how the money is spent.
But when you donate, that can get you a board seat, an advisory role, the right to decide.
“I feel much more comfortable with our ability as a private foundation to allocate these funds than I do giving them to the government,” Michael Dell said in Davos, which is a conference similar to that Saudi Future Investment Initiative, but on a Swiss mountain.
What so attracts many plutocrats to causes like Notre Dame and so repels them from taxation is a feeling they have that the society is best-off when they, rather than the society, decide how and where resources are spent.
Which gets us to the heart of the matter.
They are happy to part with some of their money as long as they don’t have to part with any of their power.
In fact, through the donation, they increase their power - reputationally, access-wise, and in the administration of the gift.
They are willing to make a difference so long as you do not interfere with their right to make and keep their killings.”
- Transcript of writings by Anand Giridharas, credit belongs to them.
izzy806
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
germansingergirl
ellievsbear
yousharknotpass
origamiaround
blakekathryn
gummygunk
snowghoul
