"The super-rich when alive give away a smaller proportion of their income than the rest of us. And when it comes to die, they leave their money mostly to their children." (Fortune Magazine). About 9% goes to charitable causes. Pets get about 2%. The estate of Helen Walton, $16 billion worth of it, has gone to the Walton Family Foundation to assist charter schools, charter school advocacy groups and think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
The myth of generosity spread by commentators like Bill O’Reilly about the massive philanthropy exercised by the super-rich persists, despite evidence to the contrary. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich estimates that only 10% of the contributions that qualified for charitable deductions in 2006 were "directed at the poor". Philanthropy, as Andrew Carnegie commented, "is not a democratic institution."
The Libertarian wing of the Epicurean movement will no doubt answer, so what. But this blog stresses calm and peace of mind and the possibilities of everyone getting along without anti-ataraxic social strife, poverty and misery. To think of abolishing the aforesaid would be naive, but to aim in that direction sure knocks the stuffing out of the claims of Christian churches to be the only moral champions of the poor.
David Nasaw in the Washington Post (September 23rd) asks the question: "Is society well-served by letting so few accumulate so much? What becomes of a society that relies on "gifts" from a handful of socially conscious billionaires to save schools, cure diseases and alleviate poverty." I agree. Help for the poor should come from government and we should be taxed to allow government to do the job. We cannot rely on a handful of decent billionaires, nor should we listen to the Bill O’Reillys of the world who are paid by very rich people to boost their images and care for their interests. Who cares about the less well-off?
Robert have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? In theory taxing the wealthy to care for the “poor” sounds great; in reality, who decides who is wealthy; who is poor and how much to tax; couple that with this question: Name one thing government has done better than private enterprise
PLus, it would seem un-epicurean to “force” others to provide for the satisfaction of others;
Mickey, nice to hear from you and on a very good topic. The answer to your questioon is , as far as I’m concerned, a no-brainer. Take health care. The US market-oriented healthcare system, for instance, is a scandal. We spend twice as much as the French and Germmans and two and a half times as much as the Brits, yet Americans die younger and child mortality is higher. In 2000 38million people were uninsured, and today it’s 47 million. Congress has just refused healthcare insurance to millions of little children. So successful is the free market that smaller firms are being forced out of the system and their employees have no insurance. Meanwhile, I discovered a great plus for passing the age of 65: Medicare. Since signing up for "socialized medicine", run by the government, a load has been lifted from my shoulders. It is incredibly smooth and efficient, and I have had almost no medical paperwork to do since the happy day. Blessedly I am also relieved of the back and forth with the dismal Aetna. I gather that Veteran’s Administration is also very economically and efficiently run and its overhead cost is similar to that in Britain (about 6%, whereas free enterprise costs us 15%) . Maybe you are a youngster, Mickey, (defined as anyone under 68!) but when you reach my age you will be grateful for Medicare, I think I can guarantee that! On the other hand, I might agree with you that the government (o.k, let’s be honest, this government) is incapable of running a war and administering a foreign country it succeeded in busting. But that’s partly the fault of an unprofessional laisser-faire , "stuff happens" outlook, not to mention privatized soldiering (incredible!). The difference lies in the caliber of the people, in training, in a professional, conscientious outlook, not in whether it is private or public.