Re: Taxes versus Philantropy
"When rich people claim that philantropy is better than taxation, their argument is essentially that their causes are more worthy and/or that they can manage them better than governments"
Which is generally demonstrated as true. Since the earned money being directed towards a cause vs the gov borrowing even more on the heads of its population for whatever it desires spaffing money on.
"They are putting themselves over governments."
Good. There was a time of kings over people but the concept of people over government has been hard fought for a long time as tyranny is not considered a good thing. People should be over government to reign in the excesses and retain the freedom governments would take away. Wars have been fought over this.
"Sure, there may be some benevolent ones, but history has proven that they more often than not invest in causes that are more important to them, their family, and their friends, and not the needs of the pauper."
That there is the very description of government as well as people. But individuals can direct what they have, govs direct what they take from individuals.
"It's sure nice that some bazillionaires donate to worthy causes like eradicating tuberculosis, measels or cancer, but if we hauled in more tax money, we as a society could invest more in those efforts as well."
Yet wouldnt. Governments are massively in debt, they waste money on fiefdoms and pet projects for their mates and gratification.
"Let them blow their money on rockets and flying taxis, and donate to issues they believe in, but only after proper taxation."
Proper taxation? What is that? Obviously its not a figure nor method nor anything tangible. Should it be to extract the most from people? Should it be to encourage more economic growth which increases the tax income? Should it be for the government to make everyone the pauper?