I mean, literally giving it away in a naïve fashion like "we're going to combine their wealth and divide it up equally among everyone else in the world" probably wouldn't make the world better off in a meaningful way -- but between the two of them we're talking about $370 billion dollars. It's not too difficult to imagine how using 90% of that to target specific problems could improve life in tangible ways for a measurable chunk of the world's population, and still leave each of them billionaires. (In fact, judging by rankings from Forbes last year, it would still leave them among the top 50 richest people in the world!)
Given the majority of their wealth is their ownership of companies, and those wealth estimates represent how much money other people think they can make from Amazon/Tesla dividends in future and how much people recon it would be worth spending to take over SpaceX/Neuralink etc., distributing their wealth would likely do less than you expect.
Also, given that Musk has tweeted:
> About half my money is intended to help problems on Earth & half to help establish a self-sustaining city on Mars to ensure continuation of life (of all species) in case Earth gets hit by a meteor like the dinosaurs or WW3 happens & we destroy ourselves
Well, yes and no.
The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century.
There are no plausible catastrophes that could hit Earth that wouldn't randomly leave at least as many people still alive on Earth afterwards. The meteor killed most of the dinosaurs because they were unable to adapt to the climate after the impact. But some dinosaur species were able to adapt, thus we have birds today.
Humans are immensely good at adapting. There is no question in my mind that several million people would survive both WW3 and a meteor like what killed the dinosaurs. The humans on Mars are redundant in that case.
The only upside to Musk's idea is he (or at least someone) gets to pick who the survivors will be.
To me the sensible thing to do would be to tax these people (Musk, Bezos, Gates etc) and have the government implement policies that used these funds for socialized healthcare, higher minimum wage, paid parental leave etc. - you know, what all other first-world countries already have.
> To me the sensible thing to do would be to tax these people (Musk, Bezos, Gates etc) and have the government implement policies that used these funds for socialized healthcare, higher minimum wage, paid parental leave etc. - you know, what all other first-world countries already have.
They already do tax them, at higher rates than anyone else in society. And its long been observed that a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels.
As for socialized healthcare, we have it, perhaps you’ve heard of the affordable healthcare act and medicare. As for minimum wage, the US is 16th in the world. I’m not sure how you propose to translate taxes into a higher minimu wage, maybe a direct subsidy for workers? In any case they would then spend it on the same consumption goods as other miminum wage earners and put profit in the pockets of corporations and bid up the prices until equilibrium canceled out the increased wage. Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes? Or you want to reduce the marginal productivity of capital in order to reduce the productivity of labor as well?
The claim that the ultra-rich are taxed at a higher rate than anyone else in society is provably false. In 2015 the US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation calculated [1, p. 7] that implementing the "Buffet rule" would bring in an additional $7 billion in tax revenue per year.
In a nutshell the Buffet rule is making sure that the ultra-rich are taxed at no less than the same rate as a middle income family, namely 30%.
In total the changes proposed in [1] would bring a net increase in revenue on taxation of individuals north of $50 bn per year, even while reducing the tax burden on low- and middle-income families.
And no, the US does not have actual socialized healthcare. When you have parents sitting with a sick child in their car in the parking lot outside the hospital, waiting as long ad possible before they go to in, in case the kid gets better so they can avoid racking up a huge hospital bill, you've screwed something up real bad. This doesn't happen ever in any country in Europe, period.
> Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes?
I don't understand at all the reference to imaginary zeroes here. My point is that government subsidised paid parental leave is a measure that significantly increases the quality of life of low- and middle-income families in the critical period of time when their children are very small. It's a no-brainer even financially, the ROI from increased productivity in the workforce over the span of a decade is strongly positive. If you let a woman take parental leave and take care of her babies for a couple of years total in her 30s, versus working her to the bone in that period, I guarantee you she will have a net increase in her productive labor output during her lifespan.
> In a nutshell the Buffet rule is making sure that the ultra-rich are taxed at no less than the same rate as a middle income family, namely 30%.
For different kinds of income, you’re ignoring the fact that this would tax capital gains at the rate of earned income. It’s not about wealth but the source of the income.
> In total the changes proposed in [1] would bring a net increase in revenue on taxation of individuals north of $50 bn per year
Yes, but they would not bring an appreciable amount of revenue in for the government, so why bother? Especially since you’d be decreasing the marginal profitability of investments, which would make certain investments unattractive and thereby reduce investment.
> And no, the US does not have actual socialized healthcare.
Yes we do, source, I live here and I have healthcare. You’re required to have coverage and the cost depends on your income level. Below a certain income its covered, above a certain income you need to contribute. I.e. socialism.
> When you have parents sitting with a sick child in their car in the parking lot outside the hospital, waiting as long ad possible before they go to in, in case the kid gets better so they can avoid racking up a huge hospital bill, you've screwed something up real bad.
Yeah socialism has a loooooot of problems.
> This doesn't happen ever in any country in Europe, period.
No they just tell the travellers to keep travelling and they deny medical care because the little sod isn’t worth it to them. You do understand that socialized medicine refuses care to people who aren’t deemed to be “worth it”, don’t you?
> I don't understand at all the reference to imaginary zeroes here. My point is that government subsidised paid parental leave is a measure that significantly increases the quality of life of low- and middle-income families in the critical period of time when their children are very small. It's a no-brainer even financially, the ROI from increased productivity in the workforce over the span of a decade is strongly positive.
If the ROI is positive then businesses will do it of their own accord. Mandates are only required for interventions with a negative r.o.i.
> If you let a woman take parental leave and take care of her babies for a couple of years total in her 30s, versus working her to the bone in that period, I guarantee you she will have a net increase in her productive labor output during her lifespan.
She may not be working for the same firm during that time. You need to assure that the person who paid for her time off is the recipient of the increased productivity else you’re just playing 3 card monty.
Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income?
If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning?
> No they just tell the travellers to keep travelling and they deny medical care.
I am very unsure what you're talking about here. Illegal immigrants? At least where I live, they have full access to the health service on the same basis as any citizen. Of course they are at risk of being deported, but while here they have full right to health care. In the UK, the NHS will provide primary care to refugees, asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers free of charge in the same way as any other patient. So what are you talking about?
Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it". You put ethics above finances, pure and simple.
> If the ROI is positive businesses will do it on their own
> She may not be working for the same firm during that time.
Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society even though it may not be so for the company. That is precisely the point, and is exactly why we need a government in the first place. Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative. But the long-term ROI for society is strongly positive. This is why we even have a government.
> Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income?
Thats a very good question, perhaps we should be lowering the earned income tax rate instead. Of course the reason capital gains are taxed lower is complicated and political but one reason is that when people invest in capital then it multiplies the effect of labor so we want to encourage capital investment and so it gets a discount.
> If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning?
Its too small to fund expenditures for any length of time. Of course whether much smaller amounts of money (yet still significant) should be spent on something else entirely is of course a valid discussion as I’m sure you understand.
> I am very unsure what you're talking about here.
Its well known that European countries have demographics that are treated as undesireable second-class citizens and have less access to public services. The Travellers are a prominent example.
> Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it".
I’m certain that there is some process of determining whether a patient’s live is worth saving according to quality of life and assorted other metrics. You can’t expect me to believe that they will simply offer any treatment whatsover to any person no matter how unlikely it is to work.
> Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society
I don’t agree that its a net positive for society.
> Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative.
This reveals a misunderstanding of business, as they are structured around long-term roi.
>> No system can say yes to every desired treatment, in every context, at any price. All systems have to tell somebody no: Either providers cannot charge what they want, or patients cannot have what they want, or taxes are going to be much higher than anyone wants.
> a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels.
I don't think there are any real proposals to raise taxes only on the ultra wealthy. The super wealthy and the very wealthy would also pay higher taxes (let's say the top .5% of the income/wealth distributions), like they did for most of the post WWII era.
If one is considering raising taxes to create a more equitable society, the upper middle class (say the 99%ile) should also see taxes reset to a marginally higher level, but that appears to be politically less feasible at the moment.
> The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century.
Compared to the roughly $100,000 billion/year combined GDP of all nations, the $8 billion/year [0] Musk is trying to make the Mars colony cost is a rounding error, not “serious” money.
[0] 1e6 people at $200,000/person, divided by 25 years for even the most optimistic timeline
If someone quoted you $200,000/person for building a 1 million person city from scratch in the middle of the desert, it would be a lowball figure.
The Masdar city in Abu Dhabi was planned to cost $20 billion and house 40k people. That's $500,000/person, right here on Earth where breathable air and protection from cosmic radiation is completely free of charge, and you don't need to launch anything out of Earth's gravity well.
So if Musk had a realistic way of reaching $200,000/person, he could start doing it on Earth and completely fund his Mars project purely from the profits of selling the Earthside city to someone else here on Earth.
He is funding his Mars project from the profits of selling his spaceships to people here on Earth.
I agree he’s probably being over optimistic about the price, unless he has a self-replicating factory skunkworks (which is also entirely plausible), but on the other hand Musk’s estimates are only factor of x2-x3 fantasy compared to subsequent delivered realities, better than the rest of the space sector even when he’s promising more.
I think Gates and Musk have both shown that there's an effectiveness multiple between a single, informed donor and the government as far as funding is concerned.
Government funding is larger in magnitude, but can't be targeted to the same degree and has blind spots.
Sure. I didn't want to turn my quick comment into an off-the-cuff analysis of the actual complexity behind "billionaires should give away their money." :) I know in practice that's easier said than done, although I also know that in practice it's still doable. MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos's ex-wife, provides a reasonable example here. (There are also probably a thousand think pieces one could write about just what it "means" that she is, apparently, the richest woman on earth almost entirely because she divorced the second-richest man on earth.)
I will slightly disagree with characterizing Musk's linked tweet as "doing what you're asking the money for", only because "intended" is a bit nebulous; he could be spending a lot of money solving problems now rather than merely "intending" to do so. (One could argue that his companies are all intended to solve problems, to be sure, but that gets way more nebulous really fast.)
Oh but he's not doing it while wearing Che shirt and having the right identity, also his companies aren't cooperatives crippled by internal ideological fractures; therefore bad.
> but between the two of them we're talking about $370 billion dollars.
Those are investments that are already earning a return. How do you propose to use them to make people any better off than they already do? You could expropriate gates and bezos, and sell the assets to some other billionaire, then fund the government for a fraction of a year, or buy mosquito nets for africans, and then what? Is that what you think would make the world a better place? I’m asking here.
> It's not too difficult to imagine how using 90% of that to target specific problems could improve life in tangible ways for a measurable chunk of the world's population
This is what I’m asking you to imagine and tell me, because for people like Gates and Buffet who have already given a lot of money away, it actually is kind of hard to find ways to make an actual lasting meaningful improvement in people’s lives, they’ve spent the better part of their lives working on it and they haven’t given up yet. But the money has to be translated into things that help people out, just giving them stuff can actually leave them worse off because it creates dependencies and disparities.
I don't think the fact that I can't give you an off-the-cuff but brilliant strategic plan in this Hacker News comment describing how Elon Musk could best structure his charitable foundation is a real indictment of my assertion that such a plan could be put together. :) As I mentioned in a previous comment to somebody else, I recognize that "giving away" incredible amounts of money is easier said than done -- but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Again, as I mentioned in that comment, MacKenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos's ex-wife) appears to be doing a startlingly good job of it. So is Bill Gates, as you mentioned. There are others.
There are all sorts of conversations to be had about extreme wealth, but it really does strike me as at least reasonable for part of that conversation to be around changing the culture of expectation for billionaires.
> I don't think the fact that I can't give you an off-the-cuff but brilliant strategic plan in this Hacker News comment describing how Elon Musk could best structure his charitable foundation is a real indictment of my assertion that such a plan could be put together.
Mostly I just want to counter the mistaken idea that redistributing the wealth of billionaires would result in improvements for the poor. It wouldn’t, because that wealth is already in a form that can’t be easily translated into the things that poor people lack.
> As I mentioned in a previous comment to somebody else, I recognize that "giving away" incredible amounts of money is easier said than done -- but that doesn't mean it's not possible.
Its possible to give it away. I’m asking how to improve people’s live thereby. The wealth is in the form of companies that are already providing goods and services to people. There’s not enough profit to make meaningful direct cash payments to the poor. If you liquidate the companies assets you’ve expropriated Bezos’ wealth and sold it to people....then you do what with the money? We already know transfer payments are only temporary.
> Again, as I mentioned in that comment, MacKenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos's ex-wife) appears to be doing a startlingly good job of it. So is Bill Gates, as you mentioned. There are others.
Its not easy: [0]
>> Both insiders and external critics have suggested that there is too much deference to Bill Gates's personal views within the Gates Foundation, insufficient internal debate, and pervasive "group think."[101][159] Critics also complain that Gates Foundation grants are often awarded based on social connections and ideological allegiances rather than based on formal external review processes or technical competence.
> There are all sorts of conversations to be had about extreme wealth, but it really does strike me as at least reasonable for part of that conversation to be around changing the culture of expectation for billionaires.
Its reasonable for people who think they can better allocate resources to explain how their proposed allocation is, in fact, better. The billionaire has already proven he can put his wealth to productive use. I’m merely expecting you to suggest how you could meet that same standard.
