According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Now, I know he means well, and I am ALL for giving to charity. But seriously, Dick Smith is in my opinion....shall I say....true to his first name.
Giving to charity should be a moral obligation that one feels upon him or her self. Trying to coerce others to donate money to charity using threats of embarrassing them is not only unhelpful, but really, quite condescending. No one likes a whinging, know-it-all goody goody, no matter how generous and well intentioned you are.
Don't even get me started on moral absolutism as a whole. I'm sorry, but the world is just not that black and white. Smith claims he has approached the major charities and done research to prove that Australia's wealthy don't donate in secret, and this can be seen by the lack of tax deductions sought for charitable donations. Now it is probably true that the wealthy know how to work their annual tax statements to their advantage better than anyone else, but....it is still possible that they are just not claiming their deductions. And excuse me for casting doubt on the supposed depth of Dick Smith's "research".
Now, I am not advocating for the rich here. My first point is that Dick Smith is a whinging pain in the arse.
I do have another point though. Let's look at this issue from the point of view of taxation vs. philanthropy. Once you dig below Smith's whiny little bitch rant, that's what it really comes down to, isn't it? I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I do have my own opinion on the matter.
In layman's terms, it's like this. The right wing in any given country, in times of economic hardship, argue for tax breaks. This goes to the so-called principle of "trickle-down economics". If the wealthy prosper, the economic effects will trickle down and all of society will benefit as a result. Now I am hardly (IE: not at all) a socialist, BUT, all you need to do is look at statistics of income distribution to question the validity of this argument.
Take Australia as an example. According to the ABS, in 2009-2010, the households in which those with the lowest 20% of income live accounted for 15% of total household net worth. Those in the second lowest quintile accounted for 13%, the third quintile accounted for 14%, the fourth quintile 18% and the households in which the highest 20% of income live accounted for 40% of total household net worth. In theory, equal income distribution would mean that each quintile would account for exactly 20% of total household net worth - proportionate to their representation on the income scale. Clearly, this is not the case (and in Australia, it's not too bad compared to some other places).
Ok, so I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here. I'll let others draw their own conclusions on what this means about the theory of trickle down economics. However, in times of economic hardship as we are seeing today, with talks of a double dip recession as a result of the GFC, the question of who needs to contribute what to alleviate the situation is being discussed repeatedly. The rich, and large corporations, get accused of being greedy and exploitative. I am not going to get into that.
Let's assume that the wealthy do need to contribute more, whether through taxes or philanthropy. Super wealthy American businessman Warren Buffet argues that the rich should be taxed more, basically because they can afford it. The counter argument, presumably Dick Smith's point, is that if more rich Australians committed to philanthropy, that wouldn't be necessary. He cites philanthropy standards in the US as an example of what should be, but isn't, in Australia.
My view is this: I don't disagree with Dick Smith, only with his coercive method of proposing to change the situation. The argument against raising taxes on the rich is that it is more government intervention, "big government", which goes against the liberal economic view that government should intervene as little as possible, and the market is the most efficient way of achieving equitable outcomes. In a perfect world, I might be inclined to agree. In a perfect world, no one would need to be coerced into contributing more money for the greater good, either through higher taxes or attempts to force philanthropy. That would certainly be ideal.
However, in the real world, it doesn't quite work that way. I am a realist. I think that unfortunately, people can't be trusted to always consider the greater good. We live in a selfish world. I would absolutely LOVE to be proven wrong on that. Therefore, at least until it can be proven that society can self organise to contribute generously within their means, without a need for higher taxation for higher income brackets, I feel it is a necessary action. Whether that means the mining tax, raising income taxes, or whatever is seen as the most efficient way to do it.
Back to Dick Smith. Here's a suggestion: Why not take a page out of Warren Buffet an Bill Gate's book? Instead of threatening people like Smith, Buffet and Gates last year announced The Giving Pledge. They have been setting an example and lobbying others to donate to charity and pledge to give away significant chunks of their fortunes to charitable causes. Isn't that a much nicer way to go about things? Surely Mr Smith could embark on a similar initiative down under? Or does he really think that Australia's wealthiest are greedier than the Americans?
Oh, and one last thing Mr Smith: NO ONE likes someone who thinks and acts like they are better than you. True story.
Now, I know he means well, and I am ALL for giving to charity. But seriously, Dick Smith is in my opinion....shall I say....true to his first name.
Giving to charity should be a moral obligation that one feels upon him or her self. Trying to coerce others to donate money to charity using threats of embarrassing them is not only unhelpful, but really, quite condescending. No one likes a whinging, know-it-all goody goody, no matter how generous and well intentioned you are.
Don't even get me started on moral absolutism as a whole. I'm sorry, but the world is just not that black and white. Smith claims he has approached the major charities and done research to prove that Australia's wealthy don't donate in secret, and this can be seen by the lack of tax deductions sought for charitable donations. Now it is probably true that the wealthy know how to work their annual tax statements to their advantage better than anyone else, but....it is still possible that they are just not claiming their deductions. And excuse me for casting doubt on the supposed depth of Dick Smith's "research".
Now, I am not advocating for the rich here. My first point is that Dick Smith is a whinging pain in the arse.
I do have another point though. Let's look at this issue from the point of view of taxation vs. philanthropy. Once you dig below Smith's whiny little bitch rant, that's what it really comes down to, isn't it? I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I do have my own opinion on the matter.
In layman's terms, it's like this. The right wing in any given country, in times of economic hardship, argue for tax breaks. This goes to the so-called principle of "trickle-down economics". If the wealthy prosper, the economic effects will trickle down and all of society will benefit as a result. Now I am hardly (IE: not at all) a socialist, BUT, all you need to do is look at statistics of income distribution to question the validity of this argument.
Take Australia as an example. According to the ABS, in 2009-2010, the households in which those with the lowest 20% of income live accounted for 15% of total household net worth. Those in the second lowest quintile accounted for 13%, the third quintile accounted for 14%, the fourth quintile 18% and the households in which the highest 20% of income live accounted for 40% of total household net worth. In theory, equal income distribution would mean that each quintile would account for exactly 20% of total household net worth - proportionate to their representation on the income scale. Clearly, this is not the case (and in Australia, it's not too bad compared to some other places).
Ok, so I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here. I'll let others draw their own conclusions on what this means about the theory of trickle down economics. However, in times of economic hardship as we are seeing today, with talks of a double dip recession as a result of the GFC, the question of who needs to contribute what to alleviate the situation is being discussed repeatedly. The rich, and large corporations, get accused of being greedy and exploitative. I am not going to get into that.
Let's assume that the wealthy do need to contribute more, whether through taxes or philanthropy. Super wealthy American businessman Warren Buffet argues that the rich should be taxed more, basically because they can afford it. The counter argument, presumably Dick Smith's point, is that if more rich Australians committed to philanthropy, that wouldn't be necessary. He cites philanthropy standards in the US as an example of what should be, but isn't, in Australia.
My view is this: I don't disagree with Dick Smith, only with his coercive method of proposing to change the situation. The argument against raising taxes on the rich is that it is more government intervention, "big government", which goes against the liberal economic view that government should intervene as little as possible, and the market is the most efficient way of achieving equitable outcomes. In a perfect world, I might be inclined to agree. In a perfect world, no one would need to be coerced into contributing more money for the greater good, either through higher taxes or attempts to force philanthropy. That would certainly be ideal.
However, in the real world, it doesn't quite work that way. I am a realist. I think that unfortunately, people can't be trusted to always consider the greater good. We live in a selfish world. I would absolutely LOVE to be proven wrong on that. Therefore, at least until it can be proven that society can self organise to contribute generously within their means, without a need for higher taxation for higher income brackets, I feel it is a necessary action. Whether that means the mining tax, raising income taxes, or whatever is seen as the most efficient way to do it.
Back to Dick Smith. Here's a suggestion: Why not take a page out of Warren Buffet an Bill Gate's book? Instead of threatening people like Smith, Buffet and Gates last year announced The Giving Pledge. They have been setting an example and lobbying others to donate to charity and pledge to give away significant chunks of their fortunes to charitable causes. Isn't that a much nicer way to go about things? Surely Mr Smith could embark on a similar initiative down under? Or does he really think that Australia's wealthiest are greedier than the Americans?
Oh, and one last thing Mr Smith: NO ONE likes someone who thinks and acts like they are better than you. True story.
No comments:
Post a Comment