Germans request tax hike
 

I know this is a little dated, but I also feel like it has a direct bearing on our own situation today.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Rich Germans demand higher taxes

Check it out, and ruminate on the subject- is it fair to tax the rich at higher rates because they can pay them?

I think it is fair to tax the rich at higher rates not because they can pay them, but because they benefit from the government much more than the poor.

This is the basis of progressive taxation. Tax the rich more because higher taxes are less of a burden to them. Taxing 30% of $20 000 is a huge blow, but 30% or even 50% of $200 000 leaves plenty of cash for a comfortable living.

I'm no economist, but I also understand that taxation also serves as a social control to keep the wealth gap from growing too much, since an excessive wealth gap is generally considered bad for society as a whole.

The idea that the rich deserve to be taxed less is a bizarre quirk that seems unique to America.

I wouldn't do it. The big issue here is trust. I lack faith in our government's ability to manage my money. It's been pushed on me that government is a corrupt and inefficient machine that eats money.

That thought bubble is starting to pop. I've lived in 3rd world country and saw what a corrupt government really looks like. I've read studies such one showing that public education beast privatized schools by a mile. I've realized that keeping money in the hands of the rich in hope of benefiting the poor is like believing in Santa - the economic trickle down effect does nothing for society.

But it all goes back to trust. Look at what happened in Iceland and Ireland. Government corruption destroys countries. It's been shown that democracy is far from immune to it.

It might help to understand the political environment of post-war Germany. The two major parties are the CDU, which is a Christian democratic party, and the SDP, which is a social democratic party.

So you have a centre-right party and a leftist party. This is the inverse of American politics.

The CDU, being a Christian democratic party, though fiscally and socially conservative, are responsible for first supporting a social market economy after the war. This established Germany as a hybrid of free-market and socialist economics, or a mixed-economy, but one more entrenched than what we tend to see in the West. And it was only recently that their party leaned more towards a liberalized economy.

That said, most modern Germans are accustomed to an economic system with strong socialist policies. Progressive taxation used for a welfare system and other social programs isn't new to them. So I suppose when they see the system struggling to maintain itself, rather than find ways to shut it down, they'd rather find ways to better fund it to keep it going and help it get back on track.

As a Canadian, this doesn't seem very shocking to me. Many of us would rather find more funding for our healthcare system and other social programs rather than let them crumble.

It is about balance, of course. Canadians and Germans alike have track records of generating a lot of wealth. This is where progressive taxation comes in. At times of economic downturns or even crises, while it might make sense to cut expenses, it also makes sense to keep much of the foundational policies intact to ensure a return to stabilization towards recovery.

Germany has been impressing me lately. Their innovation in green energy on top of their willingness to implement it and move away from other energy types is commendable. And rich Germans asked to be taxed more to keep their social system intact and help the recovery?

Commendable.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It's positively socialist!

the irrational spaces occupied by taxation in conservative american politics is a curious thing. sometimes i think it's little more than a useful displacement that allows a cuture of privatized debt peonage to not be a problem. the anxiety has to go somewhere. in simple terms, the corporate interests that benefit from debt feudalism aren't that different from the interests that own the ideological apparatus. but i digress.

I need help understanding something, given your statement and the statement below from the article.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Rich Germans demand higher taxes

1) They can pay more taxes.
2) They have more money than they need.
3) They want to pay more taxes.

Why don't they simply write a check to the government? They could give the government everything they have beyond their basic needs, but the don't! Think about it, and ask why?

Why did they even accumulate a surplus of wealth? If in business, they could have easily lowered prices or paid their employees more. They could have given the "extra" money to charity, but they did not. Think about it, and ask why?

From my point of view, when "rich" people want to do something, they do it, otherwise I don't trust them. There is an obvious hidden agenda, unless posters here can see that you are being manipulated.

What are these rich people hiding, Ace? Or are you just blowing smoke?

You've brought this up before in other threads, ace.

The group of rich Germans pushing for this wealth tax numbers about 44. According to the man behind the petition, there are "2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros." Even after a little quick math, this suggests that there are more than 2 million wealthy Germans who may or may not agree (or even know about) this wealth tax proposal.

A group of 44 wealthy Germans writing cheques to the government may not have the same impact as 2.2 million wealthy Germans being taxed 5% over two years to raise £91 billion.

Dividing £91 billion between 2.2 million people vs. 44 is more manageable, no?

That's why they simply don't write a cheque to the government. I'm not sure how keen (or capable) these people are about writing individual cheques for over £2 billion each. That'd be like writing a cheque for about $3 billion U.S.

The wealthiest of the wealthy Germans could probably do this, but it's not like that's the goal of the petition. I'm not sure what Dieter Lehmkuhl is worth, but he can't write a cheque for £91 billion. Not even Warren Buffett can do that. I'm not sure Lehmkuhl can even write one for £2 billion.

Regardless, this isn't about charity.

Try to keep everything under consideration.

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 PM ----------

Maybe they're hiding the fact that they can just loophole their way out of the 5% wealth tax and make it seem like they're helping when they aren't paying an extra cent.

Maybe it would let them save more overall in taxes, where they end up with even more money!


Never trust the rich, right?

Why don't you give answering the question a shot.

Right, all I did was ask a few simple questions. Immediately you think I am up to something, yet when "rich" people, people who know how to exploit the system to get and stay "rich", come out in unison with well publicized plan to help the little people, do what they do, you buy into it with out any question! I find that amazing.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

And I will in the future, every-time this comes up until people start to acknowledge that generally "rich" people don't do anything randomly, without a plan or agenda.

Is your point that this person and this group is more interested in raising the taxes of others, and less interested in individually wanting to do more?

In a selfish way, I can support you being taxed more. If I had the opportunity to influence tax policy, I can support a system that benefits me at your expense. If I felt the whole of what I have is at risk, I can support giving a little piece of the whole as a temporary diversion, with the intent of getting that piece back plus a nice return on investment.

"Rich" people got "rich" for a reason, trust them at your own peril. I suggest one always keep their eyes open and their hands on their wallets when "rich" people start talking about giving away more of their money.

here we are, back to more absurd limbaugh-level bromides that inform the ways in which the serfs that produced by populist conservatism grovel at the feet of their feudal betters.

our Betters Know.
the state is full of peasants like us.
we should rely on our Betters.
it's the Natural Order of Things.
so if Our Betters feel that the only important consideration in thinking about a socio-economic order is the ways in which they will materially benefit---even at the expense of the conservative peasants who grovel at their feet---so be it. it's the Natural Order of Things.

i mean who in their right mind would consider something like full employment desirable as a political goal or as an orientation for addressing the economic catastrophe that neo-liberaism has engineered?

certainly not peasants like ace.

Put the smoke-blowing red herring away, ace. This is rich people talking about taxing rich people.

If you want to continue talking about this, try to keep on topic.

So, no. The answer's no.

All I'm saying is that if I were a m/billionaire, I'd happily pay more taxes.

And world peace.

Are you a past Ms. America contestant?

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

And the topic is, rich people want to pay more taxes. Got it. No questions. Well not from my point of view. What is the point of this thread? You are being manipulated, and don't know or don't care - either way it is not good.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

Why?

How would you become a billionaire with that attitude?

Are you suggesting if you were a millionaire you would not be willing to pay more taxes? Does this imply that others may have a threshold as well? Perhaps, for me when I hit a trillion I would be happy to pay more taxes?

Perhaps, the issue is not paying taxes but in giving money to those who waste it or spending unwisely. Why would anyone want to do that? Would you?

If you had no faith in political leaders, would you give them more of what you worked and sacrificed for? I wouldn't. It is rare to find government bureaucrats who actually understand how to improve the standard of living in a community.

No, ace, you can ask questions all you want. I simply don't appreciate questions made with the intention of flipping the script.

If it's that difficult to keep on topic, there isn't anything I can do to help except point it out to you.

You're more than welcome to try again. In fact, I encourage it.

"Flipping the script"??? That suggests that you know what the script is, I don't think you do. So, again it is from your narrow point of view that you think that the "script is being flipped", but in reality I just ask people to actually think about what the script is and understand it. Your views are consistently too narrow. You folks have fun with this - rich people wanting to pay more taxes thing - anything I add is going to be outside of your script. I won't try again.

ace, it's a figure of speech. There isn't an actual script. It's a metaphor. The script is what we're talking about right here in the thread. And you tried to flip it to your advantage. It's something you do quite often.

I was pointing out the bias in your question: "O-ho! So your position is that this guy doesn't want to give up any of his money; he'd rather steal it from others instead?"

I don't have a narrow views. It only seems that way when I have to remind you how presumptuous you are. I used to go along with your questions, but then all that ever did was create a new conversation, generally about you.

I got tired of that. So now it seems I have narrow views. So be it. You're entitled to your opinions, even if they're off base.

Ask me a fair question, and I'll answer it. You'll find I tend to do that around here. Actually, you'll find that I even answered your biased question. Answer's no.

It is commendable. I'm thoroughly impressed that Germans trust their Government to that level and I'll agree with you about Canada - despite all the mud throwing between parties Canadians still believe in their social programs.

Would anyone here agree, looking at history, that personal investment from well-to-do people has been essential in the development of Democratic society?

I say this is because in my experience business owner are much more involved and plugged into their communities. They are more likely to known what the real issues are and have the resources to address them. As an example: most NGO groups and community boards where I live are populated by individuals from the local chamber of commerce. The backbone of these organizations consist of self-less individuals who sacrifice everything for their cause. And these organizations are always supported by philanthropists. The rich are obvious candidates to help society prosper.

this is, in the end, one of the basic questions of governance within the capitalist mode of production, to wax marxist for a minute---what are the factors that best guarantee social and political solidarity? what are the relations between social and political solidarity/consent and capitalist activities proper? what does capital owe to the social system that it relies on in order to extract profit?

back in the day, this was a more obviously central question in terms of manufacturing as well--so for the reproduction of its labor pool and by extension ability to operate at all.

neo-liberalism is responsible, among other things, for radicalizing the impression that the only measure of capitalism's well being is share-holder return. production is entirely occluded. it's of a piece with the race to the bottom in terms of wages, working conditions, benefits and stability for wage earners internationally---and the evacuation of possibilities for the old metropolitan working class. this is an immense change, one that undercut the older forms of social-democracy in their traditional mode.

but the questions are still central.

so far as i can tell, in principle neo-liberalism has nothing to say about social questions because it functionally denies the existence of the social world.

in practice, neo-liberal policies have been a pretty destructive proposition for the eu--they're of a piece with a recapitulation of the radicalized class structure in places where these policies have been implemented at the international level. this is in turn placing very considerable strains on the main political and economic powers within the eu.

one thing this call for increased taxes does is undermine one of the more idiotic neo-liberal bromides concerning what taxes are and do. they also are a rejection of neo-liberal hostility toward the state and by extension public (rather than private) power/control.

there's actually stuff to talk about with this if you introduce reality into the discussion and stop letting ace derail yet another thread by talking about himself and his metaphysical worldview.

It's a far-'rich' conspiracy. Give 'the government' more money today, so they can help people get healthy, get educated, reduce fossil fuel use, and possibly lower the tax rate other places... And they get a country where people have good jobs, are happy, cleaner air, reduce desire to secure oil in the ME, ensures a strong Euro, and the average German is able to spend money in the local economy to help the rich make more profits...

It's just like GM wanting a federal $1/gallon gas tax so customer demand will help them meet their CAFE standards profitably. Or GM is worried that if gas goes down to $2 due to OPEC manipulating the spigot, then the demand for hybrids and fuel efficient cars can still be profitable or subsidized because it is in the best interest of the country.

What are you talking about? Why would being willing to pay more taxes make me unable to become a billionaire. I don't think you know how people become billionaires.

Maybe my use of the backslash was unclear. m/billionaire = millionaire and/or billionaire. Shit, I'd be happy to pay more taxes as a hundred-thousandaire. All other things remaining constant, I'm looking to move up a tax bracket or two in the next year and I am perfectly fine paying more taxes when that happens.

Nope, I'm pretty sure the issue is paying taxes.

First, it is a stretch to say that the wealthiest have "worked" or "sacrificed" for most of their money. Perhaps they sweated to come into their first bit of money. Maybe they lost it all and had to bust their ass to get it again. However, I would bet that the top marginal ratio of cash earned to sweat is pretty large.

I'd say that it's rare to find a public employee who agrees with you about how to improve the standard of living in a community, but that's probably because supply side economics has been a failure to anyone who isn't a religious adherent to supply side economics.

You know what improves standard of life in a community? Public and private investment.

A similar movement in the U.S. regarding the Bush tax cuts:

"Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy."


http://www.patrioticmillionaires.org/

Ace, if I were wealthy I'd be offended by the implication of your perspective, which apparently is that all wealthy people are greed-driven sociopaths.

Some here won't understand what I write below, perhaps think I am going off on a tangent, etc - to you, in advance, stop reading. I know what your responses would be.

To the rest -

There are reasons why some want to pay more taxes and others do not, outside of greed or pure selfishness. Put simply, one reason is that some actually know that they can more efficiently allocate capital for the greater good than government. Some things government is exceptionally good at, and others they are not, people I know have no problem with taxes going to those things government is exceptionally good at.

to give an example of what I mean - If I have $10,000, that could either go to the government in the form of taxes or used by me in my business - I believe I can do greater good for society than the federal government under our current circumstances. I would invest the money in business growth. Leveraged through my business, I would create jobs, create taxable income, and increase current consumption through my business.

I believe the government would simply waste the money and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Given, that - why on earth would I want to voluntarily pay more in taxes? I would not. However, assuming I have the ability as described above (and I believe most "rich" people really feel the same way), why would I start a PR campaign to increase my taxes? In order to achieve alternative goals! People who can not accept the reality of that, have my sympathy.

The dangling question is can I actually do what I say I could do with the $10,000? I have done it in the past and I can do it in the future. Every dollar I save in taxes and invest in business growth will improve my community to a greater degree than if I sent that dollar to Washington.

This is not rocket science (complicated), or voodoo economics (without a basis in what is real) - "rich" people in particular know this. People who have created wealth Vs. those who had wealth handed to them know this. those who don't know it now, but one day actually start creating wealth will come to know this.

ace--->so what i take from that little ode to a particular faction of the wealthy in america and the arguments that they advance as a figleaf in front of the actual agenda of disempowering the state by choking off its resources in order to prevent regulation that forces an "artificial" sense of what makes most sense on the Intuition of the Overlords (the Feudal Masters Know Best. they rely on serfs like you to repeat that)

is that you know nothing about the EU, nothing about germany or german politics or class structure or the conceptions people have within a social-democratic state context of what the state is and what it can and should do.

but you talk anyway.

I don't speak bullsh*t.

There are reasons why some start a PR campaign to increase their taxation. Your refusal to explore those reasons is typical from you. I have no understanding why you read what I wrote. I hope you at least get some entertainment value from reading what I write.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Have you ever tested or researched the historical validity of the above theory? I have and it is wrong. Wealth creation is at the root or starting point of every robust economy I have ever looked at. I challenge you to name a historical situation, and let's see if I am right or if the theory above is.

A community of people can be impoverished, starving, without access to usable resources - a wealth creator comes in, with some form of innovation and and the community turns the corner and the economy becomes a robust and thriving economy. The innovation, the wealth creator always comes first. Always!

I see, ace, and do you view this mythical wealth creator as a godlike figure or a hero figure?

of course you speak bullshit, ace. your freidman orthodoxy is the quintessence of it.
and it doesn't matter that you don't like the spin on it that i give---the rationale for it is present in freidman's bullshit gospel of feudal capitalism or why the public should stay in its place and watch as the Captains of Industry tank the entire system. because they know best. so dont be presumptuous and second guess them. just shut up. go watch tv or something. think about shopping. try to be a rational actor.

there's a considerable percentage of the wealthy in the united states that don't buy your freidmanny bullshit either. i know some excedingly wealthy people. they are all old-line conservatives; the sort of patrician conservatives you can talk with who think that people like you are not only loons but you're bad for business. and there's the faction of the same economic class that funnels money toward the democrats. and man others to the left of them.

at any rate, the german situation is better than the american. they aren't saddled with a grotesque national-security state and a reactionary political class for self-proclaimed Feudal Masters who think that the most effective resource allocation possible is in technological systems that kill people in great number, prisons and cops and surveillance. advancing goals of full employment--not "rational"---interferes with the Calculations of the Masters. but there's a lot of pressure from the debt crisis (made worse by ineffective and socially catastrophic neo-liberal remedies courtesy of the EU and imf) and they've figured out that a way around the neo-liberal calls for "austerity" (except in police surveillance and military spending of course) is to raise taxes. so they're asking for it.

if loons reciting chapter and verse of milton freidman et al were not for reasons incomprehensible prominent ideological players in the united-of-states, such actions would not even be surprising.

Ever been to Las Vegas?

1940 population less than 10,000.
1960 population about 60,000 with gambling resort building begins, a lot of it "questionable".
1960 Howard Hughes comes to town, invests, legitimizes the casino industry which opens the door to more and more legitimate corporate investment.
1980 population is about 450,000 in Clark county and over 1 million by 1995.
The gaming industry generates about $1 billion in revenues per year in Las Vegas today.

Yes, Howard Hughes is a hero figure! He built it and they came.

If he's such a hero, why didn't Howard Hughes go build his wealth in Antarctica? Or on the moon?

You and your trust fund babies, so what! I talk about people who actually take risks and create real wealth. Professors, lawyers, stock brokers, day traders, government employees, etc (normal people can see the pattern) don't create wealth. People who earn passive income or earn their income off of the labor of others may feel guilt and join your PR campaign to raise taxes but real wealth creators don't feel this guilt. You clearly don't understand the difference, and hence you don't understand Freidman.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

He had a proclivity for a dry climate with oxygen. But, I would bet if had not lost his mind he would have been heavily involved in the space race.

Well, I think he cheated. I think he had help.

Las Vegas...a free market, low regulation model of success?

A one industry town in which the wages of the vast majority of workers (hotel and casino employees) are among the lowest of any occupation.

As a result, the city has the highest foreclosure rate in the country.

And a city that had such poorly planned growth management that if it grows much more, the city will need to ration water every day of the year.

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.

I have a couple of responses.

First, anyone who is focused solely on efficiency is likely a bad businessperson (but maybe a good investor).

Second, anyone who'd be affected by a "tax increase on the wealthy" likely has or could easily come up with $10,000 in cash. If I make a million pretax and I'm taxed at the currently unrealistic rate of 40%, that leaves me $600,000, of which $10,000 is 1.6% of my annual take home pay. That's nothing. Anyone with that kind of money probably has people investing it for them and could have $10,000 within two business days with a phone call. Anyone with that kind of money currently has no reason not to invest it where they see fit, which means that if you were currently making that kind of money, the only reason you haven't already invested it in the growth of your own business would be because you chose not to because you saw better prospects elsewhere.

So the hypothetical you has all this money and you're not investing it in your business. Why not? Probably because you've determined that you could make more elsewhere. Are all of these alternative investment strategies automatically contributing to the greater good? Probably not. If hiring people were a good investment right now, corporations wouldn't currently be twiddling their thumbs over trillions of dollars of cash while unemployment hovers around twice what it was ten years ago.

But these tax increases aren't directed at corporations, they're directed at individuals, so the idea that they will inhibit hiring is bullshit, because businesses hire people, individuals don't (they do, but not really in a way that's germane to this discussion).

Besides, your whole canard about what you'd do if you had $10,000 is bullshit anyway, because if it really was a good investment, you could find one of those savvy investors you're always going on about to give you the money. Right? I mean, those people make efficient deployment of capital their living, if you have a viable way to make money, they'd be all up in that. Which is just another way of saying that those gurus of market efficiency looked you over and shook their heads. Which is just another way of saying that your business is not an efficient instrument in which to deploy capital. Which is just another way of saying that by continuing to run your business you are implicitly failing to uphold your self-professed love of efficiency.

I think that you're a small fish who thinks he understands big fish solely by virtue of the fact that you're a fish too.

You are not even close to being on point.

But just for entertainment purposes:

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Nevada

Scores Leave California for Nevada and Arizona

Bet you think I am going off on a tangent or something, but if you are so inclined, why would people leave a high paying paradise like California to go to a place like Nevada and in particular Las Vegas?:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

We have been here before and you still seem to be unwilling to explore the real differences between wealth creators and those who get wealthy from others. Once you accept that there is a difference you will understand.

To be clear. an attorney can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy.
An accountant can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy.
A restaurant owner can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy.
Etc.
Etc.

True entrepreneurs, people who create real wealth, change the communities around them, they change the world - they improve living standards through what they do. If you penalize these people through excessive taxation you do harm, not good. People who create wealth should be nurtured, encouraged and supported.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

Some people understand efficiency intuitively. Some can easily make the correct decisions without being a Edwards Demming guru. to me it is by definition that a good businessperson has a efficiency focus, even if it is intuitive.

The point is not $10,000 in cash. Whatever the amount there is a trade-off. Money can be invested in real business growth or it can be turned over to government.

The basic question is - where does that money do the most good for the most people?

That question should always be at the root of any tax question. If politicians made a numbers case for tax increases (one that made sense) they could easily convince people like me to pay more. It is the emotional, class warfare case that they make that rings empty.

This isn't true. You're simply missing my point. I understand the difference you're making, but I don't agree with it.

This isn't true. Any one of these people can get rich without a good or thriving economy.

You're applying a metaphysical/mythical status to people who are doing little more than making a plan, using capital, and taking a risk. They don't pull wealth out of their asses, nor do they pull it out of the ether. Wealth isn't created in a vacuum. Entrepreneurs don't create wealth on their own. They may be enablers of the apparatuses that create wealth, but they aren't money trees; they aren't the apparatuses themselves.

If you penalize anyone through excessive taxation, you do harm, not good.

You want a thriving economy? Build and maintain strong education systems. Build and maintain strong health care systems. Next, make them accessible to virtually everyone. Cutting taxes as a be-all and end-all is myopic. A healthy economy is based on a number of factors, and the education and health care aspects are just two parts of those. Cutting taxes are a factor, yes, but you seem to place too much value in that.

There is a problem with talking about "creators of wealth" in the context you wish to use, because anyone who works is a creator of wealth.

this was in your post#23:

I assumed you agreed with it, am I wrong?


Simply look at the most major standard of living gains in history and you will find your position is incorrect. Certainly there is not a vacuum, certainly there was what came before, and what is, but real wealth creation involves steps of living standard improvement for a community, not gradual change. Oh, here is that digital v. analog thing again, no wonder we don't understand each other. An example, when Edison harnessed electricity for commercial use of light, it was not in a vacuum (no pun intended with the electric light bulb), but boom! It changed the world. It created real wealth. It created real living standard improvements.

Your assumption is that throwing more and more money at a broken system will make it strong. In my view throwing more money at a broken system is a waste of money. I would rather people keep the money and allocate it based on their needs and choices. For example if a public school system spends $15,000 per student per year, and a private school can do it for $4,000 and get better results - why would you want more tax dollars being spent in the public school?

You don't ask those kinds of questions, I do.

No.

After that "boom!" where did all that wealth land? Was Edison unhurt?

Your assumption is false.

It depends on how the money is used, clearly.

It depends. How are the results gauged? There are inherent flaws across the board and worldwide with regard to how "performance" is gauged in school systems. It also depends on accessibility. It doesn't matter how much better and cost-efficient the private system is if few can afford it.

Forgive me, but your questions are too generic and therefore not very thought-provoking. Also, did you use a real example, or was that made up?

Hey Ace, good post.

First, and I think this is the most important thing to consider, society needs to work together. Taxes are not just fuel for the government machine; they are allocation of funds by citizens towards a common goals. For example we agree that educating is required for a better and stronger society. We elect officials that recognize this goal and give them our money to make it a reality. Without taxation an education system would not exist.

Point two: participating in non-profit programs takes time and money. We'd all like to think that if we had lots of cash we'd throwing it around to help others but it's much easier to simply give it to an elected person you trust. In terms of motivation and asset allocation taxes work much better than depending on people to be generous. Fund raising is the number one expense of all non-profits.

Point three: sometimes it's more efficient to have a state/nationwide programs than many privately funded programs. This also ties in with working together as a society.

Ok, so you invest this money and make 10% annual profit. In a year you now have $1000 and $10,000 is infused into the economy.

On the surface it seems like I just gave $10,000 to my country and made money on top of that. It doesn't work like that. In my case only 12% of that money goes towards employees. The rest goes towards other companies and business owners - some of it overseas. Those companies also have employees but they too are not getting 100% of what I pay for my products. So in the end that $10,000 is not going towards social benefits. Very little of it is reaching lower income families, most of it is being re-invested or going towards the business owners. Ever if 50% of that 10k was wasted by an inefficient government the local school, hospital or library would still be better off.

The whole idea that more business = better society is false. Just look at any plutocracy in the Arab World. Are their populations reaping the rewards of their countries oil wealth?

Your last comment about employes generating taxable income is socially irresponsible.

This is the only issue that I accept as relevant in your post. I agree with it - but it's not that simple or absolute.