[deleted]

Comments

• Delta_V@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I take your money.

  I make a show of returning a fraction of what I took.

  Look how generous I am!

  source

  • Nay@feddit.nl ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I make a show of returning a fraction of what I took.

    I also make sure I can get a tax break for it, first!

    source

    • spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      If I don’t follow through, nobody holds me accountable for what I promised!

      source
  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Don’t forget monopolists like Bill Gates, who destroy more with deadweight loss than they even can give back.

    source

    • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I get that Gates is a bit of a Carnegie, but putting up 30 billion ($30,000,000,000.00) that is intended to be spent by the last current trustees death (Melinda is the youngest) is more than any other billionaire would ever do. I’m not a shill. BMGF has done a whole lot of good in the world.

      source
• grte@lemmy.ca ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Wealth inequality is as great as it has ever been. If putting money into the hands of the wealthy so they can distribute it to charities as they see fit solved anything, we’d be living in utopia by now.

  source
• sxan@midwest.social ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Are all charitable donations reputation laundering?

  source

  • 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Depends if you tell anyone about it!

    Frankly charities shouldn’t need to exist. Them doing so is a failure on the part of a country’s government for not adequately providing for the needs of its citizens. If a government and a private charity set out to achieve the same goal with the same level of attention, a government should be more effective given the charity simply won’t have anything close to the resources of a country. Therefore if the government was doing its job correctly, the charity would be a worse alternative and wouldn’t exist.

    Charities also have to pump loads of money into marketing so that people remember they exist and actually donate to them—this would be entirely unnecessary for a government program.

    Don’t get me wrong, the work that many charities do is incredible and the world would be going worse if we didn’t have them right now. But it would be even better if they didn’t need to exist in the first place.

    source
• Zacryon@feddit.org ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You can be philantropic without having any money.

  source

  • ProvableGecko@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I don’t know what world you are living in but in the actual world you can’t even exist without having money, let alone do anything.

    source

    • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You can volunteer your time.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Zacryon@feddit.org ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yes. Still you can be philanthropic. Especially if you understand this term in its original meaning, i.e., love for humanity (as an antonym to misanthropy).

      source
  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    You can be charitable.

    source
• MuskyMelon@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Not just the oligarchs. Lots of rich people do the same for tax breaks or fear of going to hell for the evil they’ve done.

  source
• SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Philanthropy shows us a breif glimpse of what life would be like if wealth were equally distributed.

  source
• Jack_Burton@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I too watched Death of a Unicorn

  source
• Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Well not “just”. It’s also philanthropy. Could be worse, like buying media influence, or advertising.

  source
• Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  And tax evasion

  source