It is jarring to read because it sounds like something Paul Ryan would say.

this one:

"Is $40 billion going to put to better use in his hands or in the government's hands?"

That statement/question is typically made by right-wind supply siders.

It implies that whatever Bill does with the 40 billion it will be used in a better way than the government, which is bullshit.

This idea that the government is somehow less competent than large corporations is laughable- its like people have never worked for a large company or won't admit how much waste/stupidity/etc exists ON TOP of the need for profits.

Not to mention, chances are Bill would just sit on the amount anyway and continue to accumulate more wealth by extracting value via the stock market.

Is Bill doing anything today to actually add value to the economy? I could be missing something, but seems like he's just a shareholder.

They add no value.


Not to mention, where does that argument end? It ends with shit like privatizing social security, etc. You know, Paul Ryan shit.

"He would argue that his plans with the foundation are a better use. Some would argue otherwise."

Again, here is where we get into an area where we worship the super-rich.

Its great that Bill gives back on causes that he cares about.


But, what about causes he doesn't really care about? They don't deserve attention/funding/etc?


And, if he is going to take his charities and go home because he has to pay Uncle Sam more, then he really isn't all that charitable, is he?

"He also has a point about innovation and capital formation. With a high wealth tax, there will be less private sector investment. So it could stifle business innovation. And capital will grow at a slower rate, again decreasing private sector investment in the future."

Jesus Christ. This is supply side economics.

The message of 'Don't tax us or innovation/jobs will go away!!' is some classic job-creator boogie man shit.

Like someone else pointed out, if there is money to made on investment...the investment will be made. If the return on that investment goes down x% from a higher tax rate, there is still a return.

And just because some economists anticipated this argument and addressed it, doesn't make it less bullshit.

"The argument could be made that the government will fill this investment gap. Or that the reduced inequality will have economic boosting side effects."

Right. We can't be duped by these right wing scare tactics. Otherwise we will continue to live in our current tax system that is terribly regressive- which I think even you pointed out above.

"Or that the societal gains are well worth a potential negative effects"

This in general is a change that we as a society need to make or we are all fucked. Seriously. If we look at things like climate change, healthcare, housing, immigration through a short term economic lens we are completely fucked.