Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:17 PM Aug 2013

If the rich HAD to give some of their money back, where would you prefer it go?

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Rather than a straight tax increase, say the Government said that those making more than $5 million a year had 4 choices as to where they could send 10% back. Where would you prefer that money go?


6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
The Arts and other cultural projects (symphonies, museums, etc)
0 (0%)
Social services/charities, etc
1 (17%)
A special fund for Infrastructure improvement
0 (0%)
To the government as part of their taxes
5 (83%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the rich HAD to give some of their money back, where would you prefer it go? (Original Post) charlie and algernon Aug 2013 OP
Social services. The government would just use it for the MIC n/t Catherina Aug 2013 #1
Tree planting. Lots of tree planting NoOneMan Aug 2013 #2
When given a choice of charities LostOne4Ever Aug 2013 #3
I suppose you could limit which charities are eligable charlie and algernon Aug 2013 #7
I voted infrastructure improvement Aerows Aug 2013 #4
I agree. Put it somewhere with a public benefit and an economic multiplier. LonePirate Aug 2013 #5
I also like the idea of a national fiber network like Google is slowly unrolling LonePirate Aug 2013 #6
 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
2. Tree planting. Lots of tree planting
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:19 PM
Aug 2013

Preferably fruit and nut bearing species to provide local food security, increase biodiversity, and improve local carbon capture potential or land.

Feed the world and heal the world

LostOne4Ever

(9,286 posts)
3. When given a choice of charities
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:31 PM
Aug 2013

Hasn't it been shown that the rich almost always donate to charities that benefit themselves?

Art museums and opera houses as opposed to food banks and shelters?

I would expect that if they had a choice it would result in the same thing.

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
7. I suppose you could limit which charities are eligable
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:57 PM
Aug 2013

Particularly limit it to those that do help the poor and disadvantaged.

As for the first choice, while I do agree that it's more important to spend money on food banks and shelters, I also think we absolutely do need to keep funding the arts. And I'd much rather the rich give their 10% to the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra as oppsed to getting the latest private jet.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
4. I voted infrastructure improvement
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:32 PM
Aug 2013

because it would both employ people, who would spend money in their community, and it would improve the community. Dumping it into a tax pool would just send more money to the Pentagon.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the rich HAD to give s...