this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1295 points (97.4% liked)

Clever Comebacks

1188 readers
1 users here now

Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
  2. Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
  6. Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No. The government should take it from him as taxes that he avoided. So the people can decide how best to invest it instead of over egomaniac with a history is abusing his people.

[–] asdfasdfasdf 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

To be honest, going all toward climate change seems better than what the government would use it for. That being said, he should definitely pay more taxes.

[–] ToastedRavioli 29 points 1 year ago

Dude for sure is going to spin up his own charities with lofty mission statements that he “donates” to which exclusively pitch solutions that require a lot of investment in his for-profit endeavors.

Don’t mistake money laundering for benevolence.

[–] puppy 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You know he's not really giving it away, right? I bet my bottom dollar that his assets are being transferred to a fund he controls. Because the fund is categorised non-profit, it will receive max tax write-offs.

His ex-wife on the other hand, has given away butt load of money to actual charities.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah if it actually goes towards climate change and "uniting humanity" that's way better than giving it to any government.

[–] captainlezbian 5 points 1 year ago

And if it isn’t done with anti-public stuff on the side. Take bill gates, he funded a Covid vaccine which is great! But strings were attached, namely they were required to patent it. His charity consistently mandates ownership of intellectual property and partnerships with corporations. I fear something similar with bezos. You’re gonna need new technology and a push against overconsumption to do Jack shit against climate change. I fully expect him to not permit that new technology to reject patent or use a copyleft style license agreement. And I don’t believe the owner of Amazon will promote things like creating a society where we only work 20 hours and consume less low quality goods, instead opting for long lasting and repairable things that end up using less natural resources in the long run. Instead I expect him to throw billions at carbon capture, which is needed and can be done responsibly (especially if we build a strategic biofuel reserve), but is also the carbon equivalent of trying to out exercise your fork.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Jeff bezos funds a study how to fight climate change. Study finds humanity needs to decrease their usage of energy drastically and stop consumerism as we are doing it right now. Jeff bezos: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US government? LOL. How much of the taxes goes to fossil fuel and corn subsidies and to the military industrial complex?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

The majority of our taxes goes to social programs and healthcare. Military spending is insane, but we have to keep in mind that taxing billionaires will absolutely bring benefits to the common folks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree in principle, but the government would take the money and allocate 99% of it to the military budget rather than do anything useful with it.

[–] CountZero 4 points 1 year ago

No, the government generally has a plan and definite budget for their money, which includes social programs and infrastructure. You can debate about how good it is, but at least it's there.

Giving money to a charity directly controlled by them (or their kids, or one of their billionaire friends) might just make that money disappear.