• Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        10 months 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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.

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months 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.

      • whome@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months 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: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

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

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months 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.

    • zib@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months 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.