[ad_1]
The founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, have recently announced a plan to spend $ 2 billion of their $ 164 billion fortune in hostels and schools. nursery.
As Jeff Bezos was quick to give much less money than other billionaires, such as Bill Gates, the announcement may seem to be a sign that this technological titan is becoming more generous. The announcement also responds to the billion dollar a year review that Bezos is already spending on Blue Origin, its space travel experience.
But as a policy theorist who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I think Bezos' charity shift raises serious concerns about the ubiquitous power of business moguls.
Unsettling trend
The philanthropy of the Bezos family follows a worrying pattern regarding its calendar. Amazon's market value has recently surpassed $ 1 trillion, raising more questions than ever about the size and overwhelming power of Amazon.
It was not the first time that Bezos had been diverting attention from Amazon's huge influence with a big announcement on philanthropy. In 2017, when Amazon was acquiring Whole Foods, raising new concerns about the company's dominance in the retail market, Bezos made a spectacular public call on Twitter for advice on how to focus its business. donations.
The timing may have been a coincidence both times, but the suspicion that philanthropy distracts the public from questionable conduct or economic injustice is a familiar concern. Since the time of the thieves like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, critics of the company have accused philanthropy of being a wolf with sheep clothes.
This cynical point of view asserts that magnificent acts of generosity are just clever attempts to consolidate power. Like the dictators who use "bread and circuses" to pacify the masses, the super-rich are giving up their share of wealth to protect themselves from public opinion and defusing the elimination of tax breaks or raising the taxes of most Americans. rich.
Good intentions are not enough
Today, political theorists studying philanthropy – like Emma Saunders-Hastings and Rob Reich – tend to think that the problem is more complicated. They accept that many philanthropists are sincere in their desire to help others, and the solutions that donors develop are sometimes remarkably innovative.
But they also argue that noble intentions and strategic thinking are not enough to make philanthropy legitimate. And my own research leads to a similar verdict.
This is because massive donations can perpetuate inequalities and threaten democracy in many ways.
Dramatic acts of charity by the ultra-rich can reduce the pressure on governments to comprehensively tackle poverty and inequality. According to private benefactors, access to basic necessities can strengthen social hierarchies. And when the elite spends its own money on essential public services such as housing for the homeless and educating low-income children, this allows the rich to shape social policy to their own preferences or even to their whims.
In other words, even though Bezos has good ideas, no one has elected or hired him to house the homeless and educate the children before they enter kindergarten. Great wealth is not a qualification for all jobs.
Tax privilege
The tax deductibility of donations made by wealthier Americans may exacerbate these concerns as it effectively subsidizes their donations. Some scholars argue that the purpose of tax incentives is to encourage donations for things the government can not or should not support directly – such as maintaining a church property.
Observers, including the journalist MarketWatch Kari Paul and Guardian columnist Marina Hyde noted that if people like Bezos and the companies they run stop fighting for low tax rates, democratically elected officials would have more money to tackle the problem.
By making tax-deductible donations, they say, Bezos effectively diverts public money to fuel his private judgments on public policies.
Questions about responsibility and generosity
My research indicates that the use of tax deductions to provide essential public services, such as education and housing assistance, can be a misuse of this privilege, as it risks undermining democratic control.
Members of the public have a vital interest in being able to oversee the provision of goods and services that meet their most basic needs. This type of responsibility is only possible when these needs are served by democratic governments and not by wealthy benefactors operating in their place.
Bezos' behavior as a businessman has raised other questions about his generosity and respect for democracy. When the hometown of Amazon, Seattle, proposed to tackle housing costs with a tax on the city's biggest employers, Amazon resisted. The city retreated after the company threatened to cut back operations in Seattle if the bill passed.
It may seem odd that someone who opposes a tax to cover the housing costs of his low-income neighbors wants to spend some of his wealth on housing. But for me, that makes sense, because in my opinion, Jeff Bezos beef is not in his position to help the poor, but with the limits of the economic power that democracy requires.
Ted Lechterman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
[ad_2]
Source link
