I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Except that's like you and I donating $20 or so and not getting the notoriety (or free marketing) that these guys are getting.
Did you donate at all?
In any event, speak for yourself. It's their money. They can donate $0, $20, or $200M, that's up to them. They can do whatever the heck they want, since it's their money. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will do many multiples of the good that you and I possibly (or some inefficient government bureaucrat) could, so I say, more power to them. And more wealth.
Didn't know I was obligated to donate after every disaster. Of course, I am speaking for myself. Keeping $1B and donating $99B is not a huge sacrifice. But, keep kissing their a$$es.
Ah, a donation matters to you only if it is a “sacrifice”, damn the good it does.
I fail to understand that mindset. You’re welcome to wallow in it! I feel sorry what you must go through every envy-ridden day, though.
If the super wealthy donated only for the good it provides, they wouldn't put their names on buildings and announce to the world how much they're donating. In fact, they would do it anonymously. It's all about the ego.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
The US has setup its infrastructure to benefit the wealthy only. Companies are all about pleasing their shareholders and giving their executives large sums of money. Can’t really go in a good direction if doing anything to please the working class ends in a negative stock. And lawmakers couldn’t care less for as long as their pockets are lined with cash.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
Um... May I humbly recommend some reading comprehension before you start to, you know, express opinions?
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
Um... May I humbly recommend some reading comprehension before you start to, you know, express opinions?
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
I do apologize. I thought it was you who said that there’s no point in donating money because it will only reduce the amount that the French government will have to pay. This extreme expression of ignorance was actually written by “Seanj” not you. Sorry.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
True, but it's Congress that makes that policy, although admittedly at the push of lobbyists who represent the rich. We're never going to get out of that situation until we get money out of politics and the current Supreme Court is never going to do that. If the B's and M's would do more like this (and pay their fair share of taxes), I would have less of a problem. The Gilded Age rich were largely horrible people, but at least they left us with some great public spaces: libraries, museums, opera houses, railroad terminals, parks, university buildings, etc. And most of the big tech companies pay most employees quite well (although a lot of that high compensation goes into ridiculously over-priced housing).
Without Congress getting money out of politics, I don't know what the solution is to restore a strong middle-class in the U.S. At least unemployment levels are relatively low and for the poor, at least many states and cities are taking action on their own to raise the minimum wage. In NYC, the minimum wage is now $15/hr for almost all employees. With two people in a household making that wage full time, that's about $60K a year and while still tough, they can live okay, especially if they're already in affordable housing. I believe that when housing is built for the rich, the developers should have to build X units for the middle-class and poor. And the real middle class - an $800,000 2 bedroom condo is not viable for the middle class as I define it. I'm sure plenty here who only believe in letting capitalism and the markets define pricing will strenuously disagree, but all the homeless living along California highways says that our current system doesn't work anymore. Every new building constructed in NYC is only for the rich and sales prices on old units are also only for the relatively wealthy. Archie Bunker would be a rich man today because he could have sold his little crappy house in Queens for close to $1 million. Of course after selling, he would have had to move to somewhere where housing is a lot less expensive.
Direct democracy (the end of political parties and mandate system) would be the solution.
You mean you want the entire nation to vote on every bill? And, if there is no congress, who would put forth the bills? We've already seen a hint of this in CA with the endless propositions on every ballot.
For something of national importance, yes. Proposals can be done by anyone, and when supported en mass voted for by everyone. Nice side effect is politicians cannot be ‘influenced’ or bribed and cannot sellout their country for a EU (second) political career.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
True, but it's Congress that makes that policy, although admittedly at the push of lobbyists who represent the rich. We're never going to get out of that situation until we get money out of politics and the current Supreme Court is never going to do that. If the B's and M's would do more like this (and pay their fair share of taxes), I would have less of a problem. The Gilded Age rich were largely horrible people, but at least they left us with some great public spaces: libraries, museums, opera houses, railroad terminals, parks, university buildings, etc. And most of the big tech companies pay most employees quite well (although a lot of that high compensation goes into ridiculously over-priced housing).
Without Congress getting money out of politics, I don't know what the solution is to restore a strong middle-class in the U.S. At least unemployment levels are relatively low and for the poor, at least many states and cities are taking action on their own to raise the minimum wage. In NYC, the minimum wage is now $15/hr for almost all employees. With two people in a household making that wage full time, that's about $60K a year and while still tough, they can live okay, especially if they're already in affordable housing. I believe that when housing is built for the rich, the developers should have to build X units for the middle-class and poor. And the real middle class - an $800,000 2 bedroom condo is not viable for the middle class as I define it. I'm sure plenty here who only believe in letting capitalism and the markets define pricing will strenuously disagree, but all the homeless living along California highways says that our current system doesn't work anymore. Every new building constructed in NYC is only for the rich and sales prices on old units are also only for the relatively wealthy. Archie Bunker would be a rich man today because he could have sold his little crappy house in Queens for close to $1 million. Of course after selling, he would have had to move to somewhere where housing is a lot less expensive.
Direct democracy (the end of political parties and mandate system) would be the solution.
The Founders considered this, and decided that it was the worst form of government:
[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - Madison, Federalist No. 10
"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." - John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity." - Alexander Hamilton, some guy that a musical was written about
However, for small communities within a Constitutional Republic that protects the rights of each person, I don't see a problem that said Constitution would remedy. But then again, Ben Franklin is misattributed to have said in 1759, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (Gary Strand). I guess with that, the size of that group will have to be, at most, two with equal votes.
I’m sure I can find as much positive quotes. Some people think they know best for all and strange enough end up being in power (because thats what they like, controlling others). Sounds similar to the “tragedy of the commons”, in the end its interpretation was a misconception (proven wrong by actual historic examples of very long lasting collaboration).
One important aspect you do not seem to understand is that Human rights, at all times must be uphold (something most ‘democratic’ countries fail to do, for example by - effectively - being a tax dictatorship). Also law enforcement and arbitration is a separate identity, similar to an indirect/mandate ‘democracy’. ...
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
Um... May I humbly recommend some reading comprehension before you start to, you know, express opinions?
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
I do apologize. I thought it was you who said that there’s no point in donating money because it will only reduce the amount that the French government will have to pay. This extreme expression of ignorance was actually written by “Seanj” not you. Sorry.
I don't get what you mean by this, if I donate money or pay it in taxes, it is still my money. Or, do you mean everyone else should donate except for me?
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
Um... May I humbly recommend some reading comprehension before you start to, you know, express opinions?
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
I do apologize. I thought it was you who said that there’s no point in donating money because it will only reduce the amount that the French government will have to pay. This extreme expression of ignorance was actually written by “Seanj” not you. Sorry.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
My knowledge of history is pretty good, thanks.
Yeah, that’s quite obvious.
I have no idea how much you know and understand history, but your knowledge of economics is weak. This is clear from your thinking that the French government should pay for this on its own. You don’t seem to realize that the money a government has comes almost entirely from the people who pay taxes. Would you want your already high taxes raised to pay for something like this?
Um... May I humbly recommend some reading comprehension before you start to, you know, express opinions?
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
I do apologize. I thought it was you who said that there’s no point in donating money because it will only reduce the amount that the French government will have to pay. This extreme expression of ignorance was actually written by “Seanj” not you. Sorry.
I don't get what you mean by this, if I donate money or pay it in taxes, it is still my money. Or, do you mean everyone else should donate except for me?
To explain: I was replying to the statement that there’s no need for Apple or anyone else to donate money to this since it’s the responsibility of the French government to restore the cathedral. My point is that the government, and any government, receives money from taxes, from the taxpayers of that country. In order for a government to take on such an expensive undertaking, the money has to come either from higher taxes or through diverting money from other programs/needs. By donating to this, Apple and others are taking the burden of paying for this off the shoulders of the French taxpayers. That’s a good thing.
Comments
My life's great, no need to feel sorry for me.
Who said anything about the French government or taxes or... whatever it is that you’re talking about?!
Nice side effect is politicians cannot be ‘influenced’ or bribed and cannot sellout their country for a EU (second) political career.
Sounds similar to the “tragedy of the commons”, in the end its interpretation was a misconception (proven wrong by actual historic examples of very long lasting collaboration).
One important aspect you do not seem to understand is that Human rights, at all times must be uphold (something most ‘democratic’ countries fail to do, for example by - effectively - being a tax dictatorship).
Also law enforcement and arbitration is a separate identity, similar to an indirect/mandate ‘democracy’.
...