Dear Editor,
You have done a pretty decent job of defining a billion dollars for us and putting it into perspective [A billion dollars is a lot… maybe, Feb. 11 Odd Thoughts, Langley Advance].
A billion dollars seems like a lot to me. I can’t even imagine it being possible to spend that much.
Giving away billions is admirable, but not such a big deal when you still have billions left over. It’s not like the ultra-rich have less in their lives for doing it.
By giving it to societies, they get to tell the world how great and wonderful they are for doing something one would expect them to for being so blessed.
Though it is not the same in all cases, giving to societies is a way to have much more control over who gets assistance and who does not. As it is a private matter, it is possible to only assist those who agree with a certain line of thinking, or those who know certain people or are a certain way.
Paying a proper share of taxes so government social programs could be supported would require that the funds be completely handed over and doled out more equitably, based on need, not belief systems, alliances, or affiliation.
For the ultra-rich, it’s like paying taxes relinquishes a certain amount of control over the money and world affairs. If we remember that the government is elected by, for, and of the people, then paying taxes would give power back to the people.
Today I’m not going to comment on the ultra-rich making political donations to future law-makers.
Gail Neufeld, Maple Ridge