Travel mogul Rick Steves is the latest in a long line of pro-tax rich guys who fails to see the irony of donating his Bush tax-cut dollars directly to a cause of his choosing while demanding that others pay more taxes to federal bureaucrats for donations to causes of their choosing.
Kay Bell reports that the pro-tax Steves has chosen to donate his tax savings directly to a local community arts center rather than to the federal government:
This time it’s Rick Steves.
Steves, founder of the Edmonds, Wash.-based Rick Steves’ Europe Through the Back Door travel conglomerate, has donated $1 million to his community’s arts center.
Steves was able to share his wealth thanks to the success of his travel writings, tours, radio show and speaking engagements. But he says the thing that’s really allowed him to amass so much disposable wherewithal is the lower tax rates created by the Bush-era tax cuts.
Like the Oracle of Omaha [Warren Buffett], Steves questions the wisdom of giving those who already have so much even more in the form of lower tax rates.
But Steves also issued a challenge to his similarly wealthy peers.
If you’re fortunate enough to be doing well these days, figure out what recent tax cuts have saved you, then donate that amount to a deserving cause that you believe in.
Steves’ $1 million donation will support and expand the Edmonds Center for the Arts’ performances and community programs. Some of the money also will pay all of the facility costs for the Edmonds’ Cascade Symphony Orchestra for the next 10 years.
Are these guys tone deaf? Don’t they understand that small government conservatives are every bit as generous with their money as pro-tax liberals are, but simply do not trust the government to use their money wisely? Don’t they understand that conservatives want to help the poor and fund the arts as much as they do, but simply don’t believe that the government should be the conduit for doing so?
Rick Steves and Warren Buffett, their pro-government rhetoric notwithstanding, are fiscal conservatives who distrust the federal government every bit as much as, say, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Ron Paul do and their actions prove it.
Small government conservatives want precisely what Steves and Buffett want: To choose what charities and causes they give their money to.
Related Posts:
- Warren Buffett is Not the Only Rich Guy Weighing in on Taxes
- Tax Policy Blog: Warren Buffett is Wrong
- Buffett Redux
- Well, At Least Buffett Gets Heaven Points for Trying
- Buffetts Berkshire Hathaway Disputes IRS Tax Assessment
- Now This is Hypocrisy
4 responses so far ↓
1 Knox Marlow // Aug 31, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Truly bizarre.
Let’s say an uber-wealthy individual (“UWI”) wants a new yacht … UWI goes out and purchases a new yacht.
Let’s say UWI wants a new home … UWI goes out and purchases a new home.
Let’s say UWI wants all UWIs (including himself or herself) to pay higher taxes to the federal government … UWI goes out and donates wealth to private charities.
To recap:
- wants yacht, uses cash to buy yacht
- wants home, uses cash to buy home
- wants higher taxes, uses cash NOT to pay higher taxes, but to support private charities
Does this make logical sense to anyone?
2 Peter // Aug 31, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Hi Knox,
Excellent analogy.
Sadly, it does make logical sense to tax-the-rich, big-government liberals.
3 Knox Marlow // Aug 31, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I have no problem with a policy debate regarding whether the uber-wealthy are paying their “fair share.” Maybe they are only paying 20% of total income taxes and we collectively decide that it would be “fairer” for them to pay 25% of total income taxes. That’s a policy debate.
But I would really like someone to explain why it makes any logical sense for these UWIs to advocate for higher taxes, while allocating their own capital to private charities? They want higher taxes, they can voluntarily *pay* higher taxes. Then they’ll have some moral credibility when they advocate for higher taxes on all UWIs.
Anyway, enough from me. Good content on here as usual!
4 Peter // Aug 31, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Knox,
Thanks.
The fair share argument irritates me. It is clear that the rich pay more than their fair share because the top 5% of income earners fund 30% of the government.
The question is not whether or not the rich should share in the sacrifice, but rather, whether the rich should be asked to sacrifice even more.