I would much rather tax the wealthy, so that we could create a society where we don't have children who need a "financial head start"

I read a book nearly a decade ago, that I think is worth highlighting.

> The book's central thesis is that members of the global elite are using philanthropic institutions to preserve a system that concentrates wealth and power at the top at the expense of societal progress. Giridharadas examines the narrow limits of modern philanthropy, claiming that rich donors avoid contributing to causes which could undermine their own lofty status. He argues that in some cases, the political lobbying efforts of wealthy donors may reduce the government's ability to address inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...

Yes philanthropy is ugly.

Had a conversation with a us friend who works with philanthropy. That person agreed that philanthropy is ugly, but let me know that it is better than nothing while the US has its current ways.

The top 10% of the earners in the US are paying 72% of the taxes collected. I'd assume most of the posters here from the US fall into that category. ($178k/year AGI). Are you willing to pony up more of your income for taxes?

This is money flowing from rich people to (mostly) not-rich children. Although the mechanism is different, the money seems to flowing in the same direction you’re hoping for?

Is there data showing that government programs are more effective than philanthropic programs?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...

See also perhaps criticism(s) against meritocracy:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Criticism

Philanthropy at the personal level is good. People need to interact with their city and know their neighbors and their issues. Mega donations at the national level are really just end-runs around our democracy. We need to figure it out as a society, not have a rich person come in and say 'I have money and this is how I want society to work'. Even if I agree with you, I don't really want any individual to have that much power over that many people. We need to constantly find ways as a society of encouraging individual voices and reducing the power of money as a voice.

exactly, based on this:

  There is a political benefit for Trump and fellow Republicans. The accounts will become available in the midst of a midterm election, providing money to millions of voters — and a campaign talking point to GOP candidates — at a critical time politically. The $1,000 deposits are slated to end just after the 2028 presidential election.

So even when billionaires do give away their money it's still not good enough for you?

The anti-rich sentient has somehow reached such a fever pitch that when a billionaire donates $6B to children the top post on HN is bitching about it.

The bigger problem is that there are much or more of these fat cats that abuse their wealth than use it for good.

High income individuals already pay a majority of personal taxes in America. And American governments get about $10T(or $29k per citizen) to play with each year between federal, state, and local.

Exactly how much money is needed to create this society you're imagining? America has more than enough money (IMHO), we just suffer from cost issues, and if you just throw more money at a situation where you have cost issues, you are just burning the money.

This could teach a lot of kids at least some financial literacy, which is valuable in any situation or tax regime.

Personally, I would have loved to have some money on such an investment account as a kid, and I would nerd out on its development, discuss it with friends etc. Knowing that everyone around me has the same account would also make it less taboo to discuss money in general.

the non profit space relies on Congressional deadlock

I know several people that vote for and donate to campaigns for senators on the other side of the aisle just to help ensure gridlock

the next layer after that is that tax education is so poor that the population doesnt even know what laws they want to change

so its not worth talking about as that ensures another 100 years of “tax the rich” turning into “tax the income of wage workers making over $500k” by the time a bill makes it out of committee

(I don’t find that controversial, just different enough to be interesting)

The government might spend the money on giant AI data centers instead, this donation is going directly to something helpful.

I've been thinking about a synthesis of communism and capitalism, where instead of levying dollar taxes, the corporations transfer 0.5% of control (stock, etc) to the government per year. Adjusted for how much the government already controls.