Hacker News Reader

Comment by krastanov | Hacker News Reader

There is plenty of terribleness in the Chinese government, but this particular program sounds wonderful. I wish American and European companies were doing something on a similar scale (but I guess I would have just preferred more agressive progressive taxes as that would be less susceptible to corruption and strongarming).

View on HN

Hard disagree. We need to apply taxes and laws fairly, and uniformly. This is the philosophical underpinning of our entire system.

Thankfully, the US constitution forbids Bills of Attainder.

Superficially, this is not a bill of attainder. This is a donation seemingly administered by the donating entity themselves. Is it really all that different from how the US government encourages private entities to contribute to cultural life (the Smithsonian institution being funded privately for much of its budget, plenty of landmarks of significant cultural importance being in private hands but still shared with the public, the way Olympic sports are administered, Gates/Rockefeller/etc philanthropy). Maybe you are implying there was some strong arming behind the scene, which would indeed be despicable? But on the surface, this seems great.

And then you end up with a overly complex tax code with a million loopholes that can be exploited given the resource and time.

Where do you really think the money's gonna go?

Please enlighten us.

I know there is immense corruption in that government (or at least a different, more viceral, type than what is present in the US). But I find it intelectually lazy to use that fact to shoot down everything, without actually knowing it applies in the current case.

I'm not convinced that the US government is the best example of a body free of corruption and strongarming.

uhm... Reread the comment you responded to. It is in agreement with your remark, so phrasing it as a counter seems weird.

I read your GP comment as "I would prefer to force the collection of more money for the US [and European] governments as that spending is less susceptible to corruption". My claim is that that's not obviously a way to reduce corruption (as compared to voluntary, private charity).

I never used/implied/thought of anything related to the use of force or pseudolegal intimidation. That would be quite despicable behavior, and yes, regretably plenty of governments engage in it.

I would not call taxation or PR-inducements for donations "use of force", but some people might (reasonably?) disagree here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com