Ulf Poschardt digs deeper into the donation debate and recognizes in it a "poisonous disrespect for those who have made it big"
"How could it be otherwise": The German public and politicians, with the exception of FDP members, are once again showing nothing but disgust, resentment and suspicion in the face of donations from American billionaires, as Ulf Poschardt summarizes in today’s World on Sunday the reactions here to "The Giving Pledge" initiative, led by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (see U.S. super-rich pledge to donate more than half their wealth).
One sees only what one wants to see and thereby blindly overlooks the good, says Poschardt. A tone-setting majority, called the "articulated majority" by Poschardt, sees in the rich above all profiteers who "have too much". The willingness to donate is understood by the wealthy only as a way to take even more from them. Especially representatives from the red-green camp , the "fashionable combination" (Poschardt) in current surveys, were skillfully bundling the motives of the donation debate to act with feelings of guilt:
Donations are used to make the wealthy, who have not yet donated their wealth, feel guilty. They demand donations! This nudging paternalism also articulates that venomous disrespect for those who have made it big.
Of course, Poschardt, the constant critic of a backward-looking, prejudiced left that lacks a sense of responsible individuality, fresh style and ideas, and rests on outdated notions of the common good and outdated comforts, sees in the debate above all what he has seen and wanted to see for a long time: a simple bipolar explanatory schema.
It confronts active achievers who have made something of themselves and "who predominantly finance the welfare state" with a performance- and responsibility-denying collective nourished by diffuse ideologies, whose members feel themselves to be shortchanged and in their phlegm only ever call for an omnipotent state. It reacts to the best and highest earners "with a distrust that calls into question their will to take responsibility:
Whereas in the United States the individual is set in absolute terms, in Germany it is the state with its dreary belief in authority. He also guarantees that the authorship of the benefit is amed to lie primarily with him and not with those who predominantly finance the welfare state.
When citizens solve problems for which the equally feared and beloved "Father State" is actually responsible, this is seen as a disturbance of family peace.
The longing of the tragen family is then also directed toward tax increases, especially the property tax, which Poschardt understands diffusely ideologically as "expropriation. Yet it is precisely the key ies of education and equal opportunity that show how these expectations are not met by an inefficiently operating "proliferating state rhizome". The state is failing here in an "unheroic way," which is not being acknowledged in certain circles. At the same time, private initiatives that are based on voluntarism and individual responsibility and create new ways of solving problems are defamed.
In order to remove useless barriers from the path of private pioneers of better solutions, Poschard recommends the classic liberal means: tax relief.
Empirical evidence has so far failed to show that the resulting additional income for the best and highest earners actually has positive effects for the community, as the trickle-down effect ideally ames (see also: Tax relief for the rich) – and not only the further widening of the income gap and wealth ratios.
In connection with generosity, the positive impulse of which has been piefishly distorted and crossed in the discussion about donations according to Poschardt, it is worth noting that the business magazine "The Economist", which is currently very popular among burger editors-in-chief, published a study even before the debate about large donations.
It says that experiments conducted by psychologist Paul Piff and colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, "concisely" suggest the opposite of widely held amptions: Namely, that it is the poor, or. People who place themselves at the bottom of the social ladder, rather than the rich, are more likely to be altruistic charitable givers (i.O. "charity") tend. But, of course, taken literally, that would be another bipolar view..