Capitalists argue that government spending on welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. crowds out charities. If government is providing the poor with everything they need, then what is there for charities to do?
SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts?
Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.
You got that? Giving money to charity is unacceptable because it is taking the place of the state. But wait, there’s more:
SPIEGEL: But doesn’t the money that is donated serve the common good?
Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That’s a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
Understand? Only the government is able to determine what is good for the people and people have no legitimacy to give their own hard-earned money to charity as they see fit.
Next thing you know, acts of charity will be a crime against society.