Say you lived in a small community centered around a church that provided most social services. Gross, I know, but you can’t help where you’re raised. If you became very successful and covered half the annual costs of the church, well, that’s good for everyone I guess. But if the church villifies you and people like you (gay, or black, or whatever) and every sunday preaches about how bad you and people like you are… I would kinda expect you to want to move away from that place. And if that leaves the church with a big hole in their budget… well, too bad?
The wealthiest 1% of Californians account for 46% of California’s tax revenue. And seeing how much California despises its wealthy tech industry, they’ve started moving away. I’m starting to think the combinationg of “Tax the wealthy to pay for everything” and “Villify the wealthy as monsters” may not be sustainable.
What if the hypothetical rich person spent the money on direct support for the community instead of filtering it through the church?
Sure, it may be worth a shot if they really love their community. They might be able to counteract the force of the church and win people over to their side. I don’t think it’s a moral requirement, though. If one thinks they can do that, much luck to them. If they would rather leave, that’s fine too.
I’m glad you’re blogging again. I liked the memes post. But damn did that second sentence in this post make me very sad.
Yeah, sorry about that. :/ I had to signal strongly that I’m liberal lest this be taken as a pro-republican-talking-points post, and the best way to do that quickly was to reaffirm my strong dislike of religion.