>

Bro, you have no idea.
I write fictional fantasy/sci-fi.  The stuff I think about on the regular would probably melt your vanilla brain.  This isn't the most ridiculous thing I've thought about in the past 24 hours.
Overactive imagination.  Been stuck with it since I was little.  We all have our interests.  You're not into mine, I'd probably find yours boring as hell.  That's just how it goes.  :)
So Batman/ Bruce Wayne grew up Rich. Had a shitty childhood, parents where killed in front of him for “ money”. And Gotham is surrounded by multi-millionaires ( referring to court of owls). 
Superman ie Clark kent grows up in smallville on a farm in a little podunk town. And Clark Has a healthy childhood ( minus the superpowers). But Martha and John grow to be old on the farm. Clark doesn’t “become” Superman till after he moves to metropolis. 
The point I’m trying to make here is that gothams problems are not something more money could fix. It’s a societal thing that needs to be fixed. 
Simply put- Money don’t buy happiness. >


It’s a societal thing that needs to be fixed.

Yeap.  Gotham and the real world are the same in that regard.
All of us can see the biggest things wrong with society (money in politics, for example) but no one does anything about it.  That's because the people at the top don't want it fixed. >


All of us can see the biggest things wrong with society (money in politics, for example) but no one does anything about it.  

Iiiiii… don’t know if that’s true, the whole ( all of us can see the things). There’s a good majority of people in the real world who agree with the elites. 
But the same goes for Gotham. Think about it someone voted Oswald in to be Mayor. 

That's because the people at the top don't want it fixed.

See here I’ll agree that they don’t want it fixed. But at some point the people do need to take some responsibility. They are voting them in, they are allowing these people to run amok in their city. 
And that’s why Batman ( not Bruce) the actual Batman does more for Gotham than Wayne money. Batman is a symbol of standing up to the corruption and the criminals. Which will inspire the citizens to stand up as well. >


You're still gonna need a smart, well-trained ninja

In the grand scheme of things, do you really need a ninja? Like, actually? Is there any scenario where pouring of billions of dollars of tech into one guy who runs around and punches people actually makes sense? >

Exactly, batman has been as this for years and has he made any meaningful progress for Gotham City? 
(Depends on what universe you look at) >


Exactly, batman has been as this for years and has he made any meaningful progress for Gotham City?  
(Depends on what universe you look at)

Gotham was already headed for hell on a train with no brakes and no conductor.  I like to look at it as Batman finding ways to slow the train and get people off safely where he can.
Has he lowered the crime rate?  No.  Did he prevent a mass casualty event and stop the city's complete destruction on numerous occasions?  Yes.  I wonder where that rates on the "meaningful" scale. >

Practically every "super villan" in Gotham were created by Batman. It wasn't super serum powered undead giant that killed his parents, it was thugs. But after bat hit the scene Arkham was filled with super powered lunatics.
Without bat we wouldn't have to worry about city scale attacks from laughing plant ninjas. >


Without bat we wouldn't have to worry about city scale attacks from laughing plant ninjas.

Poison Ivy was a rich girl who was experimented on, went insane, and became an eco-terrorist.  If Bruce had died with his parents and never became Batman, nothing would change for her (except maybe her plans to destroy Gotham would more likely succeed).
Penguin, a bullied outcast from his family turns to crime.  Again, Bruce not existing changes nothing for him.
Firefly, a pyromaniac criminal, his origin having nothing to do with Batman.  Mad Hatter started off killing people in high school, again nothing to do with Batman.  Victor Zsasz was a hitman for the mob before Batman.
The often-repeated sentiment that Batman created his villains is horsepoop that can be disproven with a little research. >

In fact, one Batman the Animated Seried episodd features all villains making a mock court against Batman, trying to prove that he is responsible for their crimes, only to realize that sithout Batman they'd wind up the sake. >


Can you convince me that Gotham City, as written, would be better if Wayne quit being Batman and put most of his money into the city?

No, but maybe I can convince you that he already does that (the money part). Bruce is already one of the biggest philanthropists in the DC world. Medical centers, job training, soup kitchens, infrastructure programs, scholarships, orphanages, anything that exists to help the people of Gotham exists because of the Wayne Foundation. 
People who say he should pay more taxes, and that that would help Gotham don’t understand how taxes work. The city would never be able to tax Wayne in any substantial way. Any increase in taxes he’d face for amounts that would materially affect Gotham’s budget would come from the state, or the federal government, and they wouldn’t give it to all to the city. And even if Bruce lobbied for increased taxes on billionaires, Luther would oppose him and outspend him on lobbying. He doesn’t spend his billions on charity like Bruce, so he’d just buy or threaten congress until they killed the bill. >

Which is pretty realistic when you think about it >

I’m convinced Lex knows Bruce is Batman, and just sits smugly with the knowledge that Wayne Industries will never be able to overtake Lexcorp because Wayne spends all of his time punching mental patients at night while Lex is making shady land deals and stealing cakes. >

The complex problems of Gotham would not be solved by simply throwing money at it, so it's not a magical solution. Minor spoiler: in the most recent movie it's stated that (20 years ago) Thomas Wayne spent 1 Billion Dollars trying to fix these problems and it didn't work.
The more sincere statement of this opinion is that Bruce Wayne spending nearly all his time, money and effort on Philanthropic endeavours; would be better than him being Batman. 
Issues like obesity, homelessness, health care and drug addiction lead to 1000s of death every year. The correct allocation of resources can reduce these deaths significantly. It wouldn't happen overnight.
It's difficult to know if Batman makes crime problems better or worse. It could be argued that criminals are getting more violent to counter Batman, a tactic that would get them shot and killed if they did it to the police. >


Minor spoiler: in the most recent movie it's stated that (20 years ago) Thomas Wayne spent 1 Billion Dollars trying to fix these problems and it didn't work.

This is for reasons I've mentioned on other comments; the people controlling the money are corrupt.  They've been using the Thomas Wayne fund to get money into the pockets of the wealthy elite.  That's why your statement here..

The more sincere statement of this opinion is that Bruce Wayne spending nearly all his time, money and effort on Philanthropic endeavours; would be better than him being Batman.

It just doesn't ring true for me.  There's been deep corruption in Gotham since its founding.  Even if Bruce retired as Batman forever and blew up the batcave and did exactly what you said, it wouldn't help Gotham because the stuff going on there is by design.
The revolving door at Arkham and Blackgate.  The reallocations of as much money meant to help the poor and working class to the wealthy as possible.  The criminal organizations that existed before Thomas Wayne died (like the Falcone crime family and so on).  The Court of Owls pulling the strings.
Before any of the philanthropic endeavors can succeed, those elements have to be taken care of.  They otherwise will control or loot the money meant to improve things for ordinary people.
If the criminals weren't leveling up fighting Batman, they'd be leveling up fighting each other over territory.  I would argue that Batman definitely makes it better because he's literally saved the city and prevented mass casualty events on multiple occasions. >

Philanthropy and organised crime are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sure more money will get lost to corruption, but it is possible to do some good. The deaths due to things like obesity and drug addiction are not as obvious as people who are killed by the Joker. Saving people from drug addiction doesn't feel the same as saving them from a villain in fancy dress, but it still counts. 
The levelling up that Batman causes is different to from criminals fighting each other for one very specific reason; Batman doesn't kill. If you attack another criminal gang more aggressively, you are more likely to die. The same is not true with fighting Batman. >

Gotham is supposed to be hell on earth. An allegory for crime which is why Batman is “needed”. I think a lot of people tend to miss this >

I don’t think it would be a magical solution, but if we’re being honest, it could be a better one. Batman has been doing his thing for a long time, and hasn’t made any significant improvement in the lives of your average Gotham residents. Things are still just as bad as they were before he started. 
Might as well try something different. >

Well, Bruce Wayne is one of the most charitable people in DC.  The Wayne Foundation already does a lot with funding, public projects, etc.  It's not as though he only spends a tiny percent of his fortune on charity as the wealthy do in real life, Bruce actually does put a lot of cash toward the less fortunate.
Things are worse than when he started because Gotham was a snowball already rolling downhill when Thomas Wayne was murdered.  It was already headed to hell in a handbasket.  Batman has been managing one crisis after another that the city itself wouldn't have been able to handle without him (leading to mass casualties or complete destruction on more than one occasion, averted by Bruce and the Bat-fam).
If he stepped away tomorrow and gave 90% of his money to the city directly, that would be entirely meaningless if Joker gassed the whole city the day after Batman retired. >

it's just a preface these days lest loonies believe you're some capitalistic shill which ironically is a no-no on a capitalistic website. >


Gotham has been run by a secret organization of the ultra-wealthy called the Court of Owls for over a hundred years.

Tax Bruce Wayne more would raise their taxes too. 

the city officials, who are almost entirely all corrupt

Corrupted with what money? Less billionaires, higher wages for civil servants less corruption.
Batman doesn't even really spend his money well in Nolanverse he buys all of his supplies in volumes of over 10k to avoid suspicion, why not just give that equipment to 10k cops? >


Tax Bruce Wayne more would raise their taxes too.

They already have more money than they could ever spend.  The same ways billionaires in real life get away with evading taxes, I'm sure are a problem in Gotham too.  In fact, they might be able to use this to tax their rivals while protecting their allies.
If not, they can have the statute changed.

Corrupted with what money? Less billionaires, higher wages for civil servants less corruption.  
Batman doesn't even really spend his money well in Nolanverse he buys all of his supplies in volumes of over 10k to avoid suspicion, why not just give that equipment to 10k cops?

As I mentioned, I don't think there would be less billionaires.  They control what the civil servants get paid.  They have a countless number of thugs to rough up people who don't play ball.  A deeply corrupted society has to have the corruption cut out first.  It's basically the same with the U.S. government - Congresspeople write their own paychecks and set their own rules.  Even though practically every adult knows the U.S. Congress is owned by their donors, no one seems to be able to do anything about it.
I should have included something about the Nolanverse.  To me, that's "Military Batman in New York".  So many plotholes there that I can't even defend that. >

I've always thought that the Batman movies were a portrayal of an immensely stupid rich kid who ignored all of what criminologists had to say about crime, it's causes and effects, and decided that violence solves all problems.
---
Organized crime would not for a second be scared of Batman. He doesn't kill people, so at the very least he's less frightning than rival gang members. I mean, gangsters live for violence. They fight enemies that are willing to chainsaw peoples heads off while still alive. Why would they be scared of Batman? I enjoy the Nolan movies but the premise of Batman can never really be made into anything that is coherent, or intelligent.
--- >

The thing with batman is that you always lose, and you can't do anything to stop it.
That is scary. >

This is incredibly based. >

We live in a society. >

I mean the joke is that's it's not one of his priorities but I think the point is in story batman acknowledges that current tactics of only physically engaging crime doesn't work in the long term but he will keep doing it anyway.Like he litteraly think he can end crime which is an impossible task most other superheroes are more chill with the fact crime is something you can't stop. >

He spends huge amounts of money trying to fix these problems.
That's part of the batman fundamental concepts.
What he can't do with money he does himself >

In the vague possible sense I've read enough batman stories to know they love to namedrop him investing money into something he thinks will benefit Gotham but they rarely go into it. >

The thrust of your argument is, I believe, Gotham is too corrupt to function even if it had adequate funding?
That's probably fair. I mean, it makes no godsdamn sense that a city like that continues to exist, but whatever, comics be comics.
What's to stop Superman/Flash/Cyborg from just... Solving the issues?
'Talons' from the Court of Owls are a real problem for Batman. Superman would blow them like they don't exist. They exist in the modern world - they have bank accounts that Cyborg could hack. They have homes that Flash can search through at near lightspeed, vibrating through their walls to do so. Never mind what a properly motivated Green Lantern could do!
The real question is: Why doesn't the Justice League solve the super villains, so that the city could maybe recover? >

I think you're taking the line too literally. The point being made here that what Batman does is to, violently, fight the symptoms of a broken society and that it would be more effective to fight crime preventatively by fixing that society. And it's biggest illness is wealth inequality.
Now this is not just me using this fictional situation to comment on real life society (although I totally am), but it also fits your description of Gotham:
Run by a cabal of rich people? Probably wouldn't happen if they weren't allowed in the first place to be so rich that they have the resources to take over.
Corruption? Probably would take a cultural overhaul. But that probably suggests that the rich have strong hold over government.  Greater equality would be a big step towards fixing it
Not all of them are created by poverty? So does this suggest a lot of them are? Which means by reducing poverty already would do a lot of Batman's work for him in a direct way.
And for the others...Don't they usually have a lot of hired goons? Aren't these henchman largely driven by poverty? Sometimes evident from them doing the job even when they are scared of being beaten up by a billionaire maniac ninja dressed as a bat?
Aaaanyway. Ultimately you can't actually argue that the fictional world of Gotham City doesn't need Batman to do his Batmanning, because the writers write it explicitly that anything that is not Batman doing his Batman stuff will not work. Because they need Batman to come in and save the day for narrative reasons.
Anyway, the point then, in what you're quoting then is not to say that the next Batman comic or movie should be about tax collection. It is, however, to say that although we all enjoy seeing a weirdly brand-conscious vigilante flying around with grapple hooks and spin-kicking flamboyant villains, it might also be good to consider that maybe the underlying message of these stories isn't always great and we should be aware of how such fictions project onto the real world, because you gotta be careful of how your thinking - or that of kids, for example - might be affected.
So, you know, it's worth sometimes wondering if Batman is a fascist. >

Where in the world give money to politicians resolved anything?
Bruce Wayne is a philanthropist, he help more people than government will never do >

It wouldn't solve all of Gotham's problems but it could noticeably reduce them.
It could mean more police walking the beat making the streets safer.
It could mean people with mental / drug issues get the assistance they need again making the streets safer.
There will always be a guy like Joker to stir up the pot, but I think he would have a harder time finding henchmen if Bruce Wayne paid his fair share. >

I'd just like to say that I appreciate how deep into the Batman lore you get into this one. If I may offer a counterpoint, I believe the argument isn't "Would Gotham the fictional city in which Superheros and shady cabals and the modern myth of a working class be fixed by implementing a tax on the uber wealthy?" and more about "Would Gotham as a concept of a city with social problems such as income inequality and the concomitant crime resultant from it be better served by taxing an uber wealthy weirdo and utilizing said wealth to alleviate the issues which lead to the crime said weirdo prefers to combat by utilizing gadgets and martial arts?"
In this, Gotham is convenient as a metaphor as it already has a notable entrenched wealthy class (Bruce Wayne). One could suggest a similar metaphor by saying Metropolis would be better off if you taxed Lex Luthor, but the subtly of the argument is lost because Lex Luthor is a villain and nobody cares about taxing villains. Its the heros who seem to want to do good but are misguided by the only solutions they see to complex problems are simple super violence. In this, taxing Bruce Wayne (Batman) is a better solution to the real life allegory problems of poverty than fighting super criminals. 
I realize this does not address the arguments you laid out,  as Gotham's problems are not a 1:1 representation of reality. My intent here is to show you that the use of the meme about taxing Batman doesn't actually refer to the Batman mythos but to the reality said mythos escapes from and parodies for the sake of drama. >

Gotham is corrupt as fuck, all he is doing is donating the money to the rich and powerful >

I think a better question to ask is, "What happens after Batman is no longer with Gotham?". Sure in some canons, Nightwing or Terry McGinnis will take up the mantle as Gotham's protector, but there's no implication of that in the Nolan movies or Zack Snyder movies. 
Villainous people however, will always exist. Thugs killed Batman's parents and any amount of punching current bad guys won't stop them from existing in the future. 
Are the current politicians absolutely corrupt? Yes. However I would argue that Bruce's best course of action is to spend his money privately to either get good guys in office or punch the Court of Owls until they go away. Once the public is educated on candidates that actually work in their favor, you won't see situations like the Penguin being immune to police. The reason politicians work with the mob in Gotham is because you need money to win elections. If Bruce is bankrolling good guys to win elections, they won't need those deals. 
Now that we've solved the issue of corruption, the entire billionaire class of Gotham can be fairly taxed. Once taxed, the police force can go through better training and be more equipped with the necessary weapons to defeat your occasional Killer Croc.
Basically, you're right. Current Gotham increasing their taxes would do nothing for the citizens of the city. But I argue that Batman has the power to solve the systemic issues that you put forward preventing his taxes from being effective. I would also reargue that Gotham has a dependency on him and it would be in poor form for him to not break that dependency before he becomes too old or dies in battle. >

Batman beating up petty criminals and the mentally ill is not a good recipe for societal change. 
Bruce Wayne like every other nepo baby billionaire shouldn’t even have the wealth to begin with as estates should be taxed at 100 percent after a certain amount. >

I think it could help, but as someone who works with the homeless and underserved areas in my specific location, if you have each of those individuals one million bucks, I bet within time they would find themselves in the exact same situation. 
Not everyone can be saved and realizing that is just part of growing up. You don't throw in the towel and stop trying, but you absolutely set boundaries and have expectations. >

Thanks for this early morning gigglefest. Made my morning! >

Is your argument it’s not a magical solution (your title) or that you disagree with the meme (taxes would help Gotham more than Batman ever could)?
Because if it’s the first, to be honest, I agree with you. The root of the issues won’t be solved by billionaires getting taxed more. But with the second, I think putting that money towards taxes would improve the day to day life of many civilians more than Batman ever could.
I don’t know enough about the court of owls to discuss that point.
But your second point: Corrupt politicians. You preface by saying you support taxing billionaires in real life. Are our politicians not corrupt? How many pay raises have I seen them give theirselves while my wage, the minimum, hasn’t been touched for how long? How often do they put the money towards things that you don’t feel are necessary, but they’ve been bought lobbyists? Batman may help uncover who is corrupt, but so do random Redditors and Twitter users in real life. And we vote for the politicians we think will do the country good who we hope can replace those politicians. I see it no different for Gotham.
I think you’re wrong on your third point. You cherry picked Harley Quinn, but you’re ignoring the root of the problem: Joker. This meme is advocating for putting Joker in therapy when he was a kid. Maybe that could have helped him. Maybe not and he’s rotten to the core. And sure, maybe it may not fix all the a big villains, but I promise you that other people who start to go down that path will have positive impacts with affordable healthcare and living wages. And suddenly, those big villains have less manpower, and therefore, does affect them.
So I agree with you: It doesn’t solve the root of the problems. But it definitely could help a lot of civilians. Crime exists no matter what, but I’d rather everyone have access to therapy and and a living wage. >

Hear me out, he now only has a fraction of the wealth he had before. He also somehow no longer has access to his previous wealth. He can no longer be Batman.
A couple different scenarios:
Gotham eventually spirals into a point where it collapses and basically burns itself into the ground. Either it rebuilds smaller and less corrupt or disintegrates into nothing. At that point crime is significantly reduced!
Bruce's taxes go into the correct programs and don't get absorbed into some corrupt venue. Crime and poverty is on the decline and Gotham is on the up and up.
Or
Gotham goes to shit like the first option and requires outside superhero intervention. Outcome may be uncertain but hey at least having Superman patrol Gotham would yield some different results right? >

the court of owls isnt canon in every continuity >


Uhhh...... okay. When's the last time you've been outside?

When I was visiting your mom.
Seriously, it's a thought experiment about a fictional property.  Calm down, dude.  You don't have to participate. >

Why? Because she's your landlord and you're late on rent? I just think it's funny that you waste so much time thinking about something is ridiculously stupid. I love it.