Something&#x27;s always bugged me about relying on philanthropy as a source of funding the public good, as opposed to the public funding the public good through taxation and the democratic process: In the former case, the public doesn&#x27;t really have much of a say about where the help goes. We must rely on the judgment (and personal values) of a few rich people and hope they pick charities that maximize the benefit.<p>Would the outcome be better or worse if we had, say, a 99% tax bracket at &gt;$N million, and let the public decide the best way to deploy that funding via the ballot box? Would that process better align with the values of a democratic society? Or would we just get more corporate welfare, bombers and aircraft carriers?<p>I&#x27;m not ragging on philanthropy--it&#x27;s awesome that some of these billionaires understand the meaning of &quot;enough&quot; and choose to give away their fortunes to worthy causes. But is it best for society to leave it to a few lucky &#x27;elite&#x27; to judge what is and isn&#x27;t a worthy cause?