Reasons to condemn Elon Musk as his charitable donations and tax contributions remain pending
From a $6billion charity challenge to a $21billion tax payment Twitter poll, the self-titled “Technoking” Elon Musk is once again the capitalist playing games in the world’s eye.
Musk has pledged via Twitter to sell Tesla stock in the value of $6billion solely for the benefit of the United Nations’ World Food Programme, on the condition that they meet in his Twitter boardroom to describe “exactly how $6B will solve world hunger”. The tweet comes after the director of the WFP, David Beasley, said 2% of Musk’s worth could help solve world hunger. Musk’s tweet is in response to an article that frames Beasley’s statement as a solution for world hunger, while his actual words were a plea for the world’s richest to “step up now, on a one-time basis” to aid people who will die if WFP cannot reach them. Although clearly uninformed beyond the article, in ways Musk’s response is better than simply ignoring a claim directed at his wealth: it at least shows him as listening to the shouts from the rest of society (all of whom, genuinely staggeringly, are individually less wealthy than him).
On a topic such as world hunger, however, his response is unapologetically hostile. It is unclear if he is suspect, challenging, or simply apathetic about charity. Charity is essentially voluntary in nature, so one could view the fact that Musk seems to have been directly challenged, even perceivably demanded, to be charitable as relatively uncomfortable. Though was Musk to be as sceptical about journalistic portrayal as he is about a UN humanitarian aid organisation, he would likely realise Beasley's words were more a plea than a challenge. Besides, such a challenge would surely be fair enough when some people are fatally starving and some people are worth $300billion.
Granted, any response other than via donation is unlikely to please, but Musk’s response is not merely hostile but actually investigative. He requests detail on the use of such a donation, by open-source accounting, visible for all of Twitter to see. This is certainly quite a length to go to for someone who didn’t take the time to check the validity of the article that so clearly riled him. Admittedly, it is not entirely uncommon to be sceptical over the allocation of funds by charitable organisations, but I think it is nonetheless safe to say most people would surely prefer $6billion in the hands of a charity for hunger alleviation than in the hands of a car company’s pseudo-monarch.
Even if Beasley was producing an outright challenge, it remains difficult to understand if Musk’s response is brash or simply boastful. The conditions he establishes seem more intended to illuminate potential faults in the WFP rather than represent the process of a conscientious donator. Musk seems a Shakespearean villain, privy to knowledge the audience is yet to see unravel: “sunlight is a wonderful thing” he tweets, presumably sniggering if he were on stage. Musk thinks he has played a trump card, but his quippy challenge only serves as a reminder of why he was ever in Beasley’s line of sight: $6billion is the price he will pay for a game, and Twitter is his current arcade of choice.
It is hard to know how to emotionally respond to the knowledge that someone could even possess $6billion, let alone gladly part with it for an argument’s sake. If Musk was indeed taking the article at face value, surely he should feel a bit more shocked that 2% of his wealth could end world hunger, rather than get gritty about how efficiently his mere 2% will be used.
Musk’s Twitter politics are something that I am never keen to witness, yet it is simply impossible to not look. Perhaps the real problem emerging here is the vast number of handles aligning themselves with Musk’s inquiry. Among the replies, people address the WFP: “please don’t disappoint hungry people worldwide”, as if the ball is in Beasley’s court and Musk is unable to simply donate without asserting conditions, like most other citizens. “I think the silence means they’re out of business if they solve world hunger” another tweet reads.
Patriotism is a concept that when put under the microscope seems rather skewed and attached to the Arthurian politics of the Round Table. Contemporarily, an undying love of country seems rather dated, at least until the football is on. In a similar fashion, there is something sinister in the faith being put into figures such as Musk. Many people will respect him purely for the extent of his success, but I wonder how much of his support is gathered purely for the sake of their stocks and shares.
I wonder, is this the 2021 American Dream? Musk recently published a poll on Twitter asking if users wished for him to sell 10% of his Tesla stock as a means for having to pay tax to compensate for his unrealised gains. Twitter users were able to vote yes or no, with 58% of over 3.5 million voters supporting the sale of stock upon expiry of the poll. While we are still waiting for Musk to confirm his compliance with the results, the nature of his poll is undeniably democratic. It is only a shame that he cannot naturally assume that paying suitable tax is probably the right thing to do, and moreover that the people living in poverty, most benefitted by him paying adequate tax, will often not be in a position to be able to take part in an online poll.
As a businessman of such stature, I suppose charity and tax do not seem fruitful investments for maintaining his lead in the global rich-list, nor his intended colonisation of Mars. It makes me wonder what sort of politics he might implement on Mars should he be successful. The sad reality on Earth remains that money talks, or rather, money tweets.
