Notre Dame. One of the most recognisable, beautiful and historic landmarks in all of manmade creation. For 850 years it stood relatively undisturbed and being kept in good health, even if cosmetically. Then, on April 15th it caught ablaze. Its roof collapsed and many precious artefacts within were destroyed. Fortunately, no one was killed and most of the artwork wasn’t present due to getting restoration treatment.

Hours were spent by firefighters who worked tirelessly to get the blaze under control. And once it was over…an outrage was sparked.

It wasn’t aimed at those working on the building to restore various elements within. It wasn’t aimed at the government. And it wasn’t aimed at the Church.

No. The outrage was pointed at the billionaires who offered financial donations to help rebuild the cathedral.

And why such a display of vitriol? Because the rich should be helping the poor, seemed to be the consensus.

It’s no one’s place to tell someone what they do with their money. Suggestions, yes. Recommendations, certainly. Advice. Of course. But people were almost demanding the billionaires to help the poor instead of rebuilding one of the greatest and most iconic buildings ever. Notre Dame is more than just a building. It’s part of France. It’s synonymous with many great points in French and world history.

Before anyone swells with anger that I might be taking the side of the rich, let me steer this ship towards calmer waters.

It’s all too easy to be cynical when we see the uber rich dig into their deep pockets and hand out money faster than an Instagram star takes selfies.

But should we? I don’t think so. When the rich don’t give, there’s no real public outcry. But when they do they are judged on the cause and the reason they give for. Are we living in a state of such social anxiety that we feel so negatively when a person does give? What if they didn’t?

This kind of backlash could serve to only discourage philanthropy regardless of the context around it. Wouldn’t you feel disheartened and victimised every time you bought your friend a pint when they were feeling down only to have it come back at you later? Or what about putting someone in a taxi because they were lost only to have a passer-by shout profanities at you for doing so? That’s effectively what’s going on here but on a much bigger scale. The rich are in a position to help and so they pledge (note, I say pledge and not donate. There’s a reason coming up later) an amount to bring Notre Dame back to its former glory.

Within two days, almost a billion was pledged from several wealthy individuals and companies, such as L ‘Oreal, LVMH, Apple and Francois-Henri Pinault. The latest Avengers film grossed more than that in around the same time only hundreds of thousands paid a small fee for that behemoth of a pop culture event.

And what of real culture? The tangible fabric that’s been woven by thousands upon thousands of people over hundreds of years? The very essence of a people carefully and meticulously crafted into the very foundations of the city in which it stands? That…is Notre Dame. It is not famous because of who it was designed or built by. How many know that Napoleon was crowned emperor inside its great hall? Few, I’d imagine.

It is famous because it is an intrinsic part of the landscape. Like a man-made Everest, Great Barrier Reef or Grand Canyon, Notre Dame is a structural wonder to behold much like its ancient Egyptian counterpart – the Pyramids.

And because of its age and sheer scale, it asks questions of you. If you’ve ever stood in front or inside of it, as I did in 2015, you realise what man can accomplish through sheer will, knack, knowledge and brute strength. Notre Dame is testament to humanity’s enduring efforts to overcome any and all obstacles regardless of limitations. It is a magnificent reminder of who we were, are and can be. Notre Dame is a part of the historical game of top trumps.

It dares the current generation to do better.

So, when the rich hastily made their pledges, it was with good reason. They knew the value of Notre Dame. It is beyond compare. Some may say a gift from God Himself. Perhaps that’s a bit far but you can see what I mean. It has no equal and the world would be poorer for it if it were to be left to become a ruin when there’s no reason for it to come to that.

When it comes to questioning them over choosing a building versus the poor, I can understand why they chose the former.

Let’s look at this objectively. Let’s say your parents had their home for sixty years. In that time, you were born, raised, fed, watered, cared for and entertained. Many parties took place. Many friends visited. Many great conversations and moments happened in that house. And then. A lightning storm hits and a tree crashes through the roof of the listed building. Some of it catches fire. The rain puts most of it out but the fire brigade comes to put out the rest. Your parents stand cold, wet and sad at the destruction of their home. The insurance will cover some of the repairs but the remainder of the work needs cash. And your parents don’t have enough.

You know you have some cash to spare but you can’t foot the entire bill. You go to friends and family members and they all chip in happily until the pot is big enough to pay for the repairs. Why would they do this? Because your parents house has an emotional and cultural meaning to them. It’s where they grew up or fell in love. Maybe several important pieces of advice were given. Regardless of the reason, that house shaped those people one way or another. It is part of their collective consciousness and memory. To see it ruined by an unfortunate incident which would lead to its owners lives damaged possibly beyond repair would be out of the question.

The same goes for Notre Dame. But, again… I talk of scale. How many generations grew up knowing about it? How many tales were told in and about it? Just knowing its there must give the Parisians and the French a great sense of pride, comfort and security. For myself as a Scotsman, when I fly into Edinburgh airport, I always feel better when I see the three bridges on the Firth of Forth. I know I’m home.

And Notre Dame is a sign of home too. Paris itself is a symbol of how protective the French are of keeping their capital in pristine condition. It’s an architectural and urban tree trunk – the further you go in, the older it gets.

Let’s take my example and apply it to the wealthy. The fire happened and President Macron came out and said no expense would be spared. But with no estimate on how much it would cost, the final total could be astronomical. How do you set up a funding campaign when you can’t agree on a total? Crowdfunding would be out of the question. It could be years before anything substantial is raised. What about the French Government? Given they own Notre Dame and it had been known for decades the cathedral needed some serious maintenance, you can’t count on them to cover the whole cost. And the Church? Some parts have given donations but the exact amounts aren’t known but they are smaller.

So, that leaves the rich as the logical option. They have access to a lot of spare cash, however, their donations come with caveats and conditions hence they pledged rather than just gave. The rich don’t just give money. There must be a good and structured reason why they should part with their cash. Is out of greed or selfishness? Maybe but I don’t think so. It mainly comes down to good financial management and only investing in causes where a return has a high degree of certainty.

When it comes to philanthropic causes, a lot of information has to be obtained and a number of questions answered before any money changes hands. The wealthy may have the money to give but they didn’t get there by flinging it away down a black hole where they don’t know what’s happening with it.

No, those who have pledged their money will want something for their help. Yes, they won’t likely make any money off this venture but something will be given in exchange. What that may be, we can only guess.

Now, coming on to why the rich, in this instance, don’t just help the poor. I’ll reiterate. The rich don’t just give money. There has to be a good reason for it. Solving poverty is a lot more complicated than just dumping money where poverty is rife. It has to be used constructively. That means any area where money is given, someone representing the benefactor will be monitoring the use of the funds. Heck, there’d be a whole team making sure that every penny is being used effectively.

Ultimately, it comes down to certainty. If you’re in a position of influence, wealth and power, it is only prudent that would use that position where the outcome has a higher guarantee of success. This would be one reason why the rich donate to privately funded schools and not government ones. They can keep a closer eye on what goes on with the money. The same can’t be said for government where there’s a higher chance that not all of the funds will be used for the intended purpose but to maybe fill a deficit elsewhere.

For Notre Dame, the rich will pledge their money because they know that those involved in the restoration will have the skills, talent and respect to carry the work out with the utmost care and attention to detail to ensure the building is brought back to its previous state.

But what of everyone else? Again, there’s just not the same guarantee. Would education be better if billionaires put there money in? Maybe but again, they’d want things on their own terms. Choice of teachers, changes to facilities, oversight of the curriculum, standard of food, etc. In short, they may just end up as private schools. If they wanted a return, they may also charge fees but that would remove the philanthropic element. A better thing would be to do what a number of charities do with their donations and invest in a fund where the returns are used to run organisation and pay staff.

In England alone, education spending was £42bn in 2017-2018. That’s more than the two richest Brits total combined wealth. One country and one sector would deplete the top two UK billionaires in one year. They would not be able to contribute the following year as their wealth would not have recovered. The top twenty UK billionaires could fund English schools for 5.3 years if spending stayed the same.

If we take all 151 UK billionaires then we’re looking at something a bit more interesting. Their combined wealth this year rose from £480.451bn to £524.843bn. A rise of 9.2% or £44.392bn. Their combined increase could fund English schools for a year. But what about the rest of the UK? Scotland’s 2017 education spending figure was £4.95bn. The 17-18 figure for Wales was £2.5bn and in Northern Ireland, it was £2.4bn.

So, the total spend on education per year in the UK would be circa £52bn. Some clever investing could make up that deficit which would mean that the interest increase alone could fund UK education every year if the fund was carefully managed.

But that is only one area of many where the UK’s rich could step in. There are hundreds of others and, if you were to start going through them, questions would arise as to whether private individuals should be funding such things. Education is a possibility if a philanthropic fund was created and managed by government where they’d be answerable to the benefactors. That’s a realistic setup.

But what about things like defence? The UK budget for 2019/20 is £38.4bn. The billionaires could cover that too but should they? Would you feel better knowing 151 people collectively fund and therefore own the military?

Transport – £29.14bn was spent in 2016/17. Do you think the UK’s richest would do better?

Those three areas alone would eat up huge amounts of time and brainspace. They won’t have time for that. They have companies to run, press to do, products to develop and deals to make.

And I am just talking about the UK but it’s the same across the world. The billionaires became billionaires by building (lovely alliteration) companies and steering them towards profit. Those companies pay tax to the government which goes towards funding the above economic concerns and all others. As individuals, they may pay tax. They may not. It depends on where their holdings are.

‘Ah, ha!’ I hear you cry. ‘Those rich people should be paying their taxes! The government lets them get away with it!’ Do they? How do you know? Their companies will contribute significantly to the economy. Personally, I don’t know. If they do, they’ll pay more in a year than you or I would pay in a lifetime. If they don’t pay directly to the treasury then I’m pretty sure they’ll pay indirectly through what they spend in the UK in a year. I run a company myself and I sure as hell want to spend less on tax and more on things like training. If I can reduce my tax bill, I have more to use elsewhere.

And why should we be surprised if they don’t? Would you like to be charged to spend money? Imagine if every pub you went into charged you before you entered? Or every supermarket charged you one fee for parking and a separate fee for entering the shop? How likely would you be to spend your money then?

In my hometown of Kilmarnock, such a ‘tax’, and it is a tax, was scrapped. To help the economy, parking charges were not enforced on a Saturday in a bid to encourage spending in the town centre. Unfortunately, my hometown isn’t really a place you’d want to spend much money and so, after about six years, the charges are coming back as the parking facilities have been losing money. Another issue is, there haven’t been any real signs of recovery since the recession. It hit the town hard and it’s limped on ever since with no major investment. Any new businesses that set up, most shut down within a year or two.

And that’s the difference between the ‘have’s’ and ‘have not’s’. Those that ‘have’ can create something from nothing and so taxation can end up bringing about the law of diminishing returns. If an entrepreneur moved into Kilmarnock and did something amazing whilst taking advantage of the cheap rates, that place alone would be a reason to visit. If they generate enough interest then the money would follow which would make others feel more reassured to start their own business or expand an existing one.

But, the town doesn’t have that person. Not just now.

I’ll use that example to segue back into the main topic of this article which was the main outcry against the rich after Notre Dame’s roof burned down. The rich have too much money and aren’t spreading it around. That’s the real reason for the protests of disgust – jealousy and greed. Those in the ‘have not’ camp want what the rich have, namely money. But also status but namely money. The real question is, what would you do if you got it? If you don’t know, you don’t deserve the money. That’s the stance I’d take and that’s the stance I’d expect the billionaires to take. Let’s put it another way. Who’d you trust more to take a penalty for England to win the world cup? A member of the crowd or the captain, Harry Kane? Drive a F1 car to a world championship? You or five time and reigning world champion, Lewis Hamilton? Win Wimbledon? You’d back an armchair athlete over Andy Murray or Roger Federer? Of course you wouldn’t so why should a government trust you with running a company that directly benefits the economy and therefore we as consumers over those who demand a lump sum payment? We’re all happy for aforementioned athletes to be paid millions a year because they can do something we can’t and we see it, acknowledge it and are in awe of them for it. Generally speaking, there’s a lot of respect for those in sport and the arts despite them making so much more than we do. So, why can’t we be the same for those in business? Just because we can’t always see what’s done doesn’t mean anyone can do it.

So, to my mind, there’s enough of a percentage of the population that feel entitled to demand the rich pay for them. If that’s true then, I’m sorry but you get nothing. As I said earlier, the rich don’t just give. You must show why they must give.

And the reason they won’t give is perfectly objective. The 99% have too many uncertainties. There’s practically no guarantee of a good return on their investment. And when I say that, I don’t mean they want their money back. What I mean is there’s a much smaller chance of a person taking that money and building an empire with it however big or small. Someone with that same spirit will find a way to get in front of them to ask for sponsorship or a grant. They’ve been proactive enough to seek out their preferred benefactor and show them what they can do and why they’re worth investing in. If they can convince that person, they get what they want. Most people have no clue what to do in a traffic jam let alone plan a strategy built on an aspiration to become more than they currently are.

Those who have achieved get favours, admiration and respect. They also get a lot of stress, hate and bad press.

The rest of us pay taxes and complain instead of becoming worthy of something more.