-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
While higher taxes would be great, higher taxes would never be able to claim straight-up half of her net worth, and the money is also far better off in the hands of selected charities than it is in the coffers of a Republican-led Congress and Executive who will, undoubtedly, spend it making the lives of non-white people worse, and bolstering military spending.
I mean, the idea here is avoiding the Davosian angle of charity by billionaires "deeming fit" to donate their fortunes and being the ones in "control" of such charity rather than it's a billionaire having the good graces and civil duty to aid others while the government has their own missions of charitable work and civil duty.
They both likely have given more to charity than this entire board combined several thousand times over if not more.
Bill and Melinda Gates were the founder of that pledge (along with Warren Buffet). They're planning on eventually giving almost of their money away - their children will be millionaires, but not billionaires.
I feel like it's unnecessarily cynical to argue against solutions with "we aren't competent enough to do that". We obviously aren't, or it would already be so. But, if you want to end up somewhere you have to start walking in it's direction.
Many (almost every?) tech billionaire enters a donation phase after a certain age.
The rationale is that people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc can do more in their prime to build wealth and then give away more of that wealth later in life. It does seem to stand up to scrutiny, if Gates had been taxed at very high rates from the start his total contributions would be paltry compared to the $30b+ he has donated so far to help vaccinate kids, develop new vaccines, etc.
Same with Bezos I imagine, once he feels that he is too old to run Amazon he will probably start giving away his money and it will be $100b+ instead of the $10b or so it would have been if it was taxed. The argument that he only earned that $100b+ by exploiting workers and capitalism/stock markets is of course a matter for another debate.
To be fair, their kids could become billionaires themselves off businesses and investments they might make.
You can if and when she sells her stock. Otherwise this is all previously earned monies.
I think I'd rather put the money in the hands of the charities.
i swear, liberals may be just as well be republicans at this point
"you cant trust the government with your money its better for unaccountable private interests to hoard it and donate it to "charities" for tax write offs and gathering
influence"
it feels like we're back in the olden times.
we're supposed to fawn over some person donating when the problem is this class of people of massive power and influence existing in the first place.
its sucker shit.
"you cant trust the government with your money its better for unaccountable private interests to hoard it and donate it to "charities" for tax write offs and gathering
influence"
it feels like we're back in the olden times.
we're supposed to fawn over some person donating when the problem is this class of people of massive power and influence existing in the first place.
its sucker shit.
Billionaires 'donating'? Well, look at how great is Zuckerberg's heart:
The wording of Zuckerberg's 2015 letter could easily have been interpreted as meaning that he was intending to donate $45bn to charity. As investigative reporter Jesse Eisinger reported at the time, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative through which this giving was to be funnelled is not a not-for-profit charitable foundation, but a limited liability company. This legal status has significant practical implications, especially when it comes to tax. As a company, the Initiative can do much more than charitable activity: its legal status gives it rights to invest in other companies, and to make political donations. Effectively the company does not restrict Zuckerberg's decision-making as to what he wants to do with his money; he is very much the boss. Moreover, as Eisinger described it, Zuckerberg's bold move yielded a huge return on investment in terms of public relations for Facebook, even though it appeared that he simply "moved money from one pocket to the other" while being "likely never to pay any taxes on it".
Gonna move money from his own pocket to a company he controls, meaning, his own pocket as well. Won't pay taxes on that, can use the money however he wants and benefits from becoming a 'great donor!'. In reality it's a way of protecting his assets...
The wording of Zuckerberg's 2015 letter could easily have been interpreted as meaning that he was intending to donate $45bn to charity. As investigative reporter Jesse Eisinger reported at the time, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative through which this giving was to be funnelled is not a not-for-profit charitable foundation, but a limited liability company. This legal status has significant practical implications, especially when it comes to tax. As a company, the Initiative can do much more than charitable activity: its legal status gives it rights to invest in other companies, and to make political donations. Effectively the company does not restrict Zuckerberg's decision-making as to what he wants to do with his money; he is very much the boss. Moreover, as Eisinger described it, Zuckerberg's bold move yielded a huge return on investment in terms of public relations for Facebook, even though it appeared that he simply "moved money from one pocket to the other" while being "likely never to pay any taxes on it".
Gonna move money from his own pocket to a company he controls, meaning, his own pocket as well. Won't pay taxes on that, can use the money however he wants and benefits from becoming a 'great donor!'. In reality it's a way of protecting his assets...
Cool. Nobody should be rewarded for giving away that much money because nobody should have that much money in the first place, the fact that you're defending her "generosity" when she still has more money than entire towns is just sad.
For those asking 'why only half?', she's signing the Giving Pledge, and that's the pledge: to commit a majority of their wealth to philanthropy. It doesn't preclude anyone from giving more.
Total charitable giving for FY was more than $400B. Philanthropy is a big, big business - I should know as my job is in the field.
If philanthropists' goals are to address some of the world's most pressing problems, dumping loads of money into struggling economies or areas sounds good. In practice, it rarely is an efficient way of allocating resources, as not every situation has the personnel, expertise, or infrastructure necessary to properly transform philanthropy into positive outcomes. There's an argument for, and some evidence of success with, 'direct philanthropy', but the data is mixed at best and it hasn't proven to have the longer-lasting, signature achievements that say the Gates' work around vaccines or other investments into medical research have.
Just like other businesses, charities and non-profits have varying levels of effectiveness. Hint: Charity Navigator ratings (and other similar systems) are not great ways to determine, as a philanthropist, where to spend your money.
Total charitable giving for FY was more than $400B. Philanthropy is a big, big business - I should know as my job is in the field.
If philanthropists' goals are to address some of the world's most pressing problems, dumping loads of money into struggling economies or areas sounds good. In practice, it rarely is an efficient way of allocating resources, as not every situation has the personnel, expertise, or infrastructure necessary to properly transform philanthropy into positive outcomes. There's an argument for, and some evidence of success with, 'direct philanthropy', but the data is mixed at best and it hasn't proven to have the longer-lasting, signature achievements that say the Gates' work around vaccines or other investments into medical research have.
Just like other businesses, charities and non-profits have varying levels of effectiveness. Hint: Charity Navigator ratings (and other similar systems) are not great ways to determine, as a philanthropist, where to spend your money.
Last edited:
It's not enough to give and people want it taxed so the governmant can buy 12 more F-35s :^)
He's certainly taken many times more than he's given away. He's also worth several million times more than several thousand people combined. I'd rather he just paid his fair taxes to be honest, and didn't treat his employees like shit.
Didn't NYC already deny him? The only appropriate response to the Amazon "bidding war" should have been a giant middle finger imo.
She went from more money than her great grandchildren could possibly spend to [checks notes] more money than her great grandchildren could possibly spend.
It's better than not giving it away, sure, but why do you have so much respect for someone who wouldn't go as far as you yourself would have done?
People don't like other people who make more money than them.
Because they have more money combined than this entire board several thousand times over. Jesus christ there's a reason we don't use a flat tax rate.
...using the largest known divorce alimony settlement from the world's wealthiest self-made billionaire... *cough*
Also Warren Buffett is richer and pledged 99% of his money. 50%ers need to step their game up.
because philanthropy is bullshit
This series on Bill Gates by Citations Needed is a good start for understanding why most of this is smoke and mirrors:
Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media
Russia, as we all know, has sinister “oligarchs” whereas in the United States, we are told, we have “philanthropists,” “job creators,” and “titans of industry” who earn their wealth through hard work,
soundcloud.com
because philanthropy is bullshit
This series on Bill Gates by Citations Needed is a good start for understanding why most of this is smoke and mirrors:
Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media
Russia, as we all know, has sinister “oligarchs” whereas in the United States, we are told, we have “philanthropists,” “job creators,” and “titans of industry” who earn their wealth through hard work,
Citations Needed is a fucking great podcast exposing the gilded. The callouts to Bill Gates, Steven Pinker, and the nonsense of philanthropy - really, it's "charitable capitalism" - is a needed breath of fresh air from thinking these people are sincerely do gooders.
Really helped wake me up to the "global south" idea, too.
Cool of her.
I'd like to think I'd give away billions in her place. I can't even imagine how I'd spend 1 billion dollars much less 30+. On the other hand, imagine setting up your descendants to never want for anything, in perpetuity. It's an attractive thought.
Who do you give this amount of money to, anyway? I assume this isn't going to soup kitchens. Medical research?
I'd like to think I'd give away billions in her place. I can't even imagine how I'd spend 1 billion dollars much less 30+. On the other hand, imagine setting up your descendants to never want for anything, in perpetuity. It's an attractive thought.
Who do you give this amount of money to, anyway? I assume this isn't going to soup kitchens. Medical research?
I see your point, but not enough wealthy individuals are willing to part with that kind of money besides those who have already signed the agreement. Greed is such an issue right now that it's just nice to see someone receive all of that money to just give it for a better cause. Could she get rid of more? Absolutely. Most wealthy people can, but it's a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.
Are you guys out of your minds? she's giving away 18 billion and you're mad shes not giving away more?
the hell kind of attitude is that?
the hell kind of attitude is that?