|
|
Post by Da Man on Jan 22, 2020 21:51:13 GMT
You gotta hate guys like Bill Gates who just sit on the couch and never contribute anything. Gates has approximately $110 billion right now.
I would be slightly impressed if tomorrow he announced he was distributing $100 billion of that this year to worthy causes (not The Human Fund). Otherwise? Nahhh.
Does he have $110 billion or is he worth $110 billion? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Jan 23, 2020 0:10:03 GMT
Gates has donated almost $50 billion to his foundation and other charities. He’s not exactly hoarding his assets in a money bin. You could make the argument that his "hoarding" those assets would actually make everyone wealthier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 1:17:08 GMT
I'm not saying billionaires should be required to distribute their wealth. It's theirs to do with what they wish.
I just don't want to hear about them being generous unless it is in really significant amounts. |
|
|
|
Post by Liberal White Women on Jan 23, 2020 17:25:15 GMT
Life in capitalism always ends in billionaires. So what does life in socialism always end in? In the socialism version of LIFE, your car only has one child in it. And it's never a pink peg. |
|
|
|
Post by ecwyanks on Jan 23, 2020 19:43:20 GMT
In case anyone's wondering, this is still a thing. Saw the newest issue on my last trip to the local shop.  Did DoubleDown leave here to publish or edit that? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 23, 2020 19:50:53 GMT
I'm not saying billionaires should be required to distribute their wealth. It's theirs to do with what they wish.
I just don't want to hear about them being generous unless it is in really significant amounts. So how much is "enough" or "their fair share" in your view? If Bill Gates "only" gives $2 billion to charity this year, that is still an insane amount of money by any measure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 19:54:07 GMT
I'm not saying billionaires should be required to distribute their wealth. It's theirs to do with what they wish.
I just don't want to hear about them being generous unless it is in really significant amounts. So how much is "enough" or "their fair share" in your view? If Bill Gates "only" gives $2 billion to charity this year, that is still an insane amount of money by any measure.
That's like me giving away $1,000. Not impressive.
NB: I get that 2% of his net worth is a LOT higher than 2% of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfenstein on Jan 23, 2020 20:05:57 GMT
In case anyone's wondering, this is still a thing. Saw the newest issue on my last trip to the local shop. Did DoubleDown leave here to publish or edit that? Both. And then he spends his days and nights on social media, hunting down any critics of it. It's a thankless job, but it's the duty he was born to perform. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 23, 2020 21:54:51 GMT
So how much is "enough" or "their fair share" in your view? If Bill Gates "only" gives $2 billion to charity this year, that is still an insane amount of money by any measure.
That's like me giving away $1,000. Not impressive.
NB: I get that 2% of his net worth is a LOT higher than 2% of mine.
I'd be impressed with a $1,000 donation. Probably more than I could afford to donate to any one cause without putting a crimp in my budget.
Again, it's a billion fucking dollars. That is literally more than almost anyone could hope to amass in their lifetime, let alone give away on an annual basis. It might be higher than the GDP of some of the smaller countries of the world. Why do we focus so much on the percentage of their wealth that someone is giving away, and start realizing the astronomical dollar amount and the good that is being done with it?
I like you, man, but anyone who says someone who donated a billion dollars donated to charity did not give enough, frankly, sounds like a total asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaketaylor on Jan 23, 2020 23:01:33 GMT
Would the advocates for a flat percentage rate to decide what is an acceptable charitable donation apply the same theory to income tax?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 1:57:54 GMT
That's like me giving away $1,000. Not impressive.
NB: I get that 2% of his net worth is a LOT higher than 2% of mine.
I'd be impressed with a $1,000 donation. Probably more than I could afford to donate to any one cause without putting a crimp in my budget.
Again, it's a billion fucking dollars. That is literally more than almost anyone could hope to amass in their lifetime, let alone give away on an annual basis. It might be higher than the GDP of some of the smaller countries of the world. Why do we focus so much on the percentage of their wealth that someone is giving away, and start realizing the astronomical dollar amount and the good that is being done with it?
I like you, man, but anyone who says someone who donated a billion dollars donated to charity did not give enough, frankly, sounds like a total asshole.
I probably am an asshole. I just expect those with more to give more. I don't expect you to agree. Heck, you can keep every penny you have as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Gates giving a billion dollars away is chump change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Liberal White Women on Jan 24, 2020 2:21:12 GMT
I'd be impressed with a $1,000 donation. Probably more than I could afford to donate to any one cause without putting a crimp in my budget.
Again, it's a billion fucking dollars. That is literally more than almost anyone could hope to amass in their lifetime, let alone give away on an annual basis. It might be higher than the GDP of some of the smaller countries of the world. Why do we focus so much on the percentage of their wealth that someone is giving away, and start realizing the astronomical dollar amount and the good that is being done with it?
I like you, man, but anyone who says someone who donated a billion dollars donated to charity did not give enough, frankly, sounds like a total asshole.
I probably am an asshole. I just expect those with more to give more. I don't expect you to agree. Heck, you can keep every penny you have as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Gates giving a billion dollars away is chump change.
I'm not going to belittle the good being done by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Hopefully it is benefitting many people. But there's a reason a widow was praised in the Gospel passage for putting a single coin in the collection box. People of all classes can be generous, but those who have little to give but sacrifice anyway stand out. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jan 24, 2020 2:30:50 GMT
I'd be impressed with a $1,000 donation. Probably more than I could afford to donate to any one cause without putting a crimp in my budget.
Again, it's a billion fucking dollars. That is literally more than almost anyone could hope to amass in their lifetime, let alone give away on an annual basis. It might be higher than the GDP of some of the smaller countries of the world. Why do we focus so much on the percentage of their wealth that someone is giving away, and start realizing the astronomical dollar amount and the good that is being done with it?
I like you, man, but anyone who says someone who donated a billion dollars donated to charity did not give enough, frankly, sounds like a total asshole.
I probably am an asshole. I just expect those with more to give more. I don't expect you to agree. Heck, you can keep every penny you have as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Gates giving a billion dollars away is chump change.
He's signed up for -- and I think might be the first guy to sign up for -- Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge, which means the bulk of his wealth will go to charity when he dies. Hell, I think much of Buffett's wealth is due to go to Gates' foundation, because Buffett trusts Gates so much. So, if Gates is still building his wealth, while also having given away $50 billion, then that's a good thing. But, it also reminds me of something that Ted Turner, of all people, said a long time ago about this issue. And, it goes to what doctorquant mentioned earlier. Let's say a billionaire sells everything, keeping a little for himself to live on, and gives away the rest to charity. OK. That would be great. But, what if that billionaire kept his money, and his company. And, let's say he grew that company, employing thousands more people. Those people prospered; sent their kids to good schools; bought homes; invested in their communities, and they donated to local charities and their churches, synagogues, and mosques. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't jobs better than charity? What has Microsoft done for Seattle? (Following what Boeing did, and then joined by Amazon, and to a lesser extent Starbucks?) All those jobs, all of that wealth, has done incredible things, far more things than if he, and others, had simply cashed out at some point, and given away their money. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Jan 24, 2020 6:32:11 GMT
I probably am an asshole. I just expect those with more to give more. I don't expect you to agree. Heck, you can keep every penny you have as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Gates giving a billion dollars away is chump change.
He's signed up for -- and I think might be the first guy to sign up for -- Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge, which means the bulk of his wealth will go to charity when he dies. Hell, I think much of Buffett's wealth is due to go to Gates' foundation, because Buffett trusts Gates so much. So, if Gates is still building his wealth, while also having given away $50 billion, then that's a good thing. But, it also reminds me of something that Ted Turner, of all people, said a long time ago about this issue. And, it goes to what doctorquant mentioned earlier. Let's say a billionaire sells everything, keeping a little for himself to live on, and gives away the rest to charity. OK. That would be great. But, what if that billionaire kept his money, and his company. And, let's say he grew that company, employing thousands more people. Those people prospered; sent their kids to good schools; bought homes; invested in their communities, and they donated to local charities and their churches, synagogues, and mosques. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't jobs better than charity? What has Microsoft done for Seattle? (Following what Boeing did, and then joined by Amazon, and to a lesser extent Starbucks?) All those jobs, all of that wealth, has done incredible things, far more things than if he, and others, had simply cashed out at some point, and given away their money. And don’t forget consumers. For-profit entities create goods (or provide services) people want at a price they’re willing to pay—competition encouraging them to do so as cheaply and efficiently as possible. That provides innumerable benefits to society. There’s nothing inherently “better“ about doing something without seeking profit—indeed, in some circumstances that may be actively detrimental to society by encouraging inefficient allocation of resources. (That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of “bad” companies or “good” charities, but rather that there’s nothing inherent about their forms that makes one better than the other.) |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Jan 24, 2020 11:22:05 GMT
He's signed up for -- and I think might be the first guy to sign up for -- Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge, which means the bulk of his wealth will go to charity when he dies. Hell, I think much of Buffett's wealth is due to go to Gates' foundation, because Buffett trusts Gates so much. So, if Gates is still building his wealth, while also having given away $50 billion, then that's a good thing. But, it also reminds me of something that Ted Turner, of all people, said a long time ago about this issue. And, it goes to what doctorquant mentioned earlier. Let's say a billionaire sells everything, keeping a little for himself to live on, and gives away the rest to charity. OK. That would be great. But, what if that billionaire kept his money, and his company. And, let's say he grew that company, employing thousands more people. Those people prospered; sent their kids to good schools; bought homes; invested in their communities, and they donated to local charities and their churches, synagogues, and mosques. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't jobs better than charity? What has Microsoft done for Seattle? (Following what Boeing did, and then joined by Amazon, and to a lesser extent Starbucks?) All those jobs, all of that wealth, has done incredible things, far more things than if he, and others, had simply cashed out at some point, and given away their money. And don’t forget consumers. For-profit entities create goods (or provide services) people want at a price they’re willing to pay—competition encouraging them to do so as cheaply and efficiently as possible. That provides innumerable benefits to society. There’s nothing inherently “better“ about doing something without seeking profit—indeed, in some circumstances that may be actively detrimental to society by encouraging inefficient allocation of resources. (That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of “bad” companies or “good” charities, but rather that there’s nothing inherent about their forms that makes one better than the other.) And to put a finer point on this: I like indie rock. Other people like (or want people to think they like) classical music. Is there something more noble about the fact those people “donate” to the orchestra than that I spend my ducats to support the artists I like? (And, along similar lines, is there something more noble about those administrators and musicians who work for the “non-profit” orchestra than those managers and artists trying grind out a living working for profit?) |
|
