Gates Makes Largest Donation Since 2000 with $4.6B Pledge

Post by zaroth » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 3:53 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #78

teamhappy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument usually is that by donating your money to a charity that you control instead of paying taxes you effectively undermine democracy.

The majority of federal income tax receipts go to military spending [+] (ignore social security and healthcare, those are funded out of compulsory payroll taxes, which is distinct from federal income tax); you're doing more social good (in general) by diverting wealth to charities that promote social welfare than giving that money to the federal government (I'm sad to say). Sometimes democracy is wrong. More social p…

Post by akcreek » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 3:57 PM UTC

robalfonso wrote: post #66

pm90 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it really depends on what your view of the world, and your place in it, is. I was very surprised when my parents basically said that whatever wealth they accumulated, their goal was to leave that to me. I think they view it as their duty as parents, for that to be the right thing to do. Others have a view of propagating their genes to the next generation and view inherited wealth as the way to do so (Yes, I r…

Those views are rather strictly tied to the number of 0's in ones bank balance I feel. Even 1% of Bill gates worth is many hundreds of millions. Where as the average person who seeks to leave everything to their children might be in the millions. But possibly even less.

Post by Analemma_ » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

elmar wrote: post #57

dopamean wrote: post #32

Pledging to give away so much of your wealth has interesting side benefits. You get to keep your money out of the hands of the government and if you're donating to your own charity then you also get to keep your family in control of the money. I definitely don't mean to diminish the contribution of the Gates Foundation though. I often hear that they're one of the good ones.

probably the money is more wisely spent by the private institution than the government.

Post by xienze » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #51

zitterbewegung wrote: post #9

I am not sure if I recall correctly but wasn’t there a reason where gates wouldn’t donate all of his wealth at once and needed to do it in stages ? Also, maybe they can’t utilize all that cash at once. Therefore it would be best to be illiquid until you need the liquidity.

It is the mythical man-month applied to charity. It takes time to get results, adding more money doesn't help. Nobody wants that much cash in one lump sum, they want an anual income. If you give me my anual income (including benifits and supplies) and I can quit my current job to do charity work. If instead you were to give me a billion dollars, I can still quit my job to do charity work, but this time I'll be doing…

Post by s0rce » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #72

Alupis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feeney is known for his frugality, living in a rented apartment Seems like renting isn't that frugal in the long-term though... it's unlikely cheaper long-term than owning a condo or small home, ie. you're either paying your own mortgage or someone else's mortgage + rental profits.

San Francisco has insane rent control. He's probably paying something like $300/mo if he's been there for decades.