Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Which billionaires are doing the most good?

billionaireboard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#81

Post by malandrew »

0x262d wrote: post #31
retrac wrote: post #8

I'm assuming this isn't factoring in the harm they're doing. How much do Bezos's donations to homeless services offset his union-busting? Is there a formula for that?

Well in Seattle, their homeless charity money is less so far than the money they have spent against the politicians trying to do anything about homelessness besides passively asking for business to "be responsible".

Trying to do something about homelessness and actually doing something about homelessness are two different things. Many of the policies that those trying to do something about homelessness in Seattle are trying to implement are similar to those policies that were enacted in San Francisco that made homelessness worse such as rent control.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#82

Post by gamblor956 »

andrepd wrote: post #33
tyrust wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a number of these people donated money years ago to avoid taxes This isn't how taxes work. If you donate money then you've only reduced your taxable principal. You "avoid taxes" in the sense that it's as if you never made that money. You don't magically reduce your burden any further than that. People won't take your otherwise fine point seriously if you include this commonly made error.

Yes, now "donate" to a health charity which buys pharmaceuticals from a company you have stock in. Bam, tax rebate for investing in your company.

You have described what is called a "self-dealing" transaction in non-profit law (or more technically, an excess benefit or private inurement transaction). These transactions are subject to various tax penalties that apply both to the putative "donor"[1] and to the board members and officers of the non-profit that approved the transaction). Depending on the severity of the self-dealing, the IRS can even strip the non-profit of its 501c3 status or refer the matter to the DoJ for criminal charges.

[1] Note that a 200% penalty rate can apply to uncorrected self-dealing transactions. For the board members and officers, an excise tax of 10% may apply, which the non-profit cannot pay on their behalf.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#83

Post by [deleted] »

sharatvir wrote: post #72
kemiller2002 wrote: post #6

I don't like rankings like this. I'm not saying all of them, but at least a few made their money off of the backs of others, being ruthless in business, etc. How gracious of them to give money to people they hurt in the first place. I'm glad they are doing good, but let's not pretend they were completely altruistic. Also, a number of these people donated money years ago to avoid taxes, and the money was invested and…

For more on this, I highly recommend Anand Giridharadas's 2018 book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" on the problems behind billionaire philanthropy. It feels more and more relevant in a post COVID world.

[deleted]

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#85

Post by gamblor956 »

qqssccfftt wrote: post #78
ggreer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I can think of several off the top of my head. J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. None of those are even remotely exploitative.

> J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. And the hundreds of marketing people and the editors? > Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. And everyone who makes her shows work? > Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. And his coaches and trainers? Without these people, none of those billionaires would've made it.

That's all true, but when you say "off the backs of others" that generally means by unfairly exploiting the labor of others without giving them anything back (see every dictionary, or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/live...).

In the examples you have cited, all of those people were paid for their labor. In the cases of Winfrey and especially Jordan, many of those people were paid extremely well for their labor.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#86

Post by karmakaze »

I think a better metric would be which are the most effective for X.

It's up to whoever put in the work to have the ability to contribute, decide what cause they support. As long as most of the top causes get support we're in good shape. If they're being ineffective toward their chosen goal, that's something I'd like pointed out.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#88

Post by orwin »

malandrew wrote: post #79
okintheory wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than that, as far as I understand. If you shift your money into a foundation, under some constructions, you can retain a lot of control over how it's spent, while avoiding taxes. Later you can pass control (and hence effectively wealth) along to your kids, this time avoiding inheritance taxes.

But the kids still don't get that money. They only get control of a charity. It's not like they can buy a yacht.

but they get the connections with the charity. That's why any vaguely defined charity that organize "events" for donors should be under a lot of scrutiny. people should check if the charityPR and lobbying dpt is working for the charity, the founder, or both.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#89

Post by 0x262d »

malandrew wrote: post #81
0x262d wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in Seattle, their homeless charity money is less so far than the money they have spent against the politicians trying to do anything about homelessness besides passively asking for business to "be responsible".

Trying to do something about homelessness and actually doing something about homelessness are two different things. Many of the policies that those trying to do something about homelessness in Seattle are trying to implement are similar to those policies that were enacted in San Francisco that made homelessness worse such as rent control.

The left politicians I’m referring to have their hands completely tied by the centrist majority who won’t act on this, and people who profit from high rent turn around, point to the lack of political action they caused, and say it means the politically blocked proposed solutions are “unviable”.

Also you’re just incorrect about rent control. SF has it in a tiny fraction of apartments. Of course rents elsewhere are skyrocketing.

Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?

#90

Post by ilikehurdles »

zozbot234 wrote: post #76
ilikehurdles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they? Is wealth inequality decreasing? Those are rhetorical questions, of course. The answers are no, and no. If billionaires overall do tend to donate significant portions of their wealth, then the fact that wealth inequality is increasing in spite of that practice is hard evidence that individual charity is an ineffective means of lifting people out of poverty. If the converse is true -- that they aren't donati…

In all seriousness, the way wealth inequality is measured wouldn't tell you that in the first place. You'd have to look at consumption inequality, which would include stuff like Larry Ellison's yachts (on the "high inequality" side) and perhaps poor people's final consumption resulting from these donations (on the "low inequality" side).

I never considered this as a potential measure, but it would be really good to track. Is this something you came up with or has there been any other work done to explore this notion of consumption equality?
Post reply on HN