Earlier quoted context omitted.
This made me chuckle
That Louis XV, he's really doing a lot for us!
When it comes to doing good Charles VI is really on fire[1] though!
Which billionaires are doing the most good?
101–110 of 134 posts
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
True gifts are freely given, not forcibly taken.
That's sorta the crux of the matter - paying into society isn't a "gift" it's a debt. We all live together and support each other and nobody needs to get showered with glamour for doing their part according to their ability. I don't want Billionaire to feel forced to give "true gifts" through social pressures or otherwise - I'd prefer if their wealth was properly utilized through a just level of taxation.
>properly utilized through a just level of taxation
Why'd you need so many words to say "taken?"
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
By running a charity and notably donating to it those people can get clout though and further raise themselves in the eyes of their peers while not paying very much for it. Additionally they can get some other soft benefits from the charity like hosting events with money they paid no taxes on, or, if they're Trump, just buying things they want with their charity fraudulently.
My original point was that a benefactor that stays within moral and written rules is not avoiding taxes, as kemiller2002 suggested. Breaking those rules is tangential to that point. It's a common mistake that bothers me because it often is used to dismiss (or even demonize) what is, in the majority of cases, an altruistic act.
My point is that it's not necessarily an altruistic act. It's giving someone the choice of either paying the government or sheltering the money to be used within a limited set of circumstances at another time. Yes, in most cases they are putting in more money than they would pay in taxes, but they are maximizing their ability to influence a charitable instance at some point in time in the future. Also, you notice in that list it has their names? They could have made anonymous donations, but they didn't. They benefit from it, just not in a direct monetary sense. Cynical? Yes. True? In a number of cases also yes.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
By running a charity and notably donating to it those people can get clout though and further raise themselves in the eyes of their peers while not paying very much for it. Additionally they can get some other soft benefits from the charity like hosting events with money they paid no taxes on, or, if they're Trump, just buying things they want with their charity fraudulently.
My original point was that a benefactor that stays within moral and written rules is not avoiding taxes, as kemiller2002 suggested. Breaking those rules is tangential to that point. It's a common mistake that bothers me because it often is used to dismiss (or even demonize) what is, in the majority of cases, an altruistic act.
[deleted]
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
My original point was that a benefactor that stays within moral and written rules is not avoiding taxes, as kemiller2002 suggested. Breaking those rules is tangential to that point. It's a common mistake that bothers me because it often is used to dismiss (or even demonize) what is, in the majority of cases, an altruistic act.
My point is that it's not necessarily an altruistic act. It's giving someone the choice of either paying the government or sheltering the money to be used within a limited set of circumstances at another time. Yes, in most cases they are putting in more money than they would pay in taxes, but they are maximizing their ability to influence a charitable instance at some point in time in the future. Also, you notice in…
I would add that charitable donations can often be accompanied by strong obligations that hampers the efficiency of that aide - if a donation is made that requires none of the benefits to the homeless goes to people with a past history of drug use then resources need to be diverted to investigate the recipients and ensure that the accounting works out. Sometimes these obligations are burdensome enough that organizations will stop servicing portions of the population altogether or even refund a donation.
Chartiable donations can also come with requirements around evangelism which I personally find aborrent and, as has otherwise been pointed out, yes it's an absolute reduction in take home but abuse of the system is rife and the income reduction mechanic makes this really attractive to some folks if they're hit with a particularly hard year.
In Canada I've actually been pleased to discover that your retirement is mechanically a charity - investing into an RRSP (registered retirement savings plan) counts as a direct income reduction which can mean that swing years when options may be cashed out or other windfalls happen - can be put profitably towards your own future well being while also ensuring you don't become a burden later in life.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#106Something feels almost PR spin about this. “No, look, see, billionaires Are doing good!” I can’t help be feel suspect about this website.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've wondered about this. Would it be possible to have an income/asset tax such that it introduces a wealth cap of some amount which can never be reached? For example, the limit could be $30,000,000 so if you're making more than that in pretax income, your income would be $29,999,999.999 etc. with the fractional cent increasing so people could still compete on a scoreboard. Also, it seems like one of the biggest argu…
An explicit wealth cap seems unnecessary so long as there are appropriately punishing taxes on wealth retention - If there was, say, a 5% wealth tax above 5 or 10 million then Gates & Bezos both would never be able to sustain their fortunes but they would remain fabulously wealthy.
Their wealth is not a pile of cash or a number in a bank account, it's ownership of the companies they founded. Every year, they would be forced to hand 5% of their shares over to the federal government. If such a tax were implemented 15 years ago, all Fortune 500 companies today would be controlled by congress and Donald Trump. Also both SpaceX and Tesla would have almost certainly gone bankrupt in late 2008 as Musk would not have had the wealth to support both of them.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably true. But given that we presently live in a world where billionaires do exist I dont think it does any harm to know which ones we can feel appreciative of. At least, that's how I use a list like this.
This list is damning to me. So much greed. Who cares if you donated 36 billion if you are removing 74 billion from circulation at the bottom and sitting on top of your pile like Smaug in the Hobbit.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth works. Wealth isn't conserved. It's created and destroyed. No billionaire has a pile of money or a bank account with $1 billion in it. Their wealth is in equity in the companies they've founded and run. It's invested- used for productive purposes such as building better software and services. Or scaling the number of Whole Foods delivery staff. Or building contact tracing apps. Even if you're perfectly greedy, hoarding wealth as a pile of cash or gold is a terrible idea. You'll end up with far more money if you invest it.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#109I'd be interested to see this as a percentage of net worth or income as well. If a person with $1B gives it all away in one months that's about as philanthropic as you can get - much less so for someone with another $50B to spare. Tracking this on a "last month" basis with no information over time is just ridiculous too.
Also, the descriptions here seem pretty varied, and highly slanted.
eg. Balmer joined Microsoft when it was still a start-up, and just gets credited for the CEO years, rather than as helping grow it along the way.
Sergey Brin just has "Immigrant" for the second sentence. Martha Ingram "Author of three books". Neither of those provides any insight into the value that provided.
Overall that just makes the whole page look especially suspect, coupled with picking these 29 (or "About 30" as the About page puts it).
There's so little rationale here it makes the whole site look like advertising for something I can't work out.
Re: Which billionaires are doing the most good?
#110I'd be interested to see this as a percentage of net worth or income as well. If a person with $1B gives it all away in one months that's about as philanthropic as you can get - much less so for someone with another $50B to spare. Tracking this on a "last month" basis with no information over time is just ridiculous too. Also, the descriptions here seem pretty varied, and highly slanted. eg. Balmer joined Microsoft w…
Creator here -- didn't know I was posted to HN! I was planning on doing a Show HN tomorrow. Oof.
- Totally agree. I have all the data on doing percentages. The "score" actually normalizes across their percentage. Will add this more visibly.
- The "last month" is just to give any billionaire a chance to get to the top spot. Also open to making it more.... "last 3 months" or so? We had a lifetime ranking at first, but then the site felt too static and cast a lifetime judgement on people instead of giving them the opportunity to attain a top spot.
- Agreed on the descriptions. All the data was crowdsourced, so we can go through and improve these.
- Suspect in terms of what exactly? We definitely launched early (as one does). Open to more feedback!