The greatest charity giveaway in history? 34 billionaires pledge half of their fortun

[ericlp]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300336/34-billionaires-away-half-wealth.html

Now Buffet and Gates to urge Indian rich to donate wealth...

So what does this mean? Too many people hoarding money? Trying to get it to flow more so that when the big rescission tanks it won't be too bad?

Hmmm... I figured I'd try to get your take on why this might be happening. This is the first time I've seen this happen at such a grand scale.

 

[punjabiplaya]

600 billion is a lot of money. The rich are getting richer, and this shows that some still have a desire to help those in need.

 

[StageLeft]

This is great of them, it is. I suppose I have to ask why there aren't more who are doing the same thing, though.

I bet that mexican guy isn't. BTW I think Boomerang posted this two days ago.

 

[woolfe9999]

I thought Buffett already gave away like 2/3's of his wealth?

I notice that some are pledging to leave their money to charitable foundations when they die, which is not the same as agreeing to give it away during their lifetime.

Anyway, it's a great thing they're doing. I'd probably give away 85% if I had net worth in the billions.

- wolf

 

[Ns1]

IB4 selfish bastards, keeping half for themselves. What the fuck do they need all that money for anyway?

 

[daishi5]

I thought Buffett already gave away like 2/3's of his wealth?

I notice that some are pledging to leave their money to charitable foundations when they die, which is not the same as agreeing to give it away during their lifetime.

Anyway, it's a great thing they're doing. I'd probably give away 85% if I had net worth in the billions.

- wolf

It looks like he gave away 99% of his wealth to the Gates foundation. But they still own it, I think. I am not quite sure on how it works with taxes and ownership, because they put their money in the foundation, but they control the foundation. I am not saying it is a tax dodge, because I know they are spending money hand over fist, and getting great returns, especially fighting diseases. I know the Gates foundation funded a simple program to fight dehydration that killed many victims of some disease I cannot recall the name of, and the tiny investment has probably saved over a 100,000 lives.

Edit: Funny story, a few years ago I was arguing with a professor about what it means to be successful and fulfilled, he claimed Mother Theresa was a more fulfilled person because she helped so many. I claimed Buffet and Gates were more successful and fulfilled because they loved their work and had done so much. The next day he brought me an article that came out that day with Buffets pledge to give the Gates foundation his wealth, and the estimate of the thousands of people saved by Gates so far.

 

[StageLeft]

I read today something about Gates foundation and researching a better wheat seed because there is some stem rust blight thing accelerating around the world threatening crops.

 

[yllus]

You know what's especially great about this? Instead of the money going to the government to redistribute via an estate tax, this money is going to flow into the coffers of private foundations staffed with some of the best and brightest out there. They'll have only one master - the cause - and will probably effect much more change with the cash than the government ever could.

 

[Patranus]

Perfect example of how success in the private sector leads to charity.
(Or would could just have government decide it for us)

 

[piasabird]

If they would just pay their employees a little more.

 

[Moonbeam]

You know what's especially great about this? Instead of the money going to the government to redistribute via an estate tax, this money is going to flow into the coffers of private foundations staffed with some of the best and brightest out there. They'll have only one master - the cause - and will probably effect much more change with the cash than the government ever could.

If the government gave those best and brightest money the Republicans would be refering to them as assholes.

 

[Fern]

I'm ambivilent.

So, they don't have to pay estate tax and get to maintain control of the money since it's in one of their private foundations. They put who they want on the board, I fear this is going to perpetuate the wealthy's grasp on wealth quite possibly for generations.

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm ambivilent.

So, they don't have to pay estate tax and get to maintain control of the money since it's in one of their private foundations. They put who they want on the board, I fear this is going to perpetuate the wealthy's grasp on wealth quite possibly for generations.

Fern

So are you saying that you are for the estate tax? Serious question.

 

[Chaotic42]

If the government gave those best and brightest money the Republicans would be refering to them as assholes.

Because it was mandated by the government instead of done out of personal charity. This way the givers know the money is going right where they want it.

 

[Fern]

So are you saying that you are for the estate tax? Serious question.

Yes.

In every thread we've had here about it, I've argued for it.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

Because it was mandated by the government instead of done out of personal charity. This way the givers know the money is going right where they want it.

Exactly.
I could pay taxes and some asshole bureaucrat in D.C. could get a portion of it and then give it to another assclown who decided to stop paying their mortgage

OR

I could give it to my local food bank or Boy and Girls Club and see it go directly into MY community.

 

[boomerang]

I posted this earlier this week, but my sarcasm went too far and the thread was largely ignored. My point in that thread was that these are "filthy capitalists" doing good. My secondary point was that many here and throughout the country see these people as "the enemy". Rich fuckers that have gamed the system to the detriment of the downtrodden and so on and so forth.

Remember, if it wasn't for our capitalist system, these charities and foundations would not be being funded in this manner. I hope it gives some people the incentive to take the time to pause and reflect. Maybe what you've been taught is evil is not so evil after all?

Edit: While I often agree with Fern, in this case I don't.

 

[daishi5]

Yes.

In every thread we've had here about it, I've argued for it.

Fern

If they are spending their money and not just hiding their money, do you believe it would be better for the government to tax it, or for them to direct it in charitable causes? Or, are you for the estate tax merely to prevent them from hiding the money?

 

[werepossum]

This is a good thing. It's also instructive that although these people are almost all liberals (Pickens doesn't seem like a big lib, though I could be wrong) they are not giving their money to the government or to the UN. Even when some money is given to governments or to the UN, it is given with a buttload of strings attached, for a specific purpose, in a specific country or region. Although these folks believe that government can spend our money better than can we, they evidently don't think this applies to themselves.

 

[Fern]

If they are spending their money and not just hiding their money, do you believe it would be better for the government to tax it, or for them to direct it in charitable causes? Or, are you for the estate tax merely to prevent them from hiding the money?

I'll take your second question first:

No, I'm for the estate tax because I believe in our orginal theory of tax. It holds that income tax rates should be held low so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labor during our lifetime. Then we have a pretty high estate tax on the 'backend'. The highish estate tax was also designed to prevent the creation of an aristocracy here.

Generally I believe it better for individuals themselves to direct charity rather then the government taking our money and doing it for us. But the clash between this pricipal and the purpose of the estate tax causes my ambivilence.

I also understand that because it's a private foundation, the rich people or their heirs still control the money. I.e., they get out of estate taxes by transfering the money from their right pocket to the left pocket and promising to do something charitable with it.

It wasn't to long ago that private foundations weren't really allowed, for some of the reasons I mention here.

There's also that pesky national debt; in a perfect world we could make a decent downpayment wth the estate tax revenues that could be generated.

Fern

 

[daishi5]

I'll take your second question first:

No, I'm for the estate tax because I believe in our orginal theory of tax. It holds that income tax rates should be held low so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labor during our lifetime. Then we have a pretty high estate tax on the 'backend'. The highish estate tax was also designed to prevent the creation of an aristocracy here.

Generally I believe it better for individuals themselves to direct charity rather then the government taking our money and doing it for us. But the clash between this pricipal and the purpose of the estate tax causes my ambivilence.

I also understand that because it's a private foundation, the rich people or their heirs still control the money. I.e., they get out of estate taxes by transfering the money from their right pocket to the left pocket and promising to do something charitable with it.

It wasn't to long ago that private foundations weren't really allowed, for some of the reasons I mention here.

There's also that pesky national debt; in a perfect world we could make a decent downpayment wth the estate tax revenues that could be generated.

Fern

The only real issue I have with your tax plan is that it would be so hard to predict the incoming revenue for the government. I am all for small government, but that kind of instability seems dangerous. I also picture the children of a rich man rushing out to spend all of his money before he passes away and half of it dissappears.

I am also kind of worried about how many of these rich people will spend their money. I know the Gates have gotten good returns, and that Buffet threw his money in with them because of how committed they are to really helping people. But, for many of the others on the list who are not as committed as the Gates, I can see that money being wasted. Unlike some posters, I think the government might do better than a rich person who really doesn't care about the poor. I don't think the government could do as well as Gates would, but I think a lot of the private donations could end up being used even less efficiently then the government would have done.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I am also kind of worried about how many of these rich people will spend their money. I know the Gates have gotten good returns, and that Buffet threw his money in with them because of how committed they are to really helping people. But, for many of the others on the list who are not as committed as the Gates, I can see that money being wasted. Unlike some posters, I think the government might do better than a rich person who really doesn't care about the poor. I don't think the government could do as well as Gates would, but I think a lot of the private donations could end up being used even less efficiently then the government would have done.

That's a valid point. Athletes and celebrities often set up foundations that don't accomplish much more than keeping their relatives employed.

The nepotism factor shouldn't matter as much when there are billions involved and the charity is required to spend at least 5 percent a year on their cause. A million or two might be wasted on luxuries for family members but most of the money will go elsewhere.

But there's no guarantee the cause will be a good one or that the money will be spend wisely. Billions have been spent sending food to Africa for example, and one of the effects was to destroy local farming, leading to famine when the aid stopped.

Of course that included a lot of government aid, showing both private and government charity can do more harm than good.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. I'm more than skeptical, largely based on the legal definition of Charitable Foundations. They are, for example, major funders of the rightwing noise machine-

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/

It's not like they're funding the Hunger Project, Habitat for Humanity or any number of other truly humanitarian organizations... or that the huge concentration of Capital will necessarily be made more diffuse, at all.

 

[MotF Bane]

Meh. I'm more than skeptical, largely based on the legal definition of Charitable Foundations. They are, for example, major funders of the rightwing noise machine-

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/

It's not like they're funding the Hunger Project, Habitat for Humanity or any number of other truly humanitarian organizations... or that the huge concentration of Capital will necessarily be made more diffuse, at all.

Yeah, you would find a way to bitch about this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, you would find a way to bitch about this.

Yeh, well, all I'm saying is that this probably isn't the warm and fuzzy bunnies with rainbows it's being played up to be...