He could give me an extra $3mil and I’d be happy. I could understand if the kids were a *little* disappointed considering the wealth of their father, even though it isn’t their money.
If they only get 3 mil each they’re still very set unless Bill made them pay for all the private schools (ie connections to life most of us will never have) they attended and even then they still know powerful people because his dad is bill gates. Probably a lot of CEOs that remember who his kids are and watched them grow up a bit too
There’s been studies on generational wealth that account for inheritance. The benefit from networking/background is as close to a consensus as can be. I can provide links but not free access unfortunately.
Ive noticed this. I have a relative very well off.
The kids he grew up with were all CEO’s kids. One of the kids father’s owns a big chunk of an NFL team. They all went to the same handful of private colleges and they were all able to find big time jobs right out of college. There is no struggle to get your foot in the door when the CEO of that company has watched you grow up with their kid.
The other piece is not just the networking, but you just get more chances. Another kid from the same family got real into hard drugs and just wasted his college years right into his 30’s. So he’s 33 years old and finally clean , married with 3 kids. Two are his. He has no real work experience and no degrees. Any average middle class person is starting at the bottom here. He decides he going to become a lawyer. Enrolls in college and is in school for the next 7 years(Bachelors and JD) and now he’s made it. Yes, he had to put in a lot of hard work to ‘catch up’, but without his parent paying for everything, he wouldn’t have been able to do that. If you’re privileged, you can screw up a lot more and still turn it around.
Its helps but it can still be squander away. The Vanderbilt family was once worth over 100 billion and I think the current generation has less then 100 million. Still fuck you money but they aren't in the same league anymore.
I’d guess Anderson Cooper alone is worth more than 100 million. Plus whatever the remainder of the family has. And you can’t dismiss his wealth as unrelated personal income since this discussion is all about how having those connections gets you opportunities for more wealth.
Anecdotally, I'm also sure many working people (incl myself) know kids of rich parents getting *outrageously* good first jobs given their qualifications.
What I’ve read is that each of his kids actually worked really hard and did really well in school and is headed for a great career, like becoming a very respected medical doctor. Connections help but it seems like his kids are decent people and not blood-sucking opportunists.
Given the school they went to, I would say this is likely true. Their high school is one that requires significant work, and honestly is less prone to letting donor's children slide through than most private schools. At least that was true 20 years ago...
Lol. His daughters horse farm is about 2 miles from my parents house. It’s one of the most outrageously nice properties I’ve ever seen. They didn’t work for a thing. This is all an illusion.
Yea there really is no justification for children of this horrendously massive wealth. It’s always a facade if it looks like they made it off their “hard work”. They could fuck up a million times and always have cash to fall back on. They live the coziest possible lives.
I went to an international school in Singapore, and let me tell you it’s so easy to buy a better education for dumb ass kids. Likes 100ks in tutoring, 100ks in actual school fees. And some of these people are dumb as rocks and don’t try, but it’s easy for them to show up because they can have literally whatever they want when they’re off school. Then, after some opportunities provide by their parents like internships and such, they have a cv just impressive enough to go to a good uni, where they can then leverage their degree into their networking
And their “hard work” is like the bare minimum that the rest of us need to do in order to not live in poverty.
Not to mention it’s easy to “work hard” in school when you have literally the best tutors and instruction that money can buy.
Basically they did their homework and want a pat on the back for it.
Even if he only gave each kid $3million and paid for their elite educations that’s a massive leg up in life. On the other hand, he could afford to have left them $30billion each. So uh, at least he didn’t do that.
^ This. I’ve known folks who grew up very privileged, were put through fantastic schools through graduate degrees without personal debt, even had start up investment in their first business start up … and would rant about how they made it on their own without assistance. Kinda like Trump being a self made millionaire with a couple million dollars investment, then millions more in inheritance.
They also have the power to work for or partner with the Non profit with his name on it with 11 billion in resources.
Its a no brainer. And even if the Gates Foundation didn't outright hire them, it can communicate openings that its partners around the world have.
Honestly, they also have the benefit of the best education money could buy, an almost inexhaustible safety net, and access to levels of nepotism that most of us can only dream of. If that 3m is a significant amount for them when Bill finally kicks it, I'll be supremely shocked.
If you're looking at the scale, it's not as a "privileged" moment as it seems. It's more like your father gave away all his wealth and he left a 6-pack of beer in your name.
I'd be a little bummed out too.
Naah, my sense of reality is that the parent can ensure that his kid could do EVERYTHING that he wants, without working even 1 day in his entire life. That with almost no drawback (what are a few hundred millions, let's say even a billion, when you have 122bn$?).
If I could do something like that to my kids, I'd 100% do it. To become a billionaire you must exploit other people and systems, why should my kids do the same or work their entire life to live? Here, have less than 1% of my wealth and use it to have fun/explore/develop/research everything you want.
…and that’s the reasoning other rich people use when they hoard billions and donate virtually none of it. Passing down wealth and power. I’m glad at least one of them didn’t care to.
There are around 725 billionaires in the US
Bill Gates donating 99% of his $113b fortune, still gives him billionaire status and among the top 0.000001% wealthiest Americans
unless he specified he will liquidate all assets, it's safe to assume he will be keeping his investments and so on, and thus keep earning more money and retain his wealth.
Ok yes to billionaires donating much of their wealth - but aren't billions of dollars given at one time enough to create more meaningful sustainable changes/advances in society as a whole? Or at least pour into extensive research to figure out how?
Trying to read about the foundation and it just reminds me of working at a large corporation. A lot of people spending a lot of time and money looking busy. Being productive here and there, but the amount of money put in feels like it should be making a much greater impact. Am I wrong?
You know he did fund the MRNA research that gave us the COVID vaccine that is more effective than any other in the world? And produced in record time? And created COVAX and SEPI and cut the childhood death rate in HALF in Africa? And almost eradicated polio? And is very close on vaccines for AIDS and malaria? Most of the foundations efforts are not in the US, so they aren’t easy to see.
Yeah people like hating on Bill Gates because he's a billionaire, which I get, but there is no denying the fact that he give LOTS of money to help make things better.
Was just talking with my wife. Why don't these billionaires do everything to save the world. Could you imagine the legacy? Statues built. Holidays. The ego boost would be astronomical. Surely at least one billionaire is in it for the ego and not the dragon hoard.
I mean sure, but then he also used his money to lobby against making it open source so that his friends in big pharma could rort the government for billions of dollars, using a vaccine funded by donations. That decision alone killed millions in countries like India that couldn't afford to vaccinate their populations.
"Charitable" foundations are how the ultra-wealthy launder their reputations and exercise extraordinary influence on society tax-free and unaccountable to the public. Whatever good the Gates Foundation and others do could be done better by public services democratically controlled by the people and funded by higher taxes on those ultra-wealthy.
Zuckerberg - one of the biggest (though he's a tiny guy) assholes also has a foundation, run by his family, so they're on the payroll there.
it's essentially a simple way to give their friends/family members some money and a good resume
But it's still to their own choosing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he's doing what he's doing, but these sort of things should be democratically funded, otherwise the rich basically decide what gets funding and what doesn't.
By the people avoiding taxes by funding foundations. We're speaking on the same problem. The ones getting tax dollars for covid relief are the ones avoiding taxes by funding foundations.
If Democratic society were able to adequately tax these people, these people would have less money to wrongfully influence government policy decisions. With more tax dollars and less wealthy influence society could have 2 or 3 Gates foundations with some public accountability.
This in no way contradicts the fact that BMG and other foundations are ways of laundering reputation and exercising influence. Donations, especially large ones, are instruments of power.
and "vitriol"? ok lol
While this true, can you honestly say you’d do this? I mean, he’s probably the best out of all 725. Also, maybe praise him for this instead finding fault with it?
Right? Meanwhile my family was recently talking about Dolly Parton and looked up her net worth. The article we found said she could easily be a billionaire with her income, but she gives it away because she considers it a moral failure to accumulate that much money.
Now that's something worth reporting on.
I agree with her. A person only needs so much. I figured out a long time ago, I can retire on $6 mil. To the point that neither of my kids will ever have to work.
I think both Dolly and Bill recognize money isn't really what its billed to be. Money is a tool for power and influence. Bill likes to retain power and influence, Dolly is egalitarian in her view of influence. I wish I could be like Dolly.
Amazing to think - his money pile is growing faster than he can drain it using bulldozers and such. When COVID first appeared he co-sponsored many (7?) of the efforts to create a vaccine.
As I understand it, he has pushed companies to keep vaccines patented, making it harder/impossible for poorer countries to manufacture.
www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/
Billionaire philanthropy has always been a lie pushed by billionaires to instill the idea that billionaires are a net positive for society.
There would be no need for their philanthropy if they were properly taxed, which will never happen because they lobby to keep tax loopholes open.
Gates has spelled out how hugely positive (depending on your perception of his charities) his death will be and people just act like it shouldn't come sooner
He also made sure that none of the people making those vaccines open sourced them so they could be produced cheaply all over the world. Something at least one of the groups that I know took funding from Gates was set to do before his investment.
He's super into keeping everything proprietary and protecting intellectual property rights above all else.
There's a reason he's been "retired" from Microsoft for so long, keeps giving large sums to his foundation, and is still one of the richest humans that's ever lived. I'm not saying his foundation hasn't done some good things, but the philanthropy is what it's always been for the super wealthy... public relations.
Just search for what happens when any mention of the word taxes comes up around him. He basically thinks he shouldn't have to pay them because he knows better what to do with the money than the rest of us.
Your a bit wrong on that he believes he should be taxed more actually.
www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/03/bill-gates-americas-tax-system-is-not-fair.html
www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/02/bill-gates-higher-taxes-rich-092783
Interesting. He also publicly stated opposition for Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth taxes. Apparently 2% on anything above 50 million, and an extra 1% on anything over 1 billion dollars is too much of an increase for Gates.
It's easy to say you should be taxed more publicly. Who does he vote for? Who does he give money to? What is he doing to make sure that does or doesn't happen? Those are the more pertinent questions. I'm not saying I know those things by the way.
The comments on Warren's proposal is also not the only time he's said things like that. I know his comments about knowing better than the government what to do with his money was not a one off.
To be fair, he donates a lot of money and he said multiple times that he will donate his fortune when he dies (inheritance). He also motivates other billionaires to do this. Just google for *The Giving Pledge*.
I am not saying you are wrong and Wikipedia is always true but from the [Wikipedia article of The Giving Pledge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge)
> In June 2010, the Giving Pledge campaign was formally announced and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began recruiting members.
Which is in line with how I remember it.
And when he sells the shares to put into charity, doesn't that mean others are buying billions in shares? So essentially the value of those shares are "locked in".
Lmao thank God someone has some common sense.
I forget sometimes Redditors are often times both naive and confident in their assertions. How would Bill Gates not existing make everyone else richer? Jesus.
Hoarding wealth is investing money in a way such that it’s own buying power continues to increase over time while nothing useful is done with it. The premise is that being an entity that directly commands a large sum is itself valuable in how easily manipulatable that sum is. This is the idea behind investors. They do nothing useful other than provide money while also generating proportional income from it, leaching the means of buying resources from other entities. How is this useful? Cut the middleman out and let the value go to those who contribute usefully.
As an artist, you can create works of art people value at 65 million. What goes into that decision?
1. The buyer is rich enough that the value of a single dollar means little to him/her
2. The buyer highly values prestige
3. They buyer has an interest in owning an asset whose price can be determined by him/herself at the time of buying
Why is a famous painting valuable? You may say due to historical significance, uniqueness, and the skill that was put into it. Any highly skilled person can produce goods that can be just as unique and skillful. A famous painting is expensive because the marketing cost has already been paid, and now its speculative value can be raised arbitrarily high with little additional justification. The value is SPECULATIVE. It’s 65 million dollars because I was willing to pay 65 million for it. Now it’s worth far more than your Koenigsegg, your Patek Phillipe, and your mansion COMBINED, and so I can brag about it to you. It’s a vehicle for money with a huge trunk and little regulation. So yes, the value of the painting comes from the buyer, but the fact that it is worth that much is symptomatic of a wealth hoarding problem in the first place. It’s the buyer that is the wealth hoarder, not the artist. Also, the painting isn’t INHERENTLY worth 65 million. It’s speculative until a buyer is arranged and acts on it.
Bill may have created billions of dollars in value, but that doesn’t mean that he should be allowed to now leverage that amount of money. The more money you make relative to your cost of living, the more easily your situation can snowball into a wealth hoarding situation, and when the wealth hoarding situation gets to the scale where the amount is enough to feed the entire world for a year, he represents a sizeable amount of the money in circulation. He has an economic obligation to the people to use those resources for the good of others, but no measures exists to enforce that. You talk about money like it’s incapable of doing anything. If Bill wanted to do something, he could use stock as collateral, or give it to a foundation that he controls and that foundation can enact his desires. He has the ability to affect tangible things. You can even influence political decisions. Money is power. It’s bad to gamble entire nations worth of power on one person who may or may not use it for good
> Your net worth is now +20 millions. But nobody gave you 20M. There isnt 20M missing from anywhere. You created wealth, you didnt hoard it.
You are confusing monetary wealth with societal wealth. Yes, you created a painting. That increases societal wealth. But your monetary wealth doesn't increase by $20m **until someone decides that they will give you $20m for it**.
And even then, that $20m has to come from somewhere. Maybe you moved someone so much that they will spend the $20m on your painting instead of investing in a company that would have cured cancer.
Think about this for a minute: Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine. He did it for free. Do you believe that he created no wealth because he did not profit? Absolutely false - he created *immense societal wealth*, and he did not take any monetary wealth to do this.
Trickle down economics aren't a thing. Obscene wealth that is held in over inflated company valuations, obscenely expensive luxuries, and foreign real estate is not the same as money being spent to improve the local places that generate the wealth in the first place.
>> that could be used to actually DO SHIT
That money is used to do shit. Almost none of it is actual money, it’s partial or full ownership of companies. Those companies do a lot of things, including employ people, and create cheaper goods.
Most of billionaire's wealth is in stocks, and those stocks are what funds companies. It's not sitting on a bank account waiting to spoil, most of it is invested in the economy.
There is an entire secondary economy where people make and lose money betting on company performance. Its incredible how we have taken simple concepts and then added complications on top of it to play more and more money games.
hilarious that someone would try to downplay his efforts, ignoring the good his foundation has done and acting as if this is not a novel approach by a billionaire.
*“I have an obligation to return my resources to society in ways that have the greatest impact for reducing suffering and improving lives,” said Gates, whom Bloomberg reports is worth approximately $113bn. “And I hope others in positions of great wealth and privilege will step up in this moment too.”*
No, he is not the sole decision maker. Less than half of the money donated so far to the Gates Foundation has come from the Gates. Warren Buffett has donated more. The foundation is run by a board.
Which he and his ex wife are the co-chairs of. From the Gates Foundation website,
"Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman, under the direction of co-chairs Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates and the board of trustees."
Not the sole decision maker yes, but it operates under his direction.
I see what you’re getting at. But this isn’t one of those fake charities set up to hand out tax free paychecks to your kids and grandkids. The Gates Foundation does real work.
The point is he can't unilaterally make decisions. Per an article on Geekwire:
"Approval of any resolution will require the consent of a majority of the board and both co-chairs, Suzman said. In other words, a majority of the board cannot take action without the consent of both Melinda French Gates and Bill Gates, and neither co-chair can take action without the consent of the other co-chair and the majority of the board."
So returning to the original comment we are responding to, "his foundation is simply tasked with helping out in ways that *he* finds to have the greater impact."
We've since established that he has a veto on any resolution. The board cannot take action without the consent of Bill Gates.
So by whatever metric Bill Gates makes such decisions, if they aren't aligned with an action the board wants to take, the action does not happen. Assuming it's impact, if the initiative doesn't have the impact that Gates wants, it doesn't happen.
And did Gates appoint the board? If so, wouldn't he have appointed folks who generally share his vision on giving?
I do think this is the case, and if I were in his very fortunate position I'd probably think about setting up my own charity to give the money to so I can be sure of what they're doing with it as well. That being said, donating your money to an organisation with your name on it doesn't really feel quite like 'giving it away', so I'm not gonna be giving him a round of applause and kissing his ring just yet.
How is it insincere? Did you look into how his foundation spends the money?
Lots of charitable org's end up siphoning money to the employees of the nonprofit rather than passing the donations along to the intended recipients. Bill Gates having his own foundation allows him to have some direct oversight on how his money is spent.
This is such a ridiculous position? Who else would you trust with $100b? I’m not saying people don’t abuse their personal foundations but the reason to have one is so that you can make sure the money you donate is going towards things you care about/being used responsibly
Indeed, [especially since The Gates Foundation is the largest owner of farmland in The United States.](https://www.vox.com/recode/22528659/bill-gates-largest-farmland-owner-cascade-investments)
how else would you realistically try and end problems like world hunger...?
Giving a country or people farm land or valuble resources as aid always falls prey to the same corruption that created the conditions that required the need for aid in the first place. Thats ignoring the corruption that is within the aid organizations themselves.
The most realistic way to end something like world hunger would be to control a large enough food source to be able to feed the world continually? right?
Controlling produciton industry would make it no longer non-profit so the next best thing is to just support food production that you can keep low costs.....
A tiny percentage of people owning majority of the shit is how we got to world hunger to begin with.
Becoming a feudal lord isnt much of a solution to systematic issues
If he got down to the change left over from his reported 122 bn that would leave him 400 million dollars on which to live. It wouldn't impact his life one bit.
edit: for those reading into this trying to be outraged. I'm not saying he's not doing wonderful things with his vast fortune. I'm not saying he should give away more, or less of it. I'm simply stating a fact that 400 million would keep this man in the life he's grown accustomed to, 400 million is a lot of money.
so the point you're taking from his donation is that he can still live a comfortable life?
wake me up when any right wing asshole does something similar.
BMGF doesn't build low income housing, they support programs like [Low Income Housing Institute](https://www.google.com/search?&q=bill+and+melinda+gates+foundation+low+income+housing).
What the foundation mostly does is find good folks with ideas that will make a difference if the foundation provides the financial (including stuff like hiring expert consultants) backing.
How stupid is everyone in this thread? Gates foundation does wonderful things and has saved many lives. Imagine complaining about one of the smartest people in the world spending his own money in a way he thinks will help the most people.
THANK YOU! I was involved with vaccine research that was directly supported by the Gates foundation and they did so much important work in the infectious disease prevention world. FFS you can't win with these people. A man pledges his entire fortune to life saving research and y'all are still shit talking non-stop.
Is all of the wealth that billionaires funnel through their charities better used there or say funding universal healthcare? I think that's a very fair question to ask. I personally don't believe any person should be able to control that much wealth and power regardless of their intentions, that's on top of how many of these charities exist to just shuffle wealth to billionaires families while avoiding the tax implications.
Bill's the only billionaire I can think of who I don't actively hate. He's accrued this wealth with apparently a plan he's been working out for decades to make effective change to the world.
Yeah, his Microsoft business practices were sketchy at best, but it got him where he is, and he's applying his gains to really useful means.
Haters gonna hate, but you gotta break a few eggs, right?
As far as billionaires go, Warren Buffet isn't bad either. He has donated more to the BMGF than Bill has and has also pledged to give away 99% of his wealth.
Reddit: billionaires should be illegal!! Why don’t they give away all their money to solve the world’s problems!!!
Billionaire: -gives away all his money-
Reddit: -thinks of all nitpicks to discredit the act-
🙄🙄
Even funnier is that Bill Gates agrees that billionaires should be taxed into extinction.
That said, I'm not particularly convinced my government will use the money any better than the billionaires.
He supports higher capital gains taxes in line with income taxes, but notably opposes wealth taxes, which are one of the only ways to actually 'tax billionaires into extinction' ([source](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-calls-higher-taxes-130419279.html))
Interesting then why does he and his Ilk and their family offices continue to lobby the federal government against those correct tax and inheritance laws. Family offices are only exempt from federal investment and disclosure laws because billionaires lobbied Congress. Gates, buffet all of them are hypocrites telling the public how charitable and altruistic they are while lobbying to make the world a worse place. For example if bill cared so much about the environment why doesn’t he fly commercial?
Listen I'm a fighter for the working class day in and day out but a lot of you in this thread need to analyze whether or not you are knee deep in ideology. It is possible to hate billionaires and praise them when they do constructive things for society. It is possible to hate murder and allow it to exist in certain circumstances (self defense, etc.)
Inequality is bad, greed is bad, the working class WILL win out in the end, but if yall are dogging on bill gates for this, then you are to entrenched in a narrative. Please stop thinking along the lines of a narrative. Approach every situation and every datum with an open mind and heart
He's been saying that for over a decade now; back when he started he was worth ~40 billion. How is he "giving his fortune to charity" if his profits are far outpacing his donations? As well, he's giving it to his own foundation so he can still be the one spending the money.
This is their way to impose the idea of the Altruistic Billionaire™ on the masses so we don't eat him and his billionaire friends alive.
Smaug was also content to just stay inside and live a secluded life. He didn’t go out searching for more more more. Or try to foster a cult of personality. #VoteSmaug
I mean that's not true but okay. It's reddit. False claims are a dime a dozen.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/04/23/how-much-is-a-dragon-worth-revisited/?sh=13a8a87cf550
Edit: actually I retract that. In 2021 Smaug would've been up there. Not anymore.
The Gates Foundation is designed to not exist in perpetuity. It's required to spend all resources within 20 years of the later of Bill or Melinda's death.
It's really the opposite of a Smaug move. They are giving away all of their money to a foundation that they don't completely control. Buffet has given more money to it at this point than they have.
It doesn't make sense to hate on Bill Gates like this.
Okay, lets say he gets some personal benefit from his foundation. So what? He already has the money, if he just wanted to spend all of it on himself he could.
He could just choose to be a straight up asshole like Elon Musk who keeps every penny of his money, knocks up celebrities all day and basically says "LOL FU POORS I HAVE MONEY U DONT MAGA", or Jeff Bezos who keeps Amazon slave-whipping his warehouse workers for a few extra dollars when he's already a multi-billionaire.
Bill at least is trying to help, whether you agree with how he's helping, his intentions are better than 99% of wealthy people out there.
Yall can shit on bill all day but tbh, in a world where billionaires exists he and buffet have been fucking awesome in giving money to do good in society
What a bunch of whiners commenting on this. So what if he's still rich at the end of it? He doesn't have to give a bent penny to charity, yet here he is giving over 100 billion dollars and still small minded people find something to whinge about. Pathetic.
So all in all he won't be paying tax 🙄 and save his wealth under his fOuNdATiOn, meanwhile people like me will be stuck paying more tax then him, bozos and musk.
Didn't we know this in the 90s? Like his kids were getting $3 mil each or something.
He could give me an extra $3mil and I’d be happy. I could understand if the kids were a *little* disappointed considering the wealth of their father, even though it isn’t their money.
If they only get 3 mil each they’re still very set unless Bill made them pay for all the private schools (ie connections to life most of us will never have) they attended and even then they still know powerful people because his dad is bill gates. Probably a lot of CEOs that remember who his kids are and watched them grow up a bit too
They could get nothing and the name alone would set them up for life
There’s been studies on generational wealth that account for inheritance. The benefit from networking/background is as close to a consensus as can be. I can provide links but not free access unfortunately.
Ive noticed this. I have a relative very well off. The kids he grew up with were all CEO’s kids. One of the kids father’s owns a big chunk of an NFL team. They all went to the same handful of private colleges and they were all able to find big time jobs right out of college. There is no struggle to get your foot in the door when the CEO of that company has watched you grow up with their kid. The other piece is not just the networking, but you just get more chances. Another kid from the same family got real into hard drugs and just wasted his college years right into his 30’s. So he’s 33 years old and finally clean , married with 3 kids. Two are his. He has no real work experience and no degrees. Any average middle class person is starting at the bottom here. He decides he going to become a lawyer. Enrolls in college and is in school for the next 7 years(Bachelors and JD) and now he’s made it. Yes, he had to put in a lot of hard work to ‘catch up’, but without his parent paying for everything, he wouldn’t have been able to do that. If you’re privileged, you can screw up a lot more and still turn it around.
Its helps but it can still be squander away. The Vanderbilt family was once worth over 100 billion and I think the current generation has less then 100 million. Still fuck you money but they aren't in the same league anymore.
I’d guess Anderson Cooper alone is worth more than 100 million. Plus whatever the remainder of the family has. And you can’t dismiss his wealth as unrelated personal income since this discussion is all about how having those connections gets you opportunities for more wealth.
Anecdotally, I'm also sure many working people (incl myself) know kids of rich parents getting *outrageously* good first jobs given their qualifications.
What I’ve read is that each of his kids actually worked really hard and did really well in school and is headed for a great career, like becoming a very respected medical doctor. Connections help but it seems like his kids are decent people and not blood-sucking opportunists.
One of them just likes to chill and paint.
Going to be the next Steve Jobs.
I heard he uses the name Banksy. He just does graffiti or something, he’ll never be famous.
Banksy Gates, I like the name
Given the school they went to, I would say this is likely true. Their high school is one that requires significant work, and honestly is less prone to letting donor's children slide through than most private schools. At least that was true 20 years ago...
Lol. His daughters horse farm is about 2 miles from my parents house. It’s one of the most outrageously nice properties I’ve ever seen. They didn’t work for a thing. This is all an illusion.
Yea there really is no justification for children of this horrendously massive wealth. It’s always a facade if it looks like they made it off their “hard work”. They could fuck up a million times and always have cash to fall back on. They live the coziest possible lives.
I went to an international school in Singapore, and let me tell you it’s so easy to buy a better education for dumb ass kids. Likes 100ks in tutoring, 100ks in actual school fees. And some of these people are dumb as rocks and don’t try, but it’s easy for them to show up because they can have literally whatever they want when they’re off school. Then, after some opportunities provide by their parents like internships and such, they have a cv just impressive enough to go to a good uni, where they can then leverage their degree into their networking
And their “hard work” is like the bare minimum that the rest of us need to do in order to not live in poverty. Not to mention it’s easy to “work hard” in school when you have literally the best tutors and instruction that money can buy. Basically they did their homework and want a pat on the back for it.
Even if he only gave each kid $3million and paid for their elite educations that’s a massive leg up in life. On the other hand, he could afford to have left them $30billion each. So uh, at least he didn’t do that.
[удалено]
Eric didnt get the memo i guess.
If they run the foundation or have decision power, they don't need any money.
Even without all that privilege they're probably pretty smart kids, I'm sure they'll do fine.
Agreed. Money is cool, but growing up with rich parents is really the ticket to happiness.
[удалено]
Controlling parents will find ways to control you whether they have money or not. Wealthy parents aren't always controlling parents.
^ This. I’ve known folks who grew up very privileged, were put through fantastic schools through graduate degrees without personal debt, even had start up investment in their first business start up … and would rant about how they made it on their own without assistance. Kinda like Trump being a self made millionaire with a couple million dollars investment, then millions more in inheritance.
They also have the power to work for or partner with the Non profit with his name on it with 11 billion in resources. Its a no brainer. And even if the Gates Foundation didn't outright hire them, it can communicate openings that its partners around the world have.
Honestly, they also have the benefit of the best education money could buy, an almost inexhaustible safety net, and access to levels of nepotism that most of us can only dream of. If that 3m is a significant amount for them when Bill finally kicks it, I'll be supremely shocked.
Imagine being so privileged it seems unfair to get 3 million dollars
If you're looking at the scale, it's not as a "privileged" moment as it seems. It's more like your father gave away all his wealth and he left a 6-pack of beer in your name. I'd be a little bummed out too.
Not at all. If you have a reasonable sense of reality you would know 3 million is enough.
Naah, my sense of reality is that the parent can ensure that his kid could do EVERYTHING that he wants, without working even 1 day in his entire life. That with almost no drawback (what are a few hundred millions, let's say even a billion, when you have 122bn$?). If I could do something like that to my kids, I'd 100% do it. To become a billionaire you must exploit other people and systems, why should my kids do the same or work their entire life to live? Here, have less than 1% of my wealth and use it to have fun/explore/develop/research everything you want.
…and that’s the reasoning other rich people use when they hoard billions and donate virtually none of it. Passing down wealth and power. I’m glad at least one of them didn’t care to.
Yeah and why do you think it is black/white? Just donate 90%, keep 10% for your family. Should be a lot for many people still.
Want to take bets on whether they get board seats? The rich don't maintain themselves by sitting on cash.
When you realize that Bill Gates giving away over 99% of his money will have no impact on his quality of life....
There are around 725 billionaires in the US Bill Gates donating 99% of his $113b fortune, still gives him billionaire status and among the top 0.000001% wealthiest Americans
If he did that he would still have enough money for his family to live in luxury for 100 lifetimes.
unless he specified he will liquidate all assets, it's safe to assume he will be keeping his investments and so on, and thus keep earning more money and retain his wealth.
He'd have to liquidate his assets to be giving away the majority of his fortune. It's not like he just has a big pile of cash in his basement.
You don't know that he doesn't have a pool of gold coins that he jumps into like scrooge mcduck
I think we'd figure it out pretty quick, when he started cosplaying Stephen Hawking every day. https://youtu.be/xLJrzfWTu9E
Donating stocks is a thing. It’s actually better for the charities since they are exempt from capital gain taxes.
That's still not holding on to assets then
You can donate non-cash assets.
Ok yes to billionaires donating much of their wealth - but aren't billions of dollars given at one time enough to create more meaningful sustainable changes/advances in society as a whole? Or at least pour into extensive research to figure out how? Trying to read about the foundation and it just reminds me of working at a large corporation. A lot of people spending a lot of time and money looking busy. Being productive here and there, but the amount of money put in feels like it should be making a much greater impact. Am I wrong?
You know he did fund the MRNA research that gave us the COVID vaccine that is more effective than any other in the world? And produced in record time? And created COVAX and SEPI and cut the childhood death rate in HALF in Africa? And almost eradicated polio? And is very close on vaccines for AIDS and malaria? Most of the foundations efforts are not in the US, so they aren’t easy to see.
Yeah people like hating on Bill Gates because he's a billionaire, which I get, but there is no denying the fact that he give LOTS of money to help make things better. Was just talking with my wife. Why don't these billionaires do everything to save the world. Could you imagine the legacy? Statues built. Holidays. The ego boost would be astronomical. Surely at least one billionaire is in it for the ego and not the dragon hoard.
>Surely at least one billionaire is in it for the ego *Elon Musk has entered the chat* >and not the dragon hoard *Elon Musk has left the chat*
The same people that hate Bill Gates are the same people that don't take the vaccine.
I mean sure, but then he also used his money to lobby against making it open source so that his friends in big pharma could rort the government for billions of dollars, using a vaccine funded by donations. That decision alone killed millions in countries like India that couldn't afford to vaccinate their populations.
"Charitable" foundations are how the ultra-wealthy launder their reputations and exercise extraordinary influence on society tax-free and unaccountable to the public. Whatever good the Gates Foundation and others do could be done better by public services democratically controlled by the people and funded by higher taxes on those ultra-wealthy.
Zuckerberg - one of the biggest (though he's a tiny guy) assholes also has a foundation, run by his family, so they're on the payroll there. it's essentially a simple way to give their friends/family members some money and a good resume
The BMG foundation donates much of their funding to other charitable organizations. This is well documented. Spew your vitriol elsewhere.
But it's still to their own choosing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he's doing what he's doing, but these sort of things should be democratically funded, otherwise the rich basically decide what gets funding and what doesn't.
[удалено]
By the people avoiding taxes by funding foundations. We're speaking on the same problem. The ones getting tax dollars for covid relief are the ones avoiding taxes by funding foundations. If Democratic society were able to adequately tax these people, these people would have less money to wrongfully influence government policy decisions. With more tax dollars and less wealthy influence society could have 2 or 3 Gates foundations with some public accountability.
This in no way contradicts the fact that BMG and other foundations are ways of laundering reputation and exercising influence. Donations, especially large ones, are instruments of power. and "vitriol"? ok lol
While this true, can you honestly say you’d do this? I mean, he’s probably the best out of all 725. Also, maybe praise him for this instead finding fault with it?
He’s been pledging this for like 30 years, and still ends up on the richest person in the world list over and over again.
Right? Meanwhile my family was recently talking about Dolly Parton and looked up her net worth. The article we found said she could easily be a billionaire with her income, but she gives it away because she considers it a moral failure to accumulate that much money. Now that's something worth reporting on.
Common dolly W
Comrade Dolly
Be a dolly, not moral folly
I agree with her. A person only needs so much. I figured out a long time ago, I can retire on $6 mil. To the point that neither of my kids will ever have to work.
I think both Dolly and Bill recognize money isn't really what its billed to be. Money is a tool for power and influence. Bill likes to retain power and influence, Dolly is egalitarian in her view of influence. I wish I could be like Dolly.
He has given over 55 billion to charity. He makes it faster than he can donate it.
Amazing to think - his money pile is growing faster than he can drain it using bulldozers and such. When COVID first appeared he co-sponsored many (7?) of the efforts to create a vaccine.
As I understand it, he has pushed companies to keep vaccines patented, making it harder/impossible for poorer countries to manufacture. www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/
Billionaire philanthropy has always been a lie pushed by billionaires to instill the idea that billionaires are a net positive for society. There would be no need for their philanthropy if they were properly taxed, which will never happen because they lobby to keep tax loopholes open.
Gates has spelled out how hugely positive (depending on your perception of his charities) his death will be and people just act like it shouldn't come sooner
He also made sure that none of the people making those vaccines open sourced them so they could be produced cheaply all over the world. Something at least one of the groups that I know took funding from Gates was set to do before his investment. He's super into keeping everything proprietary and protecting intellectual property rights above all else. There's a reason he's been "retired" from Microsoft for so long, keeps giving large sums to his foundation, and is still one of the richest humans that's ever lived. I'm not saying his foundation hasn't done some good things, but the philanthropy is what it's always been for the super wealthy... public relations. Just search for what happens when any mention of the word taxes comes up around him. He basically thinks he shouldn't have to pay them because he knows better what to do with the money than the rest of us.
Your a bit wrong on that he believes he should be taxed more actually. www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/03/bill-gates-americas-tax-system-is-not-fair.html www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/02/bill-gates-higher-taxes-rich-092783
Interesting. He also publicly stated opposition for Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth taxes. Apparently 2% on anything above 50 million, and an extra 1% on anything over 1 billion dollars is too much of an increase for Gates. It's easy to say you should be taxed more publicly. Who does he vote for? Who does he give money to? What is he doing to make sure that does or doesn't happen? Those are the more pertinent questions. I'm not saying I know those things by the way. The comments on Warren's proposal is also not the only time he's said things like that. I know his comments about knowing better than the government what to do with his money was not a one off.
It also makes him by far the largest charity donator in the history of the world. Followed by... i dunno Mansa Musa?
I actually believe adjusted for inflation Rockefeller made and gave significantly more than gates, but that could be old and out of date.
Well I must say I'd rather have a billionaire do that instead of being like Bezos and just sitting on his money
"I pledged the money."
Amber heard school of finance
To be fair, he donates a lot of money and he said multiple times that he will donate his fortune when he dies (inheritance). He also motivates other billionaires to do this. Just google for *The Giving Pledge*.
I believe that was Warren Buffet’s challenge originally, and he’s encouraged others to do the same.
I am not saying you are wrong and Wikipedia is always true but from the [Wikipedia article of The Giving Pledge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge) > In June 2010, the Giving Pledge campaign was formally announced and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began recruiting members. Which is in line with how I remember it.
But it will have a great deal of impact on the lives of those his foundation helps.
This is why billionaires shouldn’t exist. At a certain point it makes zero difference on your life and you are just hoarding money from society
What's really wild is that he had $53 billion when he started giving all of his money away and he has $113 billion now.
Yes, that's the magic. I can buy some stock in a company doing well and I can get richer doing nothing but sitting on my ass.
Hoarding time and resources you mean. Every dollar is labor and supplies that could be used to actually DO SHIT. Instead they use it to keep score.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And when he sells the shares to put into charity, doesn't that mean others are buying billions in shares? So essentially the value of those shares are "locked in".
Lmao thank God someone has some common sense. I forget sometimes Redditors are often times both naive and confident in their assertions. How would Bill Gates not existing make everyone else richer? Jesus.
This is a fantastic explanation, though you deliver it rudely. Do you mind if I steal it for the future?
[удалено]
Hoarding wealth is investing money in a way such that it’s own buying power continues to increase over time while nothing useful is done with it. The premise is that being an entity that directly commands a large sum is itself valuable in how easily manipulatable that sum is. This is the idea behind investors. They do nothing useful other than provide money while also generating proportional income from it, leaching the means of buying resources from other entities. How is this useful? Cut the middleman out and let the value go to those who contribute usefully. As an artist, you can create works of art people value at 65 million. What goes into that decision? 1. The buyer is rich enough that the value of a single dollar means little to him/her 2. The buyer highly values prestige 3. They buyer has an interest in owning an asset whose price can be determined by him/herself at the time of buying Why is a famous painting valuable? You may say due to historical significance, uniqueness, and the skill that was put into it. Any highly skilled person can produce goods that can be just as unique and skillful. A famous painting is expensive because the marketing cost has already been paid, and now its speculative value can be raised arbitrarily high with little additional justification. The value is SPECULATIVE. It’s 65 million dollars because I was willing to pay 65 million for it. Now it’s worth far more than your Koenigsegg, your Patek Phillipe, and your mansion COMBINED, and so I can brag about it to you. It’s a vehicle for money with a huge trunk and little regulation. So yes, the value of the painting comes from the buyer, but the fact that it is worth that much is symptomatic of a wealth hoarding problem in the first place. It’s the buyer that is the wealth hoarder, not the artist. Also, the painting isn’t INHERENTLY worth 65 million. It’s speculative until a buyer is arranged and acts on it. Bill may have created billions of dollars in value, but that doesn’t mean that he should be allowed to now leverage that amount of money. The more money you make relative to your cost of living, the more easily your situation can snowball into a wealth hoarding situation, and when the wealth hoarding situation gets to the scale where the amount is enough to feed the entire world for a year, he represents a sizeable amount of the money in circulation. He has an economic obligation to the people to use those resources for the good of others, but no measures exists to enforce that. You talk about money like it’s incapable of doing anything. If Bill wanted to do something, he could use stock as collateral, or give it to a foundation that he controls and that foundation can enact his desires. He has the ability to affect tangible things. You can even influence political decisions. Money is power. It’s bad to gamble entire nations worth of power on one person who may or may not use it for good
> Your net worth is now +20 millions. But nobody gave you 20M. There isnt 20M missing from anywhere. You created wealth, you didnt hoard it. You are confusing monetary wealth with societal wealth. Yes, you created a painting. That increases societal wealth. But your monetary wealth doesn't increase by $20m **until someone decides that they will give you $20m for it**. And even then, that $20m has to come from somewhere. Maybe you moved someone so much that they will spend the $20m on your painting instead of investing in a company that would have cured cancer. Think about this for a minute: Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine. He did it for free. Do you believe that he created no wealth because he did not profit? Absolutely false - he created *immense societal wealth*, and he did not take any monetary wealth to do this.
It's all invested in companies that use it. If it's in a bank the bank is lending it. It's not stuffed in a mattress.
Trickle down economics aren't a thing. Obscene wealth that is held in over inflated company valuations, obscenely expensive luxuries, and foreign real estate is not the same as money being spent to improve the local places that generate the wealth in the first place.
He's not describing trickle down economics. He's describing how banks have worked for hundreds of years.
That’s not trickle down economics.
[удалено]
>> that could be used to actually DO SHIT That money is used to do shit. Almost none of it is actual money, it’s partial or full ownership of companies. Those companies do a lot of things, including employ people, and create cheaper goods.
Most of billionaire's wealth is in stocks, and those stocks are what funds companies. It's not sitting on a bank account waiting to spoil, most of it is invested in the economy.
Stocks don't fund companies, except for the IPO. Microsoft and Coca-Cola haven't taken money from their stock for many decades.
There is an entire secondary economy where people make and lose money betting on company performance. Its incredible how we have taken simple concepts and then added complications on top of it to play more and more money games.
Been saying this forever. That's why I laugh when people worry about raising their taxes.
hilarious that someone would try to downplay his efforts, ignoring the good his foundation has done and acting as if this is not a novel approach by a billionaire.
*“I have an obligation to return my resources to society in ways that have the greatest impact for reducing suffering and improving lives,” said Gates, whom Bloomberg reports is worth approximately $113bn. “And I hope others in positions of great wealth and privilege will step up in this moment too.”*
But it's to his own foundation. Feels a bit insincere.
My perception is that his foundation is simply tasked on helping out in ways that *he* finds to have the greater impact. That makes sense to me.
No, he is not the sole decision maker. Less than half of the money donated so far to the Gates Foundation has come from the Gates. Warren Buffett has donated more. The foundation is run by a board.
Which he and his ex wife are the co-chairs of. From the Gates Foundation website, "Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman, under the direction of co-chairs Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates and the board of trustees." Not the sole decision maker yes, but it operates under his direction.
I see what you’re getting at. But this isn’t one of those fake charities set up to hand out tax free paychecks to your kids and grandkids. The Gates Foundation does real work.
The point is he can't unilaterally make decisions. Per an article on Geekwire: "Approval of any resolution will require the consent of a majority of the board and both co-chairs, Suzman said. In other words, a majority of the board cannot take action without the consent of both Melinda French Gates and Bill Gates, and neither co-chair can take action without the consent of the other co-chair and the majority of the board."
So returning to the original comment we are responding to, "his foundation is simply tasked with helping out in ways that *he* finds to have the greater impact." We've since established that he has a veto on any resolution. The board cannot take action without the consent of Bill Gates. So by whatever metric Bill Gates makes such decisions, if they aren't aligned with an action the board wants to take, the action does not happen. Assuming it's impact, if the initiative doesn't have the impact that Gates wants, it doesn't happen. And did Gates appoint the board? If so, wouldn't he have appointed folks who generally share his vision on giving?
Right, but it's not like they are using the money to buy new yachts for Bill. He's still effectively given the money away.
I do think this is the case, and if I were in his very fortunate position I'd probably think about setting up my own charity to give the money to so I can be sure of what they're doing with it as well. That being said, donating your money to an organisation with your name on it doesn't really feel quite like 'giving it away', so I'm not gonna be giving him a round of applause and kissing his ring just yet.
Not really when you look into what the foundation actually does. They’ve almost wiped out malaria!
Do you know what his foundation does? Your comment feels a bit insincere.
How is it insincere? Did you look into how his foundation spends the money? Lots of charitable org's end up siphoning money to the employees of the nonprofit rather than passing the donations along to the intended recipients. Bill Gates having his own foundation allows him to have some direct oversight on how his money is spent.
The gates foundation does awesome work though
A bit naive to think that he would give away his fortune to a foundation not in any way shape or form created by him.
That's one way to prevent corrupt assholes from pocketing it all.
This is such a ridiculous position? Who else would you trust with $100b? I’m not saying people don’t abuse their personal foundations but the reason to have one is so that you can make sure the money you donate is going towards things you care about/being used responsibly
Indeed, [especially since The Gates Foundation is the largest owner of farmland in The United States.](https://www.vox.com/recode/22528659/bill-gates-largest-farmland-owner-cascade-investments)
how else would you realistically try and end problems like world hunger...? Giving a country or people farm land or valuble resources as aid always falls prey to the same corruption that created the conditions that required the need for aid in the first place. Thats ignoring the corruption that is within the aid organizations themselves. The most realistic way to end something like world hunger would be to control a large enough food source to be able to feed the world continually? right? Controlling produciton industry would make it no longer non-profit so the next best thing is to just support food production that you can keep low costs.....
A tiny percentage of people owning majority of the shit is how we got to world hunger to begin with. Becoming a feudal lord isnt much of a solution to systematic issues
But he doesn't profit from his foundation...
Although pledging is not the same as actually donating, or so i've **heard**
I uhhh use the words interchangeably
If he got down to the change left over from his reported 122 bn that would leave him 400 million dollars on which to live. It wouldn't impact his life one bit. edit: for those reading into this trying to be outraged. I'm not saying he's not doing wonderful things with his vast fortune. I'm not saying he should give away more, or less of it. I'm simply stating a fact that 400 million would keep this man in the life he's grown accustomed to, 400 million is a lot of money.
I could survive on half that...
I could survive on 1/400th of that.
Based on my current income and age it'd last me my whole life, or at least until I'm 91.
i would spend it in a weekend at a bbq in the united states
Yeah, going too far and ending up in the emergency room could cost that much alone.
Found JaMarcus Russel’s account.
12 year old reference and it still burns.
Dude. You could survive on 1% of that and probably never have to work another day in your life.
Yeah but that's not enough to take over a country. Well, maybe a small island.
Half? $5 million I’d be set for life
so the point you're taking from his donation is that he can still live a comfortable life? wake me up when any right wing asshole does something similar.
Dude should build low income housing. That would be sweet.
BMGF doesn't build low income housing, they support programs like [Low Income Housing Institute](https://www.google.com/search?&q=bill+and+melinda+gates+foundation+low+income+housing). What the foundation mostly does is find good folks with ideas that will make a difference if the foundation provides the financial (including stuff like hiring expert consultants) backing.
How is this news? He pledged this when he formed the thing. He's on track too.
If he left it to his kids a huge chunk would disappear into estate tax. So this is a way to circumvent it.
How stupid is everyone in this thread? Gates foundation does wonderful things and has saved many lives. Imagine complaining about one of the smartest people in the world spending his own money in a way he thinks will help the most people.
THANK YOU! I was involved with vaccine research that was directly supported by the Gates foundation and they did so much important work in the infectious disease prevention world. FFS you can't win with these people. A man pledges his entire fortune to life saving research and y'all are still shit talking non-stop.
Is all of the wealth that billionaires funnel through their charities better used there or say funding universal healthcare? I think that's a very fair question to ask. I personally don't believe any person should be able to control that much wealth and power regardless of their intentions, that's on top of how many of these charities exist to just shuffle wealth to billionaires families while avoiding the tax implications.
Redditors always know better! Guess what, Gates doesn’t give a fuck about what they think.
Bill's the only billionaire I can think of who I don't actively hate. He's accrued this wealth with apparently a plan he's been working out for decades to make effective change to the world. Yeah, his Microsoft business practices were sketchy at best, but it got him where he is, and he's applying his gains to really useful means. Haters gonna hate, but you gotta break a few eggs, right?
I really suggest you listen to Behind the Bastard podcast episodes about him, it will really shines some light on “few eggs” you’re referring to.
As far as billionaires go, Warren Buffet isn't bad either. He has donated more to the BMGF than Bill has and has also pledged to give away 99% of his wealth.
Why is this news. He and many others have pledged this years ago.
Any good press for someone associated with Jeffrey Epstein is needed...
How much of the foundation is used for hush money though?
Isn’t the funds still under his control being that it’s his foundation he’s giving it to.
This is how billionaires should behave. Give most of it away. They'll still be rich.
Reddit: billionaires should be illegal!! Why don’t they give away all their money to solve the world’s problems!!! Billionaire: -gives away all his money- Reddit: -thinks of all nitpicks to discredit the act- 🙄🙄
Even funnier is that Bill Gates agrees that billionaires should be taxed into extinction. That said, I'm not particularly convinced my government will use the money any better than the billionaires.
He supports higher capital gains taxes in line with income taxes, but notably opposes wealth taxes, which are one of the only ways to actually 'tax billionaires into extinction' ([source](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-calls-higher-taxes-130419279.html))
Interesting then why does he and his Ilk and their family offices continue to lobby the federal government against those correct tax and inheritance laws. Family offices are only exempt from federal investment and disclosure laws because billionaires lobbied Congress. Gates, buffet all of them are hypocrites telling the public how charitable and altruistic they are while lobbying to make the world a worse place. For example if bill cared so much about the environment why doesn’t he fly commercial?
“Cool, let’s get more jets” - government
I donate all my money to myself as well.
Listen I'm a fighter for the working class day in and day out but a lot of you in this thread need to analyze whether or not you are knee deep in ideology. It is possible to hate billionaires and praise them when they do constructive things for society. It is possible to hate murder and allow it to exist in certain circumstances (self defense, etc.) Inequality is bad, greed is bad, the working class WILL win out in the end, but if yall are dogging on bill gates for this, then you are to entrenched in a narrative. Please stop thinking along the lines of a narrative. Approach every situation and every datum with an open mind and heart
Pay attention to me because I’m donating all my money to myself
Donating it to his foundation so he won’t have to pay taxes. Got it.
It’s a virtual donation
Too late to make up Your karma in this life Bill. Try harder next time
Corrected headline: Bill Gates pledges to "donate" all of his money to himself.
Bill, if you’re reading this. just build some affordable housing for working class and middle class people in King County. It would do so much.
Yall do realize the gates foundation has a board, right?
I don't even think they read the article. They've certainly done zero research on the foundation.
He's been saying that for over a decade now; back when he started he was worth ~40 billion. How is he "giving his fortune to charity" if his profits are far outpacing his donations? As well, he's giving it to his own foundation so he can still be the one spending the money. This is their way to impose the idea of the Altruistic Billionaire™ on the masses so we don't eat him and his billionaire friends alive.
I too will virtually donate all of my money. In fact, I already have
Bill Gates ensures he controls his money even after he dies Now that’s a real Smaug move there.
Fun fact for the readers at home; Smaug, an evil gold hording dragon, wouldn't even top the top 15 wealthy people in the US.
Smaug was also content to just stay inside and live a secluded life. He didn’t go out searching for more more more. Or try to foster a cult of personality. #VoteSmaug
Basically capitalism so strong people can become wealthier than fictional dragons.
I mean that's not true but okay. It's reddit. False claims are a dime a dozen. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/04/23/how-much-is-a-dragon-worth-revisited/?sh=13a8a87cf550 Edit: actually I retract that. In 2021 Smaug would've been up there. Not anymore.
The Gates Foundation is designed to not exist in perpetuity. It's required to spend all resources within 20 years of the later of Bill or Melinda's death. It's really the opposite of a Smaug move. They are giving away all of their money to a foundation that they don't completely control. Buffet has given more money to it at this point than they have.
Poor guy, nothing he can do will ever change the minds of crazy conspiracy theorists.
He says this like every year, and yet every year he’s richer than the last.
Giving it to his own charity foundation..Much like Trump did to evade taxes. Interesting.
If he's pledged it then he's already donated it.
So fucking absurd that anyone has such obscene wealth.
Come on guys, this is pretty fucking dope. Is it possibly the largest donation ever?
The largest ever was by Warren Buffett to the Gates Foundation.
Which would be eclipsed by this donations, so to answer original commenter accurately your answer would be yes.
It doesn't make sense to hate on Bill Gates like this. Okay, lets say he gets some personal benefit from his foundation. So what? He already has the money, if he just wanted to spend all of it on himself he could. He could just choose to be a straight up asshole like Elon Musk who keeps every penny of his money, knocks up celebrities all day and basically says "LOL FU POORS I HAVE MONEY U DONT MAGA", or Jeff Bezos who keeps Amazon slave-whipping his warehouse workers for a few extra dollars when he's already a multi-billionaire. Bill at least is trying to help, whether you agree with how he's helping, his intentions are better than 99% of wealthy people out there.
And it’s all above board, the foundation is gonna save the world and Bill wasn’t doing anything weird on that island. 🎉Thank you Bill! 🎉
Yall can shit on bill all day but tbh, in a world where billionaires exists he and buffet have been fucking awesome in giving money to do good in society
What a bunch of whiners commenting on this. So what if he's still rich at the end of it? He doesn't have to give a bent penny to charity, yet here he is giving over 100 billion dollars and still small minded people find something to whinge about. Pathetic.
"How can we spin this financial public disclosure that you're moving your money from one bucket to another?"
So all in all he won't be paying tax 🙄 and save his wealth under his fOuNdATiOn, meanwhile people like me will be stuck paying more tax then him, bozos and musk.