Slashdot Log In
Billions Donated to Charity
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Jun 25, 2006 03:32 PM
from the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is dept.
from the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is dept.
Anonymous Philanthropist writes " Warren Buffet , the world's second-richest man, announced over the weekend that he will soon donate 85% of his entire net worth, weighing in at around $37 Billion, to charities, with over 80% of it going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This makes it the single largest monetary donation in history."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Informative)
Although, it's hard to believe that the timing is entirely coincidental... especially since Bill said he'd be leaving Microsoft over the next two years, and Warren said [cnn.com]:
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, personally, I think the death tax is the most fair tax possible. You can't take it with you anyways, and your heirs didn't earn it.
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say the same thing about any tax. And yes, there is a lot of pork out there, but there are also things that are genuinely necessary and useful to fund via taxes (I'm sure you can think of a few). If you want to live in a society without taxes, try Afghanistan or Sudan... of course you will still end up paying taxes, only to the local warlord instead of any kind of representative government.
Politicians should learn to operate within a real budget like the rest of us.
Indeed they should. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether there should be an estate tax, or even taxes in general.
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Historically death taxes have been used politically to prevent the build-up of power in family lines which would challenge the current ruling party. It's only a nice side effect that they get to use they money for their own purposes.
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the entitlement class (i.e. trust-fund babies) doesn't challenge the ruling party, they are the ruling party. How can you not see that? Don't you know who our President is?
Re:Before anyone asks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your last comment notwithstanding (because I mostly agree with it, except in situations of dire depression), the rest is an unfortunate simplification for something a little more complicated.
To me, the death tax, or in fact any tax that is levied more heavily towards those who are wealthier, is fair simply because wealthy people derive more benefit from each tax dollar spent proportionally than anyone else. Before you freak out and stop reading, consider:
A middle-class person who pays taxes to go to public school earns an education; a rich person who pays taxes to support a school gains...an educated and skilled workforce.
A middle-class person who pays car and gas taxes earns a road they may drive on; a rich person who pays those taxes gains...a transportation system that allows them to transport their company's goods to far-flung locations and markets.
And so forth. Any person who uses wealth to produce wealth (i.e. true Capitalists) are using the benefits of an infrastructure that most taxpayers can barely fathom. So, yeah, they get to pay a little more.
Awesome... (Score:5, Interesting)
--Andrew Carnegie
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly this sums up why a lot of the rich Barons give away their wealth when they get old. They know that they have screwed over people to get where they are. They know they can't take it with them. They try to pay penance before they die. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt all did the same thing. Now add Buffet and Gates to the list.
Too bad old man Walton wasn't so generous, he could have left a lot of (real) smiley faces behind.
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Interesting)
Erm, for every evil rich person who volunarily gives away their life's earnings, there are dozens who don't, who pass it down to their hiers, allowing them (if they choose so) to live a meaningless, non-contributing life, e.g. Paris Hilton.
To me, there is a scale of evil and a scale of good. Bill's business practices, to me, don't rate very high on the evil scale, while his philantrophy rates very high on the good scale. If I had a magic wand, and could remove Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviors, but at the expense of, say, halving the donations made by the Gates Foundation, I would no wave that wand.
Hope it was worth it? (Score:5, Funny)
No free rides (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo, sir.
Re:No free rides (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, he says
"I still believe in the philosophy - FORTUNE quoted me saying this 20 years ago - that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing."
A great quote, I think.
[The FORTUNE article was "Should You Leave It All to the Children?" Sept. 29, 1986.]
Re:No free rides (Score:5, Interesting)
——
Leaders / The United States [economist.com]
Inequality and the American Dream
Jun 15th 2006
From The Economist print edition
The world’s most impressive economic machine needs a little adjusting
IMAGE [economist.com]
MORE than any other country, America defines itself by a collective dream: the dream of economic opportunity and upward mobility. Its proudest boast is that it offers a chance of the good life to everybody who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. This ideal has made the United States the world’s strongest magnet for immigrants; it has also reconciled ordinary Americans to the rough side of a dynamic economy, with all its inequalities and insecurities. Who cares if the boss earns 300 times more than the average working stiff, if the stiff knows he can become the boss?
Look around the world and the supremacy of “the American model” might seem assured. No other rich country has so successfully harnessed the modern juggernauts of technology and globalisation. The hallmarks of American capitalism—a willingness to take risks, a light regulatory touch and sharp competition—have spawned enormous wealth. “This economy is powerful, productive and prosperous,” George Bush boasted recently, and by many yardsticks he is right. Growth is fast, unemployment is low and profits are fat. It is hardly surprising that so many other governments are trying to “Americanise” their economies—whether through the European Union’s Lisbon Agenda or Japan’s Koizumi reforms.
Yet many people feel unhappy about the American model—not least in the United States. Only one in four Americans believes the economy is in good shape. While firms’ profits have soared, wages for the typical worker have barely budged. The middle class—admittedly a vague term in America—feels squeezed. A college degree is no longer a passport to ever-higher pay. Now politicians are playing on these fears. From the left, populists complain about Mr Bush’s plutocratic friends exporting jobs abroad; from the right, nativists howl about immigrants wrecking the system.
A global argument
The debate about the American model echoes far beyond the nation’s shores. Europeans have long held that America does not look after its poor—a prejudice reinforced by the ghastly scenes after Hurricane Katrina. The sharp decline in America’s image abroad has much to do with foreign policy, but Americanisation has also become synonymous with globalisation. Across the rich world, global competition is forcing economies to become more flexible, often increasing inequality; Japan is one example (see article [economist.com]). The logic of many non-Americans is that if globalisation makes their economy more like America’s, and the American model is defective, then free trade and open markets must be bad.
This debate mixes up three arguments—about inequality, meritocracy and immigration. The word that America should worry about most is the one you hear least—meritocracy.
Begin with inequality. The flip-side of America’s economic dynamism is that it has become more unequal—but in a more complex way than fir
Copyrights (Score:5, Funny)
A radical rethink
Jan 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition
The best way to foster creativity in the digital age is to overhaul current copyright laws
IMAGE (Reuters) [economist.com]
CRITICS have derided a 1998 extension of American copyrights as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” because it stopped early images of the Disney company’s mascot from entering the public domain. But such laws, they argue, are no joke. Extending and strengthening copyrights, they claim, will help a handful of big corporations crush creativity in the digital age. On the contrary, say Hollywood studios and big record companies. Without stronger copyright protection, a wave of piracy will destroy their industries, depriving consumers everywhere of a broad choice of movies, music and books.
Last week America’s Supreme Court weighed into what is rapidly becoming a nasty worldwide battle about the scope and enforcement of copyrights, by rejecting a challenge to the 1998 law on constitutional grounds. But even as it upheld the law, the court expressed misgivings. Blistering dissents from two justices dismissed the 20-year extension of copyright as unwarranted, and even the majority’s opinion hinted that Congress’s decision may have been “unwise”.
The court’s ambivalence is understandable. The growing quarrel over copyright is just one of the many difficult issues thrown up by the spread of the internet and related technologies (see our survey of the internet society in this issue). But of all these issues, the copyright battle is becoming one of the most urgent, and bitterly fought, because it could yet determine the future character of cyberspace itself.
Both sides have a point. Digital piracy does indeed threaten to overwhelm so-called “content” industries. As the power and reach of the internet continue to grow, the illicit trading of perfect copies may well devastate the music, movie and publishing industries. The content industries want to protect themselves with anti-copying technology, backed by stronger laws. So far, they have been at loggerheads with technology firms about how to implement such schemes (see article [economist.com]). But a deal between Hollywood and Silicon Valley is likely eventually. Critics are right to fear that, when such a deal is struck, it will be in the interests of big firms, not the public.
A grand new bargain
The alternative is to return to the original purpose of copyright, something no national legislature has yet been willing to do. Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work. Over the past 50 years, as a result of heavy lobbying by content industries, copyright has grown to such ludicrous proportions that it now often inhibits rather than promotes the circulation of ideas, leaving thousands of old movies, records and books languishing behind a legal barrier. Starting from scratch today, no rational, disinterested lawmaker would agree to copyrights that extend to 70 years after an author’s death, now the norm in the developed world.
Digital technologies are not only making it easier to copy all sorts of works, but also sharply reducing the costs of creating or distributing them, and so also reducing the required incentives. The flood of free content on the internet has shown that most creators do not need incentives that stretch across generations. To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights would be enough. The 14-year term of the original 18th-centur
Re:No free rides (Score:5, Informative)
I believe he also said that he'd be giving the remaining 15% to charity when he died. Buffett is a pretty good guy, actually.
Regardless (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so wonderful! (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy to give money when you are rich (Score:5, Insightful)
41 And he sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the multitude putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums.
42 And a poor widow came, and put in two copper coins, which make a penny.
43 And he called his disciples to him, and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.
44 For they all contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living."
parent == sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly if those who have attained great wealth have done so via exploiting others then those wealthy deserve derision. But merely to be successful and powerful is not an indictment. The old camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle quote is often misinterpreted in the same way. The meaning of that passage is to point out that with wealth comes great power and with great power comes great temptation. So if you don't have the wealth/power, it may be easier for you to live a clean/good life (i.e. to pass into heaven).
Sensible CEO salary (Score:5, Interesting)
Puts the salaries of other less talented CEOs who demand far larger pay packets into perspective doesn't it?
Re:Sensible CEO salary (Score:5, Informative)
Gates shoots the moon (Score:5, Interesting)
He and Buffett will be remembered as great Americans for their charity, while his past role as founder and leader of Microsoft will be debated for decades.
Diversification works for funding agencies too (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the strengths of the US academic science funding model is that the government tends hedge its bets by setting up multiple agencies with overlapping agendas. For example, in engineering, there's DARPA, there's the NSF, several of the armed forces have their own quasi-independent funding arms, larger states like California have significant grant programs, etc.
Yes, there is the inefficiency of duplicated administration costs. But the upside is, a truly good idea has a better chance of finding funding, even if the program manager at one of the agencies is not sold on the idea. This lessons the risk of a game-changing idea going unfunded.
Buffet would have been better off setting up an independent foundation making independent funding decisions, rather than doubling BMGs bets, especially since BMG really has enough money to pursue multiple large goals.
Just One Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
While Warren may trust Bill and Melinda to use the money wisely (he is older and probably anticipates dying before them), what happens when Bill and Melinda are gone too? What do we end up with? Well, we could end up with another Ford Foundation. In other words, it could end up straying from some of the common-sense approaches applied now, such as distributing mosquito nets to prevent malaria. It could degenerate into an organization with a questionable agenda, or an organization that simply parcels out donations to other orgs, the primary results of which are (though probably not intentionally) to finance the lifestyles of the "chattering class" in Washington DC and various other world capitols. So, Bill and Melinda, while you still have time, you need to figure out a way to keep that from happening. Poor people can't eat UN studies, and no "blue ribbon commission" ever swatted a single mosquito. When the visionaries pass on, it's inevitable that the committees take over. Maybe that's why Carnegie built libraries in his own lifetime. Today, many are still in use, and there's only so much lunacy that can take place in a building, whereas a monied organization can create no end of politically-oriented drivel.
What sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
In light of recent events (Score:5, Funny)
You heard it here first.
Re:Nice but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a MS appologist, just thought that was interesting.
Re:Nice but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a long tradition of this (supporting charities through monopolistic profits), such as the Carnegie Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Ford Foundation, etc. Bill and Melinda are following in the footsteps of their capitalist predecessors.
The question of whether a charity should accept money from donors with questionable business ethics has been long debated and never resolved. George Bernard Shaw wrote several plays about this question, and he didn't have an answer. His best was probably Major Barbara, in which the Salvation Army must decide whether or not to accept support from a gin distiller and an arms manufacturer.
No, it IS funny. And you can't be serious. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let's see here... the Gates foundation does things like fix up millions of kids with innoculations they wouldn't otherwise get, bringsd truckloads of networking infrastructure to places like New Orleans when the local government doesn't have a chance of procuring it on their own that fast, provides millions for scholarships, and so on. Are you actually suggesting that if Netscape had managed to make a real go at being a stand-alone business, or if BeOS had thrived, that there wouldn't be no place for the billions in philanthropy that Gates is doing?
Are are you certain that part of Netscape's plans included clinics in Africa? Or that despite Novell being largely annoying in so many ways, they would have somehow also gotten into fund raising if they'd pursuaded more people to stick with their NOS? You're trying to set up a false dichotomy just because you like demonizing Bill.
Re:No, it IS funny. And you can't be serious. (Score:5, Informative)
You're falling into the classic "the pie is only so big" trap. Do you really think that if Bill Gates and MS had never happened (likewise with, say, IBM or Sun or anyone/everyone else) that poor people would have somehow had a share of his billions in their pockets, instead? They don't call it "making" money for nothing: you do something people want and are willing to buy, and that creates demand and sets a price. Those people do the same with what they do for a living (or don't do it, if they don't produce anything, of course). The point is that vast fortunes have been made by lots of people because of MS's economic activity and innovation (yes, innovation - despite the groupthink, they do some of that, and their marketing vigor is no small bit all by itself, and is something that lots of other less-innovative companies copy, BTW). Some of that income has been earned by people like school bus drivers with some of their 401k in a mutual fund that has invested in MS's future.
This notion that the only reason Michael Jordon is rich is because someone else is now poor... or that Michael Moore's $200M from making his silly "documentary" is money that those movie-goers would have otherwise have used to buy applesauce for starving babies... it's nonsense. No matter how much people resent successful businesses (or just what their thriftier neighbor is able to buy for not having wasted so much on stupid crap), it's usually just that: frustration at not having cowboyed up and done the same sort of work themselves, and created value where it didn't exist before. The really busy people make the pie bigger. We can split hairs over whether or not Netscape might one day have made some piece of that pie bigger than MS made it - but would you say that Netscape's early pile of cash and investment somehow made poor people poorer? Or that Red Hat does?
Charity as a tool (Score:5, Interesting)
First off it's not real charity.
Much of it is simply targeted to block F/OSS [zdnet.com.au]. Even the actual charity parts deal with dumping millions on ineffective, corrective treatments involving expensive medications and getting some level of matching funding from the local governments. And those expensive medications come from big pharmas which, surprise, Gates is heavily invested in.
There is also a strong element of PR in the Foundation [salon.com]: since 1995 MS has had various plans on how to direct corporate giving in ways that guarantee the greatest returns to the company. We've also been seeing loads and loads of vanity puff-pieces appearing across a wide variety of news publications. The NYT even publishes ones written by (or ghost written for) Chairman Gates himself.
The point here is that in this case it appears that charity is simply being used as tool to affect the market in ways that lobbying and plain old sales can't. It allows individual institutions or regions to be targeted quickly with a level of speed that defending governments and businesses have trouble reacting to.
It's seems that with this infusion of funding from Buffet, MS, through the Gates Foundation, crosses the line from being a lobbying entity to being fully a political/ideological movement.
Welcome to the next level.
So the "Humanity Prize" (Score:5, Insightful)
come on
Re:X-Prize? M-Prize? Granger Prize? Any Prize? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because life is not some reality tv show where a conclusion is needed within 12 1 hour episodes with a final live show for that extra ratings hit.
Doing "good work" is a long and slow process and hard enough without quarterly process reports.
That took, like, what? Two minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates isn't a nazi but he uses nazi tactics? Microsoft is evil? WTF??? My parents occasionally give me presents too. Nazi tactics? My boss runs a business that benefits 90% of people who uses her product, but has many unhappy customers due to a bad service ethic...is her company evil? Dude, get some perspective.
Good people do good things. And evil things. Bad people do bad things, and good things. It is not the result that assigns the morality, it is the approbation of the means, the intent, and total content of the person's character. I submit to you that you know basically none of these things about Bill Gates.
Oh, and p.s., Bill Gates, the person, is not isomorphic with Microsoft, the company; hasn't been since the halcyon days of, well, never. The company, if a company can be conceived as a group of people, was always more than him. I also take issue with the idea that a corporation, as an entity in itself, has a moral valence. People are good or evil; corporations are merely a mechanism for a group of people to do something efficiently in a capitalist system.
Re:That took, like, what? Two minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I take issue with the idea that a corporation should have the same legal rights as a person.
When you can persuade the law to stop treating corporations like people, I'll accept that they don't need to act like people (i.e. be subject to having their behavior assessed on moral grounds).
Re:Warren... DUDE.. spare a dime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Convincing people to use an annoying product on the one hand, saving thousands of lives a year, proabably hundresed of thousands a year in a few decades on the other. None of the people who's lives are saved by the Foundations efforts give a crap about Windows.
Re:Warren... DUDE.. spare a dime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Planned Parenthood (Score:5, Funny)
rj
Re:$37 billion is a lot to give to charity, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, Mr. Troll.
Please try a little bit of reality in there, somewhere. B-H does not provide insurance to homeowners, or own companies that do. They re-insured insurance companies so that those had anything like the financial backing to even be in the insurance business at all. If you think you can raise the capital to start offering insurance to people who live below sea level in a hurricane zone, only charge them a few dollars a month because that's all they can afford, and then pay out enormous amounts to the residents of thousands of square miles while staying solvent enough to continue to cover the cars, businesses, and other customers you have all around the country... go for it.
Oh, and just in case you forgot: private insurace never covers floods. That's the government flood insurance program you're thinking about. Warren Buffet has absolutely nothing to do with that, never did, and never could. Just relax, have a nice cold Coke, and cool down before you post again.
Re:Kudos, but a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:85%! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't "trust" the Gates Foundation to spend their money as you would see fit? Well, whoop-dee-doo!
Wow, I knew that slashdotters were an arrogant lot (you know, the whole "I know everything there is to know about tech, I'm God's gift to the tech industry, I look down upon anyone that accepts money for programming, blah blah blah" mindset), but to question how others go about their own charitable work? That is the height of arrogance. Look, I know it's very painful for you Gates haters to hear about his charitable work, but grow up. I really doubt that Gates gives a damn whether you "trust" they way he donates money to various causes. If you haven't contributed to the foundation, then it's not your place to "trust" the way it's spent, as it's none of your business. You don't like the causes that Gates contributes to? Then don't contribute to his foundation, simple. Good grief.
Re:seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
The People (tm) would vote for fuel subsidies and tax cuts. Just like they do every time they can.
I already "donated" several times by buying copies of Windows.
Purchase != Donation.
As it happens I also give every month to Concern Worldwide via direct debit and to put it bluntly, I would rather I was able to allocate my wealth to charities of my choosing rather than letting Gates do it for me ....
Then do that. But don't be hypocritical and criticise him for not letting you choose where your "wealth to charities" can go while simultaneously saying you should be able to dictate to him where his "wealth to charities" is apportioned.
Re:seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly.
They'd put their hands out and vote "Me me me me"
Re:seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Grants are generally structured so that half of the money they make gets reinvested in the grant, and half goes out to the cause. So a $1 bil grant with professional managers might make 8% this yeat, 4% gets reinvested, and the other 4% goes out to scholarships. Obviously, $40 million should get more than 20 students a full ride, but the initial years have marketing costs and structural costs that have to come out of that 4%. The point, however, is that this grant goes on indefinately growing, and when its giving out >100 full rides a year in a couple of years, it will definitely be a major source of money to the scholarship system.
But while it's easy to be dazzled by the sheer numbers here I'm not at all sure that I trust the B&MG Foundation to spend their money in a way that would be selected by the masses
Sheer numbers aren't the important part of non-profits, its the management. Lots of people get into the non-profit sector thinking its not business, and without adequate budgetary and fiscal discipline. BMGF is notable because it has excellent management, and it isnt one of those charities where most of the money disappears, or is spent inefficiently. I hope you can at least respect that.
Re:Fool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fool! (Score:5, Insightful)
A wild guess: you are healthy and non of your children have died of starvation?
You failed ECON101. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think he had a Scrooge McDuck-style vault filled with gold doubloons? He's an investor for Pete's sake, which by definition means that his money has been out circulating through the world to finance other peoples' dreams. When you say that such a man is worth $n dollars, you really mean that his outstanding loans are approximately worth $n dollars.
Have you ever read about how well such societies tend to do historically?
What's wrong with just saying thanks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's ingratitude for you.
Rich people hoard all their people and they're labelled greedy.
A man works all his life, and finally, nearing retirement gives away almost all his fortunes and he is also looked down upon.
You just can't win in this world...