“I will give away virtually all my wealth”: The Microsoft billionaire has pledged his foundation will distribute $US200 billion over the next 20 years.
  • storm@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    231·
    3 days ago

    Can we quit running billionaire’s PR campaigns for them? These people are not our friends, and giving back a portion of what they stole (always in the most public way) doesn’t change that

  • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    3 days ago

    To his kids and their charities? Reminder that Bill gates is every bit as exploitative and evil, he didn’t become a billionaire by paying fair wages. This is all PR to try and save his reputation as everyone turns on billionaires. Like buffet, he just shuffles his money to his kids and calls it charity

  • madcaesar@lemmy.worldEnglish
    261·
    3 days ago

    Don’t give it away.

    If you really want to help people, buy media, buy politicans and get REAL change that will actually last.

    You giving money to random charities does fuck all, except give you tax breaks.

    We need change in the political system so that we don’t need fucking charities for basic needs.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
    274·
    3 days ago

    Sorry Bill but it’s too late and not enough. I still want to eat the rich and that includes you.

    Although I‘ll admit if all billionaires did this instead of - oh you know - investing in fascism and actively dismembering democracy globally I might feel different about this. But as things stand I am done with billionaires. We cannot coexist. Simple as that.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      103·
      3 days ago

      Isn’t he literally the only billionaire who has been donating a lot over the years?

      But yes, fully agree. There’s no reason any person should be that rich. They’re cause and symptom of a fucked-up system

      • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        142·
        3 days ago

        How did he get to be a billionaire? By standing on the throats of others, he could not have created that wealth without harm.

          • CalipherJones@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            3 days ago

            I think a big problem with our financial system is people with wealth have the ability to siphon wealth out of companies through the stock market. Ultimately that company is paying shareholders with profit generated by the workers. A billion invested with just 5% dividends would take many lifetimes of constant work for an individual to pay off a single time, let alone every year. Yet that’s how it is. Billionaires get richer and richer and their blood sucking proboscis gets bigger and bigger.

            We live in a financially feudal society where the Lord’s have no responsibility to tend to the land.

      • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        3 days ago

        Absolutely not. I think others give a bit less, but they’re just not public about it.

        Warren Buffet makes $5B annual donations to charities. He’s an investor, so if he gave it all out as a lump sum, he wouldn’t be able to make more to donate next year (and aside total received, many charities work better with consistent yearly funding)

      • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        McKenzie Scott (Bezos Ex-Wife) is doing what she can to get the divorce money to where it normally doesn’t land, so if we eat the rich, i’d currently say she’s off limits, pending good behavior.

  • Crashumbc@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7611·
    4 days ago

    Bullshit, he’s “transferring” his wealth to his own charity for tax reasons…

    It’s a trick to protect his money for his children.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      234·
      3 days ago

      Not according to the opening sentence?

      The Gates Foundation plans to give away $US200 billion ($313 billion) over the next 20 years before shutting down entirely in 2045

      • Dragonstaff@leminal.spaceEnglish
        244·
        3 days ago

        Sure. The Gates Foundation gives the money to the Totally Not A Tax Dodge foundation which quietly pays the Gates kids as much as they want. I’m sure it will be more elegant than that, but that’s the basic grift.

        Meanwhile, Gates uses his reputation as a philanthropist, and all the soft power from controlling billions to further his own interests and cement his personal philosophy as the only option.

        The charity means that the American people have no control at all over how the money is spent, so the plebians have to beg at their door for money to be used in the way that Gates says it must be used.

          • Dragonstaff@leminal.spaceEnglish
            11·
            3 days ago

            You’re asking me to cite a source for Gates’s donation to the “Not a Tax Dodge Foundation”? After I said "I’m sure it will be more elegant than that, but that’s the basic grift. ”

            Please go look up the term “hypothetical”. You might want to investigate the Onion too.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              No, I’m asking for articles about payments made from the Gates foundation to the Gates children.

              It’s the first I’ve heard of this and I’d like more details.

        • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          I will say, the business of fake charities is so common that it does sound almost preferable to make their own, and actually understand where aid is needed in the world.

          It’s an old topic for me, but I do remember hearing about the B&MGF working on clean water solutions in other parts of the world.

          Also; Warren Buffett recently pledged to the charity, while having his own trust for his kids. That action wouldn’t make sense if the charity just existed to protect family.

        • vxx@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          3 days ago

          He was anti-competetive towards Netscape navigator, admitted guilt and paid for it, since then he’s putting his money where his mouth is. Anything else I left out?

          Microsoft has gone to shit after he left.

          Lemmy sounds exactly like magas

  • whome@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    Using all his money and influence to advocate taxing the super rich significantly would be helpful.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        Buffet has rescinded his giving in favour of leaving a trust to kids…who are senior citizens. If you cant stand on your own by then, you dont deserve to make it.

        • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          His son recently gave half a billion to Ukraine, out of pocket. I get the impression they At least have their minds on the right side of history.

          What would be great is if the trust is designed to be given to charities, rather than for his kin’s space flights. But they may do that anyway.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        33·
        3 days ago

        I don’t believe there is a spectrum at all. If you keep going to get to that level of wealth you have a fucked up mind. Most people would be content and stop.

        Now I could see that if you make something and go from nothing to selling for a billion then maybe, but even then I’d want rid of most of that wealth as I don’t need that much.

        • Robbity@lemm.eeEnglish
          32·
          3 days ago

          Well if you just manage your money properly, it grows. I would argue it’s better to do that and give you money away rather than not manage your money properly. In the end, more money goes to good causes that way.

          If they “stopped” that would mean leaving their money in a bank account sleeping. The only entity benefiting from this would be the bank.

  • TheDeadlySquid@lemm.eeEnglish
    133·
    3 days ago

    Still leaves him with just over $1 billion, enough for his great great grandchildren to live comfortably forever. Don’t be fooled, this is about tax breaks, not charity. Once you have over a billion in wealth, you’ve won the game of life. There’s nothing you can’t buy, there’s nothing you can do.

    • comfy@lemmy.mlEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      Don’t be fooled, this is about tax breaks, not charity.

      And don’t forget, this is about laundering reputation. Hence the whole “in 20 years” crap.

    • CalipherJones@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      Truly a financial genius to give up 99% of his wealth for tax breaks…

      I figure he donates to his own charity and still has a lot of control over the money either way.

      I wonder what thatd look like on his taxes.

    • lemonaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      Once you have over a billion in wealth, you’ve won the game of life.

      More like the game of 100 lives. I’m using $10m as a gross estimation for what a person living comfortably needs to spend throughout their whole life. Sure it varies by country and other factors, but this amount should more than cover a lifestyle in which you literally don’t need to worry about a thing. No need for sketchy investments either: just stuff it in a deposit and you could live off the interest alone, but that’s assuming you have all the money at once.

  • Zacryon@feddit.orgEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    My tired brain read “99 cent” at first and I thought it was an article by The Onion.

  • rational_lib@lemmy.worldEnglish
    233·
    3 days ago

    Bill Gates deserves a lot of shit for creating the original big tech monopoly. But I’ll say this about him: At least he’s not hoarding his money to build a secretive compound to hold hundreds of kids he spawned with right wing crazy women for the purpose of creating a future master race.

    • ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      31·
      3 days ago

      Yes, but, why does he have to spread the spend now over 20 years? After which he still has like a billion left. If he gave that all away, those 99% right now, he still would be a billionaire AND have maximum impact with his money. Sorry, he can’t be excused either. Good intention but again there is some ulterior motive behind this “slow” spending. Like always.

  • Null User Object@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15019·
    4 days ago

    Tax Eat the rich!

    Here’s the thing. Even if he lives up to this promise, it’s still him deciding where that money should go, and it won’t be towards long term support of social safety nets for the commoners. He should just have been paying his fair share of taxes all along and into the future.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.caEnglish
      8417·
      4 days ago

      Based on current spending, it will most likely be spent getting drinkable water to the majority of the world’s population.

      I don’t like how he got his money, but he’s been reasonably responsible with it since his divorce.

      That said, he has over $113b dollars. If he gives away 99% of it, he’ll still have over a billion dollars.

      • Draces@lemmy.worldEnglish
        39·
        4 days ago

        Behind the bastards has a good two parter on him. I wouldn’t say he’s been responsible with it.

      • Bronzebeard@lemm.eeEnglish
        191·
        4 days ago

        He’s been buying up huge swathes of farm land in the middle of the country. Not everything he’s doing has been philanthropy

      • brachiosaurus@mander.xyzEnglish
        121·
        4 days ago

        There are books on him exposing how half of his charities are frauds. Given his past records humanity should be wary of putting this man anywhere near anything drinkable or useful

    • madeinthebackseat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      242·
      4 days ago

      …or paying his employees more.

      Funny how we don’t have a popular term for the portion of an employee’s deserved wage that turns into “record shareholder profit.”

      Imagine if all corporations were required to put a line item on check stubs showing how much you made them.

    • Almacca@aussie.zoneEnglish
      51·
      4 days ago

      While I’m all for taxing the rich more than the current system of not at all, I think in the long term it would be better to instigate or modify systems so that we don’t get these exceedingly greedy people going unchecked in the first place. How about a cap on the ratio between the highest and the lowest paid employee in any organisation for a start? Boss wants a raise, everyone gets a raise.

      • comfy@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        I think in the long term it would be better to instigate or modify systems so that we don’t get these exceedingly greedy people going unchecked in the first place.

        Absolutely.

        The problem is that we live in liberal-democracies [as in, a certain type of democracy] where systematic mass media bias and financial corruption of the political system are ingrained from the start. It’s not merely coincidence that almost every country has ended up like this. It’s the inevitable trend of capitalism, a system that rewards corruption and that can’t be leashed without worker power.

        The bottom line is that such reforms would be nice, and I support any viable effort at making them happen, but at the end of the day, we’re asking the owning class to give themselves less money. And unless you have mass worker-class power to threaten them, their answer is going to be “no” with a dash of “protesting is now more illegal”. Historically speaking, the owning class don’t give up any serious concessions without going to violent war.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      4 days ago

      Yeah but that’s communism, so no way it would’ve ever happened. The average American voter thinks they can become billionaires some day.

      • Skvlp@lemm.eeEnglish
        71·
        4 days ago

        Does the word communism even have meaning any more, or is it just something to yell when confused people get confused?

          • Skvlp@lemm.eeEnglish
            31·
            4 days ago

            I know, I caught the silent /s at the end of your post :) You are referring to people who don’t use it sarcastically - does the word communism have meaning left when they use it?

            • comfy@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              Honestly, it might just be creeping closer to “social”. As in, concerning a society. Things like bike lanes and healthcare.

        • comfy@lemmy.mlEnglish
          21·
          3 days ago

          Communism is a word with different legitimate meanings and it sound like this comment is conflating two of them.

          • The communist movement, guided by the various theories within Marxist schools of thought. [as you can see, there’s a huge range of ideologies in this school of thought, and a few different ones have become ruling governments, and any claiming to be the one true ‘real communism’ are being arrogant and ignorant]

          • Communist society, a society with a socialist mode of production replacing the capitalist mode of production, which those theories are trying to achieve. This has not been accomplished by a post-industrial society.

            • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.worldEnglish
              11·
              3 days ago

              Do you feel like this has been a meaningful addition to anything? Are you capable of discussing without attacking your opponents?

              • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comEnglish
                2·
                3 days ago
                1. Thats an excellent question. Do you apply it sometime? 2. Do you think youre somehow entitled to spew nonsense and not be called out for it?
  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zoneEnglish
    161·
    3 days ago

    Though it’s better than hoarding, a billionaire can’t even give away their money without wielding a dangerous amount of influence on all of our lives.