4 ms·

> In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't d

by zajd 10y ago

> In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't deserve to be lauded for donating a small fraction of the wealth he'll never need to survive. It's the equivalent of a grocery store clerk donating $10 to the salvation army. I don't see news articles written about them. Hell, the poor consistently donate a greater portion of their wealth than the rich.

peller 10y ago
But it's not equivalent, because there's this thing about wealth: Scenario A: Let's say he donates all he's worth today, minus what he needs to live out his days and provide for his family. Call it $80B. Awesome. Potential downsides: giant influx of cash invites corruption/skimming etc, and it also doesn't promote self-sustainability (from the recipients' cash flow perspective). Scenario B: He leaves the bulk of his money invested, accruing 5% annually. (But since Ray Dalio is mentioned as a partner, it might be closer to 10% or 15%) That's at least $3.5B annually (after 15% capital gains tax). He's 61 years old; call it 25 years of life left. So now we're at 3.5B * 25y = 87.5B. As a very conservative estimate (5%, no compound interest). AND, he's still got his original $80B investment "in the bank." The choice is obvious.
Vraxx 10y ago
Even if we accept the premise that he doesn't deserve any credit for his donations because it is his duty to society, I still find that it is more useful to admire and encourage this behavior from a practical standpoint. At the end of the day, after paying his taxes and nobody can legally lay claim to any of the money and wealth he possesses, he has no obligation to give any of that to anyone else or use it for any purpose whatsoever. So if admiring and applauding billionaires for donating even small portions of their wealth encourages billionaires to do so, that's a cost I'm sure society is willing to bear. This completely sidesteps the fact that not donating all of his wealth immediately allows him to potentially grow his wealth in other ways while still donating an objectively large number of resources.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by zajd 10y ago

peller 10y ago

But it's not equivalent, because there's this thing about wealth: Scenario A: Let's say he donates all he's worth today, minus what he needs to live out his days and provide for his family. Call it $80B. Awesome. Potential downsides: giant influx of cash invites corruption/skimming etc, and it also doesn't promote self-sustainability (from the recipients' cash flow perspective). Scenario B: He leaves the bulk of his money invested, accruing 5% annually. (But since Ray Dalio is mentioned as a partner, it might be closer to 10% or 15%) That's at least $3.5B annually (after 15% capital gains tax). He's 61 years old; call it 25 years of life left. So now we're at 3.5B * 25y = 87.5B. As a very conservative estimate (5%, no compound interest). AND, he's still got his original $80B investment "in the bank." The choice is obvious.

Vraxx 10y ago

Even if we accept the premise that he doesn't deserve any credit for his donations because it is his duty to society, I still find that it is more useful to admire and encourage this behavior from a practical standpoint. At the end of the day, after paying his taxes and nobody can legally lay claim to any of the money and wealth he possesses, he has no obligation to give any of that to anyone else or use it for any purpose whatsoever. So if admiring and applauding billionaires for donating even small portions of their wealth encourages billionaires to do so, that's a cost I'm sure society is willing to bear. This completely sidesteps the fact that not donating all of his wealth immediately allows him to potentially grow his wealth in other ways while still donating an objectively large number of resources.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]