5 ms·

Read: has donated shares of Microsoft to his own foundation. Maybe we can give Gates the benefit of the doubt but for everyone else, this is just a tax scheme.

slackoverflower 9y ago
You do realize his foundation helped eradicate polio worldwide. Some of you HNers can't give people a break.
- sametmax 9y ago
  We do realize their PR tell you that. What I know, however, is that I've been missioned in Africa by the gate foundation and that most money is wasted. Most stats are bullshitted. What I know is that Gates have been misbehaving most of his life and that suddenly he is giving so much money he won from this time. What I see is that a lot of people like you are very eager to forgive everything he has done, all the benefits he got from it, just because he is giving back what he took. It's because of this that we can't improve our systems. A bit of PR and voila, all misdeeds are forgiven. Bad guys become saints. And people like you will spend their energy defend the story.
  - jimbokun 9y ago
    I didn't like the way Microsoft acted as a monopoly, but the tech industry managed to survive and escape Microsoft hegemony. Microsoft made some terrible software, but Office is actually very good overall and can argue has led to real productivity gains for many businesses. (I realize this can be debated endlessly.) Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very seriously and is having a real impact on improving people's lives. I'm sure his foundations are not perfect and have problems, but I also believe they are a net benefit to the world. Interesting to contrast with someone like Steve Jobs. His company arguably produced much better products impacting (shockingly) many more people, but he didn't give a dime to charity (as far as I know). Could have long philosophical arguments about who had the more positive impact on humanity overall.
    - FilterSweep 9y ago
      > Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very seriously The problem is that he controls that narrative.
      - richev 9y ago
        What alternative do you propose?
        sametmax 9y ago
        Remembering the tons of materials telling you otherwise from various unrelated sources + your experience with them in general ?
    - xenadu02 9y ago
      FYI: that’s not true. Jobs never wanted publicity for his charitable efforts. The bulk of his fortune went to his foundation when he died. His widow manages it now, basically doing the same thing as Gates.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      You don't remember MS lying, cheating, doing illegal things and corrupting governments ? See, that's the problem here. You have completely forgotten how bad it was. The fact the industry and society did well despite that is not relevant.
      - jimbokun 9y ago
        I do remember, and felt pretty much the same way you do now at the time. Over the years, my views towards Microsoft have softened.
- revelation 9y ago
  Maybe we can give Gates the benefit of the doubt
efa 9y ago
What!? Do you realize what the foundation does with the money? They aren't spending the money on vacation homes for Bill & Melinda. They are spending on eradicating malaria and stuff like that. You know, good things for the world. How is this a tax scheme?
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  It's the precedent, really. Donate $1B, and only $100M is used for the actual solution of the problem while $900M sits accumulating more wealth. The vacation home comes 7-8 years later, after the money has been "washed" a few times. This would be like me automating commits at a startup with some hardcoded boilerplate commit messages to make it look like I was working the full "expected" day while in actuality, I was completing everything in 20 minutes. In the end of the day - malaria is being eradicated. This is GOOD. However, your "Foundation" actually profited while doing it and sets the false narrative that it took sacrifice to achieve such means. This is disingenuous in two ways: (1) A $100M task is now seen as a $1B task. (2) Brings into question the charity ideals. We, as peasants, are supposed to look up to this sizable donation if we follow media sentiment. I donate to charities and kickstarters of my own - the difference is I'm poor and I'm not making money off these donations. Its an actual sacrifice. There are sites like charitynavigator that help those who would like to donate check how valid a cause really is, but when you are talking "Foundations" where the amounts are in figures
  - TorKlingberg 9y ago
    This makes no sense. If the foundation is "accumulating more wealth", that just means they have more money to spend on on good causes later. Nobody can take the money out for themselves.
    - FilterSweep 9y ago
      > that just means they have more money to spend on on good causes later. > to spend on on good causes later. And you know the money is being used for this, how?

slackoverflower 9y ago

You do realize his foundation helped eradicate polio worldwide. Some of you HNers can't give people a break.

sametmax 9y ago
We do realize their PR tell you that. What I know, however, is that I've been missioned in Africa by the gate foundation and that most money is wasted. Most stats are bullshitted. What I know is that Gates have been misbehaving most of his life and that suddenly he is giving so much money he won from this time. What I see is that a lot of people like you are very eager to forgive everything he has done, all the benefits he got from it, just because he is giving back what he took. It's because of this that we can't improve our systems. A bit of PR and voila, all misdeeds are forgiven. Bad guys become saints. And people like you will spend their energy defend the story.
- jimbokun 9y ago
  I didn't like the way Microsoft acted as a monopoly, but the tech industry managed to survive and escape Microsoft hegemony. Microsoft made some terrible software, but Office is actually very good overall and can argue has led to real productivity gains for many businesses. (I realize this can be debated endlessly.) Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very seriously and is having a real impact on improving people's lives. I'm sure his foundations are not perfect and have problems, but I also believe they are a net benefit to the world. Interesting to contrast with someone like Steve Jobs. His company arguably produced much better products impacting (shockingly) many more people, but he didn't give a dime to charity (as far as I know). Could have long philosophical arguments about who had the more positive impact on humanity overall.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    > Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very seriously The problem is that he controls that narrative.
    - richev 9y ago
      What alternative do you propose?
      - sametmax 9y ago
        Remembering the tons of materials telling you otherwise from various unrelated sources + your experience with them in general ?
  - xenadu02 9y ago
    FYI: that’s not true. Jobs never wanted publicity for his charitable efforts. The bulk of his fortune went to his foundation when he died. His widow manages it now, basically doing the same thing as Gates.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    You don't remember MS lying, cheating, doing illegal things and corrupting governments ? See, that's the problem here. You have completely forgotten how bad it was. The fact the industry and society did well despite that is not relevant.
    - jimbokun 9y ago
      I do remember, and felt pretty much the same way you do now at the time. Over the years, my views towards Microsoft have softened.
revelation 9y ago
Maybe we can give Gates the benefit of the doubt

efa 9y ago

What!? Do you realize what the foundation does with the money? They aren't spending the money on vacation homes for Bill & Melinda. They are spending on eradicating malaria and stuff like that. You know, good things for the world. How is this a tax scheme?

FilterSweep 9y ago
It's the precedent, really. Donate $1B, and only $100M is used for the actual solution of the problem while $900M sits accumulating more wealth. The vacation home comes 7-8 years later, after the money has been "washed" a few times. This would be like me automating commits at a startup with some hardcoded boilerplate commit messages to make it look like I was working the full "expected" day while in actuality, I was completing everything in 20 minutes. In the end of the day - malaria is being eradicated. This is GOOD. However, your "Foundation" actually profited while doing it and sets the false narrative that it took sacrifice to achieve such means. This is disingenuous in two ways: (1) A $100M task is now seen as a $1B task. (2) Brings into question the charity ideals. We, as peasants, are supposed to look up to this sizable donation if we follow media sentiment. I donate to charities and kickstarters of my own - the difference is I'm poor and I'm not making money off these donations. Its an actual sacrifice. There are sites like charitynavigator that help those who would like to donate check how valid a cause really is, but when you are talking "Foundations" where the amounts are in figures
- TorKlingberg 9y ago
  This makes no sense. If the foundation is "accumulating more wealth", that just means they have more money to spend on on good causes later. Nobody can take the money out for themselves.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    > that just means they have more money to spend on on good causes later. > to spend on on good causes later. And you know the money is being used for this, how?