4 ms·

Pledging to give away so much of your wealth has interesting side benefits. You get to keep your money out of the hands of the government and if you're donating

Pledging to give away so much of your wealth has interesting side benefits. You get to keep your money out of the hands of the government and if you're donating to your own charity then you also get to keep your family in control of the money. I definitely don't mean to diminish the contribution of the Gates Foundation though. I often hear that they're one of the good ones.

melling 9y ago
Howard Hughes Medical Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...
elmar 9y ago
probably the money is more wisely spent by the private institution than the government.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  The argument usually is that by donating your money to a charity that you control instead of paying taxes you effectively undermine democracy.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    The majority of federal income tax receipts go to military spending [+] (ignore social security and healthcare, those are funded out of compulsory payroll taxes, which is distinct from federal income tax); you're doing more social good (in general) by diverting wealth to charities that promote social welfare than giving that money to the federal government (I'm sad to say). Sometimes democracy is wrong. More social programs, less F35s. [+] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Your own source shows defense as 17% of overall spending. As a percentage of income tax receipts, the number for military spending is closer to 25%. See, for example, https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        It's 21% for FY 2016 (which is a percentage based on including social security and medicare, which as I mentioned, are not part of federal income tax receipts; the percentage ). 2017 isn't done yet; I'm not using an estimate with an administration going sideways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... "Military budget of the United States. ... The budget funds 4 branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget." Yes, we're spending that much on the military. Yes, its pathetic. Yes, its why its best to avoid (not evade, which is illegal) paying income tax whenever possible. I prefer my welfare programs not enable the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in a foreign country, but that's just me.
        zaroth 9y ago
        OK, that is bizarre; visit usgovernmentspending.com site on mobile and the chart says US FY2016 spending on Defense is 17%. On desktop, the chart says 21%.... In any case, as a percentage of federal income tax it does seem that defense is around 25%. "U.S. discretionary spending" is simply spending which is authorized annually instead of authorized by laws spanning multiple years. It doesn't seem to be a highly meaningful categorization if you are arguing about where your dollars are going -- the dollars don't care what year they were authorized to be spent. Separating out payroll vs income taxes -- in other words recognizing the different tax rates for "earned" vs. "unearned" income -- is not entirely irrelevant, because dollar for dollar your capital gains taxes will be spent more on defense than welfare, but it's still no where near 50% of your capital gains taxes being spent on defense.
    - Chathamization 9y ago
      If you're concerned about military spending, your best course of action is voting against politicians that want to increase defense spending. Lower taxes on the wealthy doesn't keep the government from spending on defense, it just runs up a deficit that is then used as an excuse to cut non-defense spending (research, infrastructure, food for the impoverished, etc.).
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > If you're concerned about military spending, your best course of action is voting against politicians that want to increase defense spending. I'm only one person, and my one vote carries little weight. > Lower taxes on the wealthy doesn't keep the government from spending on defense, it just runs up a deficit that is then used as an excuse to cut non-defense spending (research, infrastructure, food for the impoverished, etc.). I'm not against higher taxes, but I'm also not against the wealthy avoiding taxes in the case of Gates and Buffett (and for other reasons, Elon Musk, using his wealth to drive progress forward) when their wealth are going to social causes. If you can't adjust how the federal gov budgets, starve the beast until competent representatives are in office while doing good for those in need.
    - mk89 9y ago
      It depends on how democracy is implemented. It's just a tool afterall... In Europe you still get more social programs, less f35... (not everywhere though).
    - Veelox 9y ago
      Numbers for the 2016 Fiscal Year, all in Billions Pensions 996.0 Health Care 1,121.2 Education 126.2 Defense 829.1 Welfare 377.2 Protection 37.7 Transportation 92.4 General Government 52.5 Other Spending 79.2 Interest 240.0 Total Spending 3,951.3 Defense as % of total: 21.3% (851.8/3999.5) Defense as % of total minus social programs: 57.3% (851.8 / (3999.5-1011.6-1107.4-393.2) ) Note, the programs listed under Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare account for 62.8% of the budget. While you are correct in your statement, I don't like your conclusion. We should spend the 2.5 trillion on social programs more effectively not try and 3.3 trillion the same way.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > While you are correct in your statement, I don't like your conclusion. We should spend the 2.5 trillion on social programs more effectively not try and 3.3 trillion the same way. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spe... https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_... "The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total. U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined." We spend too much on military spending, full stop. EDIT: Sidenote: Social security and Medicare very efficient as-is. They simply need more resources.
  - golergka 9y ago
    You effectively undermine taxes and tax spending, not democracy. These two concepts both are part of 'government', but they're different.
  - TorKlingberg 9y ago
    It was a democratic decision to make charitable donations tax-deductible. Also what counts as "charity" is a political decision.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Maybe in Gates' case this is true, since he seems to carefully evaluate good causes, but in general it isn't. A lot of the charitable donations that the wealthy use for tax write-offs go to things like museums and universities with already-huge endowments. Not that these aren't important, but it's not exactly Habitat for Humanity or soup kitchens. Frankly I'd rather see that money spent on government social programs. The more I read about this, the more I come around to the idea that charitable tax deductions should be ended entirely (actually I think all tax deductions should be phased out, but that's a bigger topic). It's effectively just another regressive tax.
- legulere 9y ago
  Governments usually are just as competent or incompetent as private companies. The difference is that governments work transparently and are held accountable. We just don't see all the incompetent things happening in companies.

melling 9y ago

Howard Hughes Medical Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...

elmar 9y ago

probably the money is more wisely spent by the private institution than the government.

teamhappy 9y ago
The argument usually is that by donating your money to a charity that you control instead of paying taxes you effectively undermine democracy.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The majority of federal income tax receipts go to military spending [+] (ignore social security and healthcare, those are funded out of compulsory payroll taxes, which is distinct from federal income tax); you're doing more social good (in general) by diverting wealth to charities that promote social welfare than giving that money to the federal government (I'm sad to say). Sometimes democracy is wrong. More social programs, less F35s. [+] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
  - zaroth 9y ago
    Your own source shows defense as 17% of overall spending. As a percentage of income tax receipts, the number for military spending is closer to 25%. See, for example, https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      It's 21% for FY 2016 (which is a percentage based on including social security and medicare, which as I mentioned, are not part of federal income tax receipts; the percentage ). 2017 isn't done yet; I'm not using an estimate with an administration going sideways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... "Military budget of the United States. ... The budget funds 4 branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget." Yes, we're spending that much on the military. Yes, its pathetic. Yes, its why its best to avoid (not evade, which is illegal) paying income tax whenever possible. I prefer my welfare programs not enable the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in a foreign country, but that's just me.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        OK, that is bizarre; visit usgovernmentspending.com site on mobile and the chart says US FY2016 spending on Defense is 17%. On desktop, the chart says 21%.... In any case, as a percentage of federal income tax it does seem that defense is around 25%. "U.S. discretionary spending" is simply spending which is authorized annually instead of authorized by laws spanning multiple years. It doesn't seem to be a highly meaningful categorization if you are arguing about where your dollars are going -- the dollars don't care what year they were authorized to be spent. Separating out payroll vs income taxes -- in other words recognizing the different tax rates for "earned" vs. "unearned" income -- is not entirely irrelevant, because dollar for dollar your capital gains taxes will be spent more on defense than welfare, but it's still no where near 50% of your capital gains taxes being spent on defense.
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    If you're concerned about military spending, your best course of action is voting against politicians that want to increase defense spending. Lower taxes on the wealthy doesn't keep the government from spending on defense, it just runs up a deficit that is then used as an excuse to cut non-defense spending (research, infrastructure, food for the impoverished, etc.).
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > If you're concerned about military spending, your best course of action is voting against politicians that want to increase defense spending. I'm only one person, and my one vote carries little weight. > Lower taxes on the wealthy doesn't keep the government from spending on defense, it just runs up a deficit that is then used as an excuse to cut non-defense spending (research, infrastructure, food for the impoverished, etc.). I'm not against higher taxes, but I'm also not against the wealthy avoiding taxes in the case of Gates and Buffett (and for other reasons, Elon Musk, using his wealth to drive progress forward) when their wealth are going to social causes. If you can't adjust how the federal gov budgets, starve the beast until competent representatives are in office while doing good for those in need.
  - mk89 9y ago
    It depends on how democracy is implemented. It's just a tool afterall... In Europe you still get more social programs, less f35... (not everywhere though).
  - Veelox 9y ago
    Numbers for the 2016 Fiscal Year, all in Billions Pensions 996.0 Health Care 1,121.2 Education 126.2 Defense 829.1 Welfare 377.2 Protection 37.7 Transportation 92.4 General Government 52.5 Other Spending 79.2 Interest 240.0 Total Spending 3,951.3 Defense as % of total: 21.3% (851.8/3999.5) Defense as % of total minus social programs: 57.3% (851.8 / (3999.5-1011.6-1107.4-393.2) ) Note, the programs listed under Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare account for 62.8% of the budget. While you are correct in your statement, I don't like your conclusion. We should spend the 2.5 trillion on social programs more effectively not try and 3.3 trillion the same way.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > While you are correct in your statement, I don't like your conclusion. We should spend the 2.5 trillion on social programs more effectively not try and 3.3 trillion the same way. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spe... https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_... "The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total. U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined." We spend too much on military spending, full stop. EDIT: Sidenote: Social security and Medicare very efficient as-is. They simply need more resources.
- golergka 9y ago
  You effectively undermine taxes and tax spending, not democracy. These two concepts both are part of 'government', but they're different.
- TorKlingberg 9y ago
  It was a democratic decision to make charitable donations tax-deductible. Also what counts as "charity" is a political decision.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Maybe in Gates' case this is true, since he seems to carefully evaluate good causes, but in general it isn't. A lot of the charitable donations that the wealthy use for tax write-offs go to things like museums and universities with already-huge endowments. Not that these aren't important, but it's not exactly Habitat for Humanity or soup kitchens. Frankly I'd rather see that money spent on government social programs. The more I read about this, the more I come around to the idea that charitable tax deductions should be ended entirely (actually I think all tax deductions should be phased out, but that's a bigger topic). It's effectively just another regressive tax.
legulere 9y ago
Governments usually are just as competent or incompetent as private companies. The difference is that governments work transparently and are held accountable. We just don't see all the incompetent things happening in companies.