10 ms·
40 billionaires pledge to donate half their wealth
- lionhearted 16y agoGood stuff. Could we immediately stop taking taxes from anyone who takes this pledge? Considering the high percentage of the government that's full of corrupt and incompetent bunglers running questionable programs, I have immensely more faith in talented and driven people deploying their resources better to improve the world. The idea that $300M would go into the U.S. government sending "aid money" directly to a dictator's government in Africa instead of Gates deploying it to wipe out malaria is no good, for instance.
- NathanKP 16y agoChances are these billionaires are pledging to make these donations specifically to avoid taxes. I agree that the government would probably waste the tax money anyway, but ultimately the government needs some way to pay off its debt, and taxing the rich makes more sense than expecting the middle class to foot the bill. Of course if these billionaires put significant amounts of money toward various respectable aid programs it may reduce the amount that the government needs to spend, allowing it to direct more money toward paying off the debt.
- bwh2 16y agoThis is a common misconception about donations. Donating money never makes you better off financially because donations are eligible for tax deductions, not credits.
- NathanKP 16y agoCorrect, but it avoids the need to have to pay taxes on those funds which were donated. That is what I was referring to.
- run4yourlives 16y agoGiving away 100% of an amount to avoid paying x% of same amount in taxes hardly seems productive. This only works if it somehow lowers your overall tax load, and for Mr. Billionaire, I don't think it's much of an issue.
- NathanKP 16y agoThe benefit then is the feeling of self-actualization and pride at having done something good for other people.
- run4yourlives 16y ago...which would be counter to your original post.
- NathanKP 16y agoThanks for correcting my thinking and helping me see the light. :)
- run4yourlives 16y agomeh... it happens to me too, more often than I care to admit actually! :-)
- cschep 16y agoChoosing where it goes is a cool benefit. It's like you can pay a smaller percent and they will choose, or you can pay a bigger percent but you get to choose where it goes? It's very possible that I'm totally misunderstanding the rules.
- run4yourlives 16y agoIt is a cool benefit, albeit a philanthropic one, which in and of itself defeats the argument the OP was making.
- dotBen 16y agoThis is true. But it means that none of these people will ever pay tax again going forward.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- smiler 16y agohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews Buffett says the rich should pay more taxes
- lionhearted 16y ago> Buffett says the rich should pay more taxes Easy to say for a guy who built his wealth starting with an insurance company, which uses government regulation to make most of its money. Wealthy people put their money into the insurance company because life insurance payouts aren't taxable but estate taxes are. Then Buffet's insurance company gets to invest that money in low risk bonds to get basically free money before paying it out. This only exists because of insurance company lobbying - it only adds friction to the system and wastes time and resources, while insurance companies get rich extracting money from the system. This is how Buffet built much of his starting capital. Then he keeps most of his earnings in the holdings company, and only occasionally pays capital gains. The guy's gamed huge loopholes in the U.S. tax system his whole life, and then has the audacity to say that "the rich" should pay more taxes? Physician, heal thyself. Edit: Reply instead of downvoting? There's a bunch of not commonly known facts in this comment and it's getting some downs, a non-fact progressive viewpoint is getting some ups... that's got to be the most disappointing thing about HN lately, the trend towards up/downvoting based on politics and not content in a comment.
- locopati 16y agoAnd what should he do? He plays the system that's there. At least he's honest enough to say the system that's there is tilted in his favor. But, I do ask the question seriously? Run for government? Fund progressive candidates who would raise tax on higher incomes?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- lionhearted 16y ago> And what should he do? Stick to business and stay out of trying to be a folk hero? Or pay higher tax rates voluntarily to set an example? Campaigning for a tax increase when a lot of his money came from helping people use a tax loophole created by his industry doesn't seem particularly righteous.
- Qz 16y agoTheoretically that makes sense, but it doesn't address the real issue. If you cut taxes for the rich, everyone else just pays more, unless you directly address government inefficiency/corruption. Until that's done, no amount of tax cuts or tax hikes will make a smidge of difference.
- loewenskind 16y agoThat's just brilliant. Lets give people who have more money than they can spend a mechanism by which they can (a) remain wealthy and (b) get out of paying taxes ever again. That will be especially good because the top, say, 30% probably pay more in taxes than the remain 70% have. You're not under some silly impression that if the government suddenly had less money that they would cut spending are you?
- zemanel 16y agowell good night Ireeene :)
- smiler 16y agoWarren Buffetts letter is absolutely brilliant.
- rkowalick 16y agoFor those who want a direct link to his letter: http://givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett http://givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett
- Jun8 16y agoTo me the essential point was: Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends. Nothing to say on top of that.
- sonnyz 16y ago"The things you own, end up owning you." - Tyler Durden (fight club)
- wilschroter 16y agoMy favorite is from Larry Ellison, who basically says "Warren Buffet told me to write this, so I did." That's what I inferred from his message, which is pure Ellison.
- fuzzythinker 16y agoFor those who's getting the impression that Ellison is an ass, please read his whole letter (just a paragraph).
- ars 16y ago"The more possessions the more anxiety" - Hillel the Elder
- abraham 16y ago"If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion" Perspective: The US national debt is increasing by over $4b per day. If the $600b was used just to keep the debt from increasing it would last less then 5 months. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
- antidaily 16y agoDoes that factor in interest on the debt?
- abraham 16y agoI believe so although I did not find confirmation one way or the other.
- someone_here 16y agoWhen considering that the national debt is directly related to inflation, this"$600 billion" might not be, as it is "their net worth". The public debt is $8.63 Trillion and this pledge could reduce that significantly, boosting the dollar and reducing the debt increase rate a corresponding amount. On the other hand, maybe I don't understand what I'm talking about, and if so, please correct me.
- anamax 16y ago> When considering that the national debt is directly related to inflation Actually, it's not. Inflation is related to interest rates and the "value of the dollar", both of which affect our ability to pay off the debt, but the debt itself, the number of dollars owed right now, is independent of inflation. > this pledge could reduce that significantly It's less than 10% of the admitted debt, $8T, and that number is significantly less than the unfunded liabilities (SS, Medicare that folks think that they have pre-paid). And most of those folks are giving their money to charity, not to govt, so it's not providing govt revenue that can be used to pay off govt debt.
- kenj0418 16y agoI too agree to donate half of my net worth to charity. United Way: Please send a check for $25K to Sallie Mae on my behalf, and we'll call it settled.
- portman 16y agoI think perhaps HN readers don't know that Sallie Mae is the quasi-private entity that originates a large portion of student loans in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLM_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLM_Corporation The joke is that he is $50,000 in debt, so half his net worth is -$25,000, so he will donate that debt to the United Way. I thought it was funny in the "clever-funny" way that usually garners upvotes.
- josefresco 16y agoWhile 25K is nothing compared to what these billionaires might donate, it's still a lot of money and the United Way would be happy to accept your funds. It also opens up the discussion of what burden 'normal' folks assume when their most basic needs are taken care of. How many HN readers donate at least 10% of their earnings?
- hnal943 16y agoI believe the joke is that he has a negetive net worth due to student loans.
- enjo 16y agoTeach a man to fish.... I'd MUCH rather that they pledge to donating half of their wealth to economic development. We are in desperate need of investment capital here at home. Wouldn't that $600B be better spent investing in alternative-energy and other high growth fields? We've given these folks huge tax breaks with the idea that they'd reinvest that money in our economy. The article is somewhat light on details about where this money ultimately ends up, but I firmly believe that it's best spent helping tomorrows billionaires (all over the world) get their start.
- sfg 16y ago"commit to giving the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations of their choice" Would that not include non-profit research into the areas you outlined?
- fatguy 16y agoThere are a billion people that do not have access to clean water. One human being dies every three seconds because of poverty(related issues). I think that Bill Gates sees the point in helping eradicate malaria, rather than boosting growth at home. These individuals have done more than their fair share in boosting their local economies, and I believe their money would be better spent in supporting charities that are doing just this. And though I think that charities are not sustainable in the long run, this is the best thing that they could do with their money.
- hbt 16y agoInteresting point. Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home? Which one is short term and which one is long term?
- sandipagr 16y agoplease educate me how is space/ocean exploration better than saving lives, even if its "bunch of Africans"
- MBlume 16y agoI was slightly disappointed that the article made no mention of the fact that where you give your money is probably more important than how much you give, that the current charity market has multiple orders of magnitude differences in return on investment -- ie in how much human suffering can be alleviated per marginal dollar. I'm sure Gates and Buffet already understand this well, and have said so, but I wish it were making it into the coverage.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- quinndupont 16y agoThat's one way to keep from paying taxes.
- sandipagr 16y agoI had always had more respect for Bill Gates than anybody because of his contributions for welfare of humanity. Now, I have 39 more in the list. This is just awesome. I hope there were more people like them and you don't have to be a billionaire to give back to the world. Keep up the good work.
- ck2 16y agoI like how some of them state what kinds of charities they will help in their letters. I mean there are charities and then there are self-serving charities (ie. the Dominos pizza billionaire literally built his own catholic city).
- johnnyg 16y agoSay that the value of money holds and that this goes forward without corruption or inefficiency. You still are looking at a situation where a huge amount of money needs to be invested in a such a way as to return more than it originally was. If it takes me 40 years to build $1B in wealth, what makes me think I can efficiently or intelligently deploy that amount back into "society" or "the community" in far less time? If I band together with other $1B people, doesn't that bring even more competition to the give-it-all-away party and make my job even harder?
- jberryman 16y agoNot sure I understand your point. > what makes me think I can efficiently or intelligently deploy that amount back into "society" or "the community" in far less time It's simple to invest billions of dollars with the intention of increasing your wealth: you hire people at some well-respected financial institutions and pay them a good amount to do it for you. (let's overlook recent history here) In the same way, there are many excellent charitable and non-profit institutions that have the infrastructure and knowledge in place to turn monetary investments into social good.
- kiba 16y agoBecoming wealthier often involves making other people wealthy absolutely by providing better goods and services. It might be more cost-efficient to make everything cheaper to make it easier to help Africans in poverty.
- throw_away 16y agoRalph Nader recently wrote a book on this topic: http://onlythesuperrich.org/ http://onlythesuperrich.org/
- yumraj 16y agoConspicuously missing from the list, Mr. Jobs, Mr. Woz, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin. Even Larry Ellison is in the list.
- fuzzythinker 16y agoYea, Ellison's my biggest surprise there. I'm sure Jobs & 3 googlers would join the list at some point. But where the fuck is Ballmer!? He pretty much got his un-deserved billions handed to him.
- xexers 16y agoI don't think Steve Woz. has anywhere near a billion dollars.
- tjmc 16y agoDon't forget Mr Murdoch
- harscoat 16y agothat really gives hope. We are at a tipping point of selflessness. At the infinite limit Selfessness is our best self interest (I help people so that one day when I would need help other do the same)... for the moment, it is still an asymptote which requires a leap of faith.
- nphase 16y agoWhoa. Larry Ellison is on this list. I honestly did not expect that whatsoever.
- aptimpropriety 16y agoAFAIK, he's been quoted a number of times in the past saying things to the effect of "I don't want to leave that much to my kids" i.e., most of it will go to charity anyway.
- nphase 16y agoSorry, I don't keep myself posted on his life happenings. With his reputation, I expected him not to be this type of person.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- JeffL 16y agoSo I have a question - doesn't this effectively take billions of dollars that was (via investment) essentially going to capital expenditures to increase productivity overall and make it go instead to consumer expenditures? Doesn't that make the country worse off overall, despite helping a few people in the short run?
- hngryhppos 16y agoI was surprised to see George Lucas on that list. I didn't know he was so wealthy.
- sliverstorm 16y agoWith $600 billion floating around in private, generally unmonitored hands... Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on charities? That sounds like it'd be ripe for exploitation.
- tommynazareth 16y agoNone of this money will go towards empowering people. It will be used to reinforce the status quo. A lot of people will get suckered by the publicity, and they will buy into how this kind of movement can change the world. Meanwhile, they will continue to be rice pickers serving their billionaire overlords. I don't buy any of this. What charities are going to handle this kind of money without the majority of it being misappropriated? This sounds more like a set up for a giant scam and huge distraction than anything that might actually be useful to other human beings.
- DaniFong 16y agoThe Rockefeller foundation funded the argonomists behind the green revolution, which has hugely improved world nutrition and has been credited with saving more than a billion lives. Philanthropy has worked in the past.
- dangoldin 16y agoI think that's a terrible attitude to have. The Gates foundation has done great work and I'm sure the Gates' and Warren will do their best to ensure that the money they donate goes a long way.
- tommynazareth 16y agoThey should give the money to Louis C.K. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fNgx8aCS8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fNgx8aCS8
- marze 16y agoThe bottom line is what the money actually does in the end. It is much more difficult than most people assume to help people or solve problems with money. Pulling that much money from where it is invested now means less money for startups, etc. It could easily be a net loss to society to have that funding diverted to charities unless they were some pretty awesome / above average charities.
- Samuel_Michon 16y agoNice PR for the billionaires involved, but I doubt this project changed any of their plans. The article states: "The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting one cause or organization. It's up to each person who signs the pledge how to divvy up their wealth." Also, reading the pledge letters, it becomes clear that these folks won't be giving away their fortunes today or tomorrow, it's about what happens to the remainder of the funds after they die. For all we know, they could've spent it all on hookers by then.
- lelele 16y agoThis is admirable, but I'm a bit worried that a lot of donated money will fall into some black hole. Money matters, yes, still I would much prefer successful people donating their smarts to the world instead of their money.
- thornad 16y agoThey OWN the fg charities. This is more consolidation of power in the hands of the same people while also giving them great PR. They are having a laugh at you.
- pasbesoin 16y agoI hope they'll give some of it away while they're still alive, along with a significant effort in time and effort to ensure it's well applied. And with an open enough mind to identify and recognize the value in things outside of "mainstream business" (e.g. "pure" R&D as well as the public domain and public property (e.g. libraries, as an an old school example)) -- something I assume they mostly have or they would not have achieved such levels of success. We need enabled intellectual prowess as much as outright cash.
- Ardit20 16y agoI used to paint all the rich with the same brush. When reading the Forbe's list and the astronomical numbers I would be at first amazed, then jealous and then think of them as thief's and cheats. Although I still think that the wealthy have a vastly disproportionate influence over government and at times to the expense of the greater public and that many of the super rich would short the public to increase their bottom line, reading the letters written on http://givingpledge.org http://givingpledge.org has entirely reformulated my perception. I am now much more likely to give any rich person the benefit of the doubt and even perhaps view them slightly favourably rather than default to their status being illegitimate. I have been inspired and it is absolutely amazing to see what the captains of industry are doing with their wealth. There were many of them committing 90%, 99% of their wealth, even to die broke. Not only so but committing their time and experience too. Some of the most experienced and I would think of intelligence individuals dedicating themselves to such great causes as Socratic methods of teaching, many scholarships, medical research, clean water, libraries, homeless, social programmes for the young... I think is very inspiring and motivating to become rich. What is inspiring also is reading things such as Greek immigrant, orphanage, all our worth at the back of a Ford's car, an average American. There is much that can be improved with the working of democracy, but with people like these I have faith in that country and trust much to be good. I can now once more view them as role models. They are great people doing great things and I am inspired to become as great if not more.