>I'd rather someone give away $100M compared to $0 even if its peanuts for them based on their personal finance. Yes, it's good that he has given away some mon

>I'd rather someone give away $100M compared to $0 even if its peanuts for them based on their personal finance. Yes, it's good that he has given away some money, and this money will do real good, it's important not to let this blur the focus on the real issue: There are desperate, homeless people in this country. There are people who are refusing necessary medical treatment because they cannot "afford" healthcare. There are people who will go into crippling debt for attending higher education. Most people I know say they will never be able to afford a home because the price of rent doesn't leave any room for savings. All of these problems can be remedied by a society deciding collectively not to allow single people to accumulate exorbitant amounts of wealth, and instead, collectively spread that money among the population who need it, democratically. There is no social benefit in padding out a Mossack-Fonseca tax-free account of dubious offshore legality so one man can attain massive political and social power. There is value, however, in using those resources to employ people in the project of tackling real, fixable social problems that other countries have figured out already. Green energy, healthcare for all, free education, job guarantees, infrastructure upgrades. It's all within the fiscal budget so long as there aren't single people, or small groups of shareholders becoming unnecessarily rich just because we've stacked an economic system in their favor. The idea that these are "his savings" just because he amassed them under our current system is missing the perspective that this system is not immutable. It can, and has, been changed before, and can change again. It is in the process of changing in other parts of the world right now, and with good results at that.