5 ms·
The specified reason is because they chose to spend their money on philanthropy instead of waste their money on luxury possessions that they don’t even utilize.
by code_duck 8y ago
The specified reason is because they chose to spend their money on philanthropy instead of waste their money on luxury possessions that they don’t even utilize. It’s fairly circular. What was the reason you are alluding to vaguely? The assumption here is that the person in question already made enough money for this to be relevant.
- notfromhere 8y agophilanthropy is just a symptom of policy failure. it's less wasteful than luxury possessions, but those efforts eat up a lot of capital costs just through staffing, etc
- ehnto 8y agoBoth yachts and philanthropy have most of their money go to staffing costs, and at the level of wealth yacht buying happens at I assume people are spending based solely on their virtues. The real question though, is why not both? Most people buying super yachts could probably afford to set up a philanthropic fund of some kind.
- moonlighter 8y agoLike Paul Allen did: https://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_octopus.html https://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_octopus.html https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Paul-Allen-s-2-Billion-in/244805 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Paul-Allen-s-2-Billion-...
- code_duck 8y agoI interpret that as ‘people may as well spend money on wholly useless frivolities because charity is not 100% efficient’. I disagree with that.
- notfromhere 8y agono, it's because charity is capricious and people shouldn't have to depend on one person's whim to fund causes.