9 ms·

I skimmed the AMA for a few minutes, and saw him say that: - He thought nuclear weapons, bioterrorism, and climate change were the biggest threats to humanity.

• kome 8y ago
  in other words, war is dangerous and he pays too little tax. i think too they are platitudes.
  • jonas21 8y ago
    And yet... how many other billionaires do you see going out and saying that the capital gains tax rate is too low and climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.
    • phkahler 8y ago
      Well his buddy Warren Buffet also says he should pay more taxes. I find his stance refreshing - he's going to pay only what's required while advocating changing the rules so that everyone pays more. Lots of people say "well he's free to pay more if he want's to but he's not". Some call it hypocrisy. Some call it humility.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    • rchaud 8y ago
      Buffett has been beating the "higher taxes for rich people" drum at least since the 2008 recession, maybe longer. He won't actually open his wallet to push for these policies mind you. That would be a bridge too far.
      • batmenace 8y ago
        It's not like you just send the government more money if you feel like they should tax more... People like Buffet and Gates donate so much in part because they believe that wealth should be redistributed better than the government currently does
      • simonh 8y ago
        Would his money be better spent lobbying politicians largely by swelling their campaign war chests, or directly funding charitable causes?
      • fgonzag 8y ago
        Are you really saying the billionares who pledged more than 90% of their wealth to charity, and will "only" leave their kids 10 million dollars isn't backing up what he says?
        • kome 8y ago
          charity is part of the problem, and not part of the solutions.
    • beatgammit 8y ago
      A lot? I know Warren Buffett has similar views, and I've seen other very wealthy liberals claim taxes and climate change were big concerns. When people get very wealthy, they seem to think less about their finances and more about their legacy and public perception, and honestly when you're that wealthy, you have so much that taxes don't really matter anymore. There are a lot of very wealthy philanthropists, and I think that's because people seek meaning in their life once they no longer get benefit from earning more.
      • johnnyb9 8y ago
        I agree they probably stop caring about their tax bill because they are billionaires. I find it disingenuous however to then look down the income ladder to people earning more than $1 million and including them in your “we don’t pay enough taxes” bucket.
        • batmenace 8y ago
          It's not the same, but even if you are not a billionaire, there comes a point where giving relatively more of your added income serves a greater good (i.e. funding for gov't) than the money just being in your bank account. Once you make more than you need to keep up your lifestyle (at whatever level that may be) the suggestion to give back more is not unjustified.
          • niij 8y ago
            The question is which is more effective at serving "the greater good": the government or charity? Or option #3: free enterprise, which creates jobs, goods, and services?
      • simonh 8y ago
        Some do, some don’t. Bill and Warren are of course prominent examples of billionaire philanthropists. Conversely I could name on famous multimillionaire frequently in the news these days, that has a track record of treating charitable foundations as tax dodging piggy banks. So there are all sorts.
  • kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
    What is an example of a response to a question that wouldn't be a platitude? Big-G tells me that "platitude" means: a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. He was asked: What do you think the greatest threat to humanity is at this moment? And responded: There are some things that aren't likely but we should worry about - nuclear bombs and bioterrorism (from nation states or terrorism), or a big pandemic. This is the 100th anniversary of the Spanish flu and if it came back the amount of travel would make it spread faster than it did last time. Once you get past those threats then the biggest question is global cooperation to avoid climate change and reduce the risk of war. It is disconcerting to see a rise of countries turning inwards and not investing in alliances which have helped us avoid big wars since World War 2. Climate change is a real test of how we can work together globally since it is a complex problem where major changes need to be done well in advance of the big harms. With a link to: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_25_2019_11_AL2019_BG-RE_&WT.tsrc=BGRE#ALChapter3 https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_25... (a 431-word expansion on his thoughts on climate change) I don't think any of his responses have fit the definition of "platitude". I think an example of a "platitude" would have been the response: "War, we need to give peace a chance!"
    • qpery 8y ago
      I don't know if they are platitudes but they just sound like some generic PR drivel. Take from that what you will.
      • munchbunny 8y ago
        I'm curious what kind of answer you would consider "not PR drivel." Specifically, if sounds like there is nothing Bill Gates could write that you would consider genuine.
        • qpery 8y ago
          Some kind of personal anecdote or something that is even remotely specific instead of that generic comment that looks like something that was written by the same people who write apologies for Facebook.
  • wycy 8y ago
    The idea that billionaires pay too little tax is considered a radical idea in mainstream media, so that doesn't seem like a platitude.
    • reallydude 8y ago
      The media is not truth. The idea is not radical in any sense.
• briandear 8y ago
  It is a platitude when someone like Gates says they want more taxes because, the Treasury has a means for anyone to send a check for whatever amount they want. If he wants to write a $2b check to the treasury, he could do that today. What he is really saying is that other people should be required to pay more taxes — or alternatively, it’s just an empty platitude to endear himself with leftist anti-rich intellectuals. If he himself feels undertaxed, he can simply pay more. Anyone can choose to pay more, so the question is, why doesn’t he? If he feels that the government is a better steward of his money than he is, why does he bother with a foundation? Why not just give everything to the government? It’s hypocritical: “I should pay more, however my Foundation spends money better than the government would, so I will instead have my money going to a private foundation where I can direct money to causes I care about because the government doesn’t spend money they way I prefer.” Why are donations to his foundation tax deductible? He benefits from tax deductibility while simultaneously calling for people to pay higher taxes? I think Bill is being disingenuous here and thus it smacks as a platitude rather than an actual real position. If the ultra rich feel like they should pay more taxes, what’s stopping them?
  • pwthornton 8y ago
    Because micro solutions to macro problems never work. Gates could pay his entire net worth into the treasury and it does not fix a fundamentally broken system. Gates is commenting on how the ultra rich like him make most of their money from capital gains, which are not taxed at normal income tax rates. If capital gains were simply taxed like income taxes, it would be a huge blow against income inequality this country is facing. Because capital gains are taxed differently, the ultra rich will continue to have their compensation geared towards stock, and away from income. Gates is looking to change an unfair system. He alone can't do that. It is not hypocritical for Gates to ask for macro solutions to macro problems.
    • briandear 8y ago
      Bill Gates writing billion dollar checks is not exactly micro.” He could lead by example and encourage other billionaires to write checks as well. He could start the change he wants to see. When these kinds of billionaires start actually writing checks, then maybe I’ll take their platitudes seriously. It’s like Al Gore flying in a private jet while telling everyone else that flying commercial is killing the planet. If things were so dire, they would be leading by example. Al Gore taking public transportation and living in a 1000sf apartment would do more to convince people than preaching from the pulpit. Al Gore is no different than a televangelist: he speaks to people about the dangers of excess while living a life of excess. The private jets and limos at the various climate conferences is another example. Practice what you preach and then maybe I’ll listen. Fat people telling everyone else to lose weight is simply hypocritical.
• reaperducer 8y ago
  He thought paying $10B in capital gains taxes was not enough and he should have paid more. I'm always annoyed when rich people say things like this. I had one say almost this exact thing to me in an elevator once. There's nothing stopping him from paying more. He just writes a check to "Department of the Treasury" and sends it off to D.C. Problem solved. But then he doesn't get to passive-aggressively whine about all of his piles of money that the government won't take from him.
  • nicoburns 8y ago
    > I'm always annoyed when rich people say things like this. I had one say almost this exact thing to me in an elevator once. Why? Surely it's better than the alternative of them not supporting progressive taxation?
    • rchaud 8y ago
      The alternative in this case would be for Gates to use a part of his resources and influence to maybe advocate for such laws, instead of just talking.
      • nicoburns 8y ago
        This is a good point, and I totally agree.
    • reaperducer 8y ago
      The alternative isn't supporting progressive taxation. The alternative is picking up a pen and writing a check.
  • fossuser 8y ago
    That seems like a straw man to me - they’re saying the tax should be higher for people in their class generally, not that they individually wish to pay more.
    • reaperducer 8y ago
• trophycase 8y ago
  Funny how we complain that politicians are bought but the former richest man in the world apparently can't figure out how to use his massive fortune to influence policy.
  • anoncake 8y ago
    It's not like he were the only billionaire to bid for influence.
  • radiator 8y ago
    Could it be that he never really was the richest, or far from it?
    • misterprime 8y ago
      I have heard that people spend a lot of money keeping their wealth secret. The Panama Papers leak seemed to shed a lot of light on that. "Worlds richest person" should actually be read "Worlds richest [publicly wealthy] person" I suppose.
• pastor_elm 8y ago
  He was asked how much he should pay though. He didn't give an actual answer and only said he didn't pay enough. Surely, he has an idea of an actual rate, but doesn't want to disclose it for whatever reason.
  • legitster 8y ago
    > A key element is making capital gains taxation more like ordinary income (some have suggested making them the same) and having an estate tax more like we had in the past (55% above $3.5M) From the exact same answer.
• ken 8y ago
  > He thought nuclear weapons, bioterrorism, and climate change were the biggest threats to humanity. There was some book (The Cuckoo's Egg?) where a computer scientist and a biologist talk about the biggest threats to humanity. The computer scientist thought that biological viruses were the biggest threat, and the biologist thought that computer viruses were the biggest threat. I've asked a few people about this, over the years, and the results are remarkably consistent. Everybody is much more scared of the other field where they're not an expert.