5 ms·

I don't like rankings like this. I'm not saying all of them, but at least a few made their money off of the backs of others, being ruthless in business, etc. H

by kemiller2002 6y ago

I don't like rankings like this. I'm not saying all of them, but at least a few made their money off of the backs of others, being ruthless in business, etc. How gracious of them to give money to people they hurt in the first place. I'm glad they are doing good, but let's not pretend they were completely altruistic. Also, a number of these people donated money years ago to avoid taxes, and the money was invested and growing. Its good we have it, but the "we gave away all this money" is an insignificant impact to them for multiple reasons.

qqssccfftt 6y ago
> I'm not saying all of them, but at least a few made their money off of the backs of others, being ruthless in business No, that's all of them. You don't become a billionaire by being nice and non-exploitative.
- ggreer 6y ago
  What? I can think of several off the top of my head. J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. None of those are even remotely exploitative.
  - qqssccfftt 6y ago
    > J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. And the hundreds of marketing people and the editors? > Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. And everyone who makes her shows work? > Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. And his coaches and trainers? Without these people, none of those billionaires would've made it.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      That's all true, but when you say "off the backs of others" that generally means by unfairly exploiting the labor of others without giving them anything back (see every dictionary, or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/live-off-the-backs-of-someone https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/live...). In the examples you have cited, all of those people were paid for their labor. In the cases of Winfrey and especially Jordan, many of those people were paid extremely well for their labor.
    - ggreer 6y ago
      If you consider voluntary association and compensation for labor exploitative, then I'm not sure what to say to you. By your standard, anyone who participates in the economy is making money off the backs of others. My mother is now happily retired on the savings she accumulated working as a nurse. She couldn't have done that without all the people working at drug manufacturers, EMR companies, or health insurance providers. Did she make money off the backs of the hospital lab techs? Did she exploit the ER security guards? After all without those people, she wouldn't have made it.
- kemiller2002 6y ago
  Admittedly, you're probably right. I don't know the personal conquests of Dorsey or Buffet, so part of me was hoping at least a little bit that they weren't as ruthless as the others.
tyrust 6y ago
>a number of these people donated money years ago to avoid taxes This isn't how taxes work. If you donate money then you've only reduced your taxable principal. You "avoid taxes" in the sense that it's as if you never made that money. You don't magically reduce your burden any further than that. People won't take your otherwise fine point seriously if you include this commonly made error.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Yes, now "donate" to a health charity which buys pharmaceuticals from a company you have stock in. Bam, tax rebate for investing in your company.
  - tyrust 6y ago
    That doesn't sound legal.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You have described what is called a "self-dealing" transaction in non-profit law (or more technically, an excess benefit or private inurement transaction). These transactions are subject to various tax penalties that apply both to the putative "donor"[1] and to the board members and officers of the non-profit that approved the transaction). Depending on the severity of the self-dealing, the IRS can even strip the non-profit of its 501c3 status or refer the matter to the DoJ for criminal charges. [1] Note that a 200% penalty rate can apply to uncorrected self-dealing transactions. For the board members and officers, an excise tax of 10% may apply, which the non-profit cannot pay on their behalf.
- kemiller2002 6y ago
  Except for the fact that they are at least partially in control of the fund either through a DAF or their own charity. You're right they can't spend it on anything they want, but they have the ability to direct in many specific instances with few exceptions. Often if it's their own foundation, to further almost any goal they want. So yeah, they get to not pay taxes on their money and at least spend it partially how they want.
andrepd 6y ago
Imagine an analog of such a ranking from 300 years ago. "Which of our Gracious Lords are doing the moste Good?"
- mikejulietbravo 6y ago
  This made me chuckle
  - mikejulietbravo 6y ago
    That Louis XV, he's really doing a lot for us!
    - munk-a 6y ago
      When it comes to doing good Charles VI is really on fire[1] though! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents
- ztratar 6y ago
  Creator here. Joke is indeed A+ funny.
caymanjim 6y ago
Altruism doesn't exist. There are a lot of reasons people do things that are helpful to others, but they're all selfish. Maybe they're trying to assuage guilt; maybe they're doing it for attention; maybe they're doing it to deflect bad PR or engender good PR for their organization; maybe it's a pragmatic financial decision; maybe it's political; maybe it just pumps up their endorphins. No matter what, it's done because they get something out of it. This doesn't make giving bad. You can be selfish and do a tremendous amount of good for others. There's nothing wrong with feeling good or being socially rewarded for helping. This idea that some forms of giving are "altruistic" and others are schemes or manipulations isn't helpful. Attacking a generous person's character because you suspect their motives are somehow impure for unrelated reasons isn't helpful. By all means, call people out for their bullshit when their motives are hypocritical and transparent, but don't beatify some and demonize others because of unrelated faults in their character. They're all giving for selfish reasons.
sharatvir 6y ago
For more on this, I highly recommend Anand Giridharadas's 2018 book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" on the problems behind billionaire philanthropy. It feels more and more relevant in a post COVID world.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dathinab 6y ago
Sadly the truth is that except inheriting money it's nearly impossible to become a multi billionaire without doing ruthless maybe legal but immoral actions (or having someone do them for your). E.g. Suckerberg did questionable business tactics to kick out early invester which where the people which enabled him to become successful. After this Facebook under him repeatedly acted in bad faite to gain a competitive advantage even if this meant lying to the government, smaller business being unfairly destroy and even lives being lost. I'm not sure if he even once put social responsibilities over long term profit. At least it looks that way. And compared to many other companies this might even be harmless. Through not that this isn't true for (multi-)millionaires, you can get that while acting morally responsible. It's just harder and you need more luck.

qqssccfftt 6y ago

> I'm not saying all of them, but at least a few made their money off of the backs of others, being ruthless in business No, that's all of them. You don't become a billionaire by being nice and non-exploitative.

ggreer 6y ago
What? I can think of several off the top of my head. J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. None of those are even remotely exploitative.
- qqssccfftt 6y ago
  > J. K. Rowling became a billionaire by writing the Harry Potter books. And the hundreds of marketing people and the editors? > Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire through her brand as a talented talk show host. And everyone who makes her shows work? > Michael Jordan became a billionaire thanks to his basketball skills. And his coaches and trainers? Without these people, none of those billionaires would've made it.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That's all true, but when you say "off the backs of others" that generally means by unfairly exploiting the labor of others without giving them anything back (see every dictionary, or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/live-off-the-backs-of-someone https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/live...). In the examples you have cited, all of those people were paid for their labor. In the cases of Winfrey and especially Jordan, many of those people were paid extremely well for their labor.
  - ggreer 6y ago
    If you consider voluntary association and compensation for labor exploitative, then I'm not sure what to say to you. By your standard, anyone who participates in the economy is making money off the backs of others. My mother is now happily retired on the savings she accumulated working as a nurse. She couldn't have done that without all the people working at drug manufacturers, EMR companies, or health insurance providers. Did she make money off the backs of the hospital lab techs? Did she exploit the ER security guards? After all without those people, she wouldn't have made it.
kemiller2002 6y ago
Admittedly, you're probably right. I don't know the personal conquests of Dorsey or Buffet, so part of me was hoping at least a little bit that they weren't as ruthless as the others.

tyrust 6y ago

>a number of these people donated money years ago to avoid taxes This isn't how taxes work. If you donate money then you've only reduced your taxable principal. You "avoid taxes" in the sense that it's as if you never made that money. You don't magically reduce your burden any further than that. People won't take your otherwise fine point seriously if you include this commonly made error.

andrepd 6y ago
Yes, now "donate" to a health charity which buys pharmaceuticals from a company you have stock in. Bam, tax rebate for investing in your company.
- tyrust 6y ago
  That doesn't sound legal.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You have described what is called a "self-dealing" transaction in non-profit law (or more technically, an excess benefit or private inurement transaction). These transactions are subject to various tax penalties that apply both to the putative "donor"[1] and to the board members and officers of the non-profit that approved the transaction). Depending on the severity of the self-dealing, the IRS can even strip the non-profit of its 501c3 status or refer the matter to the DoJ for criminal charges. [1] Note that a 200% penalty rate can apply to uncorrected self-dealing transactions. For the board members and officers, an excise tax of 10% may apply, which the non-profit cannot pay on their behalf.
kemiller2002 6y ago
Except for the fact that they are at least partially in control of the fund either through a DAF or their own charity. You're right they can't spend it on anything they want, but they have the ability to direct in many specific instances with few exceptions. Often if it's their own foundation, to further almost any goal they want. So yeah, they get to not pay taxes on their money and at least spend it partially how they want.

andrepd 6y ago

Imagine an analog of such a ranking from 300 years ago. "Which of our Gracious Lords are doing the moste Good?"

mikejulietbravo 6y ago
This made me chuckle
- mikejulietbravo 6y ago
  That Louis XV, he's really doing a lot for us!
  - munk-a 6y ago
    When it comes to doing good Charles VI is really on fire[1] though! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents
ztratar 6y ago
Creator here. Joke is indeed A+ funny.

caymanjim 6y ago

Altruism doesn't exist. There are a lot of reasons people do things that are helpful to others, but they're all selfish. Maybe they're trying to assuage guilt; maybe they're doing it for attention; maybe they're doing it to deflect bad PR or engender good PR for their organization; maybe it's a pragmatic financial decision; maybe it's political; maybe it just pumps up their endorphins. No matter what, it's done because they get something out of it. This doesn't make giving bad. You can be selfish and do a tremendous amount of good for others. There's nothing wrong with feeling good or being socially rewarded for helping. This idea that some forms of giving are "altruistic" and others are schemes or manipulations isn't helpful. Attacking a generous person's character because you suspect their motives are somehow impure for unrelated reasons isn't helpful. By all means, call people out for their bullshit when their motives are hypocritical and transparent, but don't beatify some and demonize others because of unrelated faults in their character. They're all giving for selfish reasons.

sharatvir 6y ago

For more on this, I highly recommend Anand Giridharadas's 2018 book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" on the problems behind billionaire philanthropy. It feels more and more relevant in a post COVID world.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dathinab 6y ago

Sadly the truth is that except inheriting money it's nearly impossible to become a multi billionaire without doing ruthless maybe legal but immoral actions (or having someone do them for your). E.g. Suckerberg did questionable business tactics to kick out early invester which where the people which enabled him to become successful. After this Facebook under him repeatedly acted in bad faite to gain a competitive advantage even if this meant lying to the government, smaller business being unfairly destroy and even lives being lost. I'm not sure if he even once put social responsibilities over long term profit. At least it looks that way. And compared to many other companies this might even be harmless. Through not that this isn't true for (multi-)millionaires, you can get that while acting morally responsible. It's just harder and you need more luck.