7 ms·

Buffett spreads his wealth tax-free to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [of which he was a trustee], Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation [founded by himself], Sher

Buffett spreads his wealth tax-free to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [of which he was a trustee], Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation [founded by himself], Sherwood Foundation [founded by his daughter], Howard G. Buffett Foundation [founded by his son] and NoVo Foundation [founded by his other son].

shadowgovt 5y ago
Capitalism as practiced in America is a meritocracy... As long as you stretch the definition far enough to include "being friends with, or descended from, a billionaire" in the tent of "merit." Edit: to paraphrase Hannibal Buress, you can boo me, but I'm right. ;) Some people succeed by having a better idea and executing on it with technical proficiency, some succeed by convincing someone with a lot of resources to support their endeavors. Most succeed through a mix of the two, but pretending that support of entrenched big-money interests has minimal impact is disjoint from reality.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Booing you does not prove you are right. The US is no more a meritocracy than anywhere else. All thats different are the labels.
542458 5y ago
I don’t see how this is nefarious (in itself). The big challenge with donating money is trusting that it will get used “correctly”. Donating to organizations under control of people you know and trust is the easiest way to do this. If there was some sort of slush-fund thing going on it would be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. The tax rate on gifts isn’t that high, and so you’d have to be doing really extreme fraud for it to me more profitable than a straight gift.
- kiliantics 5y ago
  There are plenty reasons to be skeptical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat... It is just so undemocratic for a handful of people to be in control of infrastructure projects that will affect the lives of millions or billions. They can so easily make a project look good that still benefits them unfairly and there is some evidence that this is what's happening.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I dont see any claims of self dealing in those criticisms
    - luffapi 5y ago
      It’s about control. Gates and Buffet have massive amounts of control over public policy due to their “donations”. We as a society lose out when a few mega billionaires have anything to do with policy.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        The purpose of many charities is explicitly to influence public policy, but How does your second sentence follow from your first?
        luffapi 5y ago
        Because allowing billionaires to leverage public policy is a centralization of control. It gives single individuals too much sway. You rely on them being benevolent (they’re not) and deal with their idiosyncrasies (at best). It’s bad system design and it’s not democracy. It’s not even socialism, it’s an oligarchy.
      - pochamago 5y ago
        The alternative is letting Congress decide how to spend it. Decentralized philanthropy seems to me like a better system
        infamouscow 5y ago
        Sounds like you're making an argument for plutocracy.
        pochamago 5y ago
        I think it's good that taxes can solve problems a decentralized, and therefore disorganized, system will struggle with, but in the same way i don't think that a centralized economy will run as efficiently as a free market, I think philanthropy will make greater gains if a variety of parties are allowed to spend their money on what they think is important without needing collective approval.
- clydethefrog 5y ago
  How do you come to the conclusion there is no financial benefit in putting your wealth into charity foundations? I am quoting some parts of an interview last year with BC Law Professor Ray Madoff: >The government provides generous tax benefits for charitable giving but the rules provide very little assurance that this giving will actually make its way to charities. A well-planned gift can save a donor as much as 74 percent of the value of that gift in taxes. That means a $10 million gift can cost the federal government $7.4 million in forgone taxes and therefore only cost the donor $2.6 million after in after tax dollars. >Right now, there's over $1 trillion dollars set aside in private foundations and over $120 billion set aside in donor-advised funds. Donors get all the same tax benefits from putting their money in these intermediary vehicles as when they give funds outright to a working charity, like a food bank. Yet the public has no assurance of getting any benefit from this money, because there's no requirement under current law that these funds ever be distributed for public benefit. Donor advised funds have no payout requirements under current law and private foundations can fully meet their payout requirements by giving to donor-advised funds or by paying salaries to family members. https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/a-new-initiative-aims-to-ramp-up-charitable-giving/ https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/a-new-initiative-aims...
mekal 5y ago
The internet today...dude gives a shit-ton of his money to philanthropy and people find a way to complain about it.
- smt88 5y ago
  We (as US taxpayers) are subsidizing this donation. He's not just giving away his money -- he's giving away our money, too. It's totally fair to complain about one of the most powerful people in history transferring wealth from public, democratically-elected organizations to institutions that have far less transparency and no democratic oversight.
  - panax 5y ago
    I am certain they will be able to deploy that capital far more effectively than the government would and will create much more value to society.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      I do not consider for instance, PARCC / Common Core, to be a great example of why we should let the richies run public things and decide where resources go.
  - tinco 5y ago
    That's not how it works at all. Not levying taxes on something is not the same as subsidising something. It's not "our" money until he does something with that money that we as a society have deemed taxable. I fully agree that there is something criticise here, but it's definitely not that he is somehow taking "our" money. It's his money until he decides to spend it. It's money that could be hours, if we instructed our government to take it from him. But we haven't, so that's that. I like the idea of charitable foundations being able to receive tax free, though I would admit that is a matter of taste and not a clear right/wrong distinction. What I do object to is that his family has paid positions in those foundations. That just smells of tax loopholes. If those foundations manage to perpetually break-even, they would be able to fund his family with cushiony jobs forever. But, as far as I can tell they're not being paid egregious amounts, and the foundations are all actually spending their money on good things, so in this case there doesn't seem to be any shadowy business. Especially since most of it is going to the Gates Foundation anyway. But, if we're talking policy, I think it would be a good thing if there were restrictions on how much family members of philanthropes can earn at charity organisations, if anything at all.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Capitalism as practiced in America is a meritocracy... As long as you stretch the definition far enough to include "being friends with, or descended from, a billionaire" in the tent of "merit." Edit: to paraphrase Hannibal Buress, you can boo me, but I'm right. ;) Some people succeed by having a better idea and executing on it with technical proficiency, some succeed by convincing someone with a lot of resources to support their endeavors. Most succeed through a mix of the two, but pretending that support of entrenched big-money interests has minimal impact is disjoint from reality.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
Booing you does not prove you are right. The US is no more a meritocracy than anywhere else. All thats different are the labels.

542458 5y ago

I don’t see how this is nefarious (in itself). The big challenge with donating money is trusting that it will get used “correctly”. Donating to organizations under control of people you know and trust is the easiest way to do this. If there was some sort of slush-fund thing going on it would be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. The tax rate on gifts isn’t that high, and so you’d have to be doing really extreme fraud for it to me more profitable than a straight gift.

kiliantics 5y ago
There are plenty reasons to be skeptical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat... It is just so undemocratic for a handful of people to be in control of infrastructure projects that will affect the lives of millions or billions. They can so easily make a project look good that still benefits them unfairly and there is some evidence that this is what's happening.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I dont see any claims of self dealing in those criticisms
  - luffapi 5y ago
    It’s about control. Gates and Buffet have massive amounts of control over public policy due to their “donations”. We as a society lose out when a few mega billionaires have anything to do with policy.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      The purpose of many charities is explicitly to influence public policy, but How does your second sentence follow from your first?
      - luffapi 5y ago
        Because allowing billionaires to leverage public policy is a centralization of control. It gives single individuals too much sway. You rely on them being benevolent (they’re not) and deal with their idiosyncrasies (at best). It’s bad system design and it’s not democracy. It’s not even socialism, it’s an oligarchy.
    - pochamago 5y ago
      The alternative is letting Congress decide how to spend it. Decentralized philanthropy seems to me like a better system
      - infamouscow 5y ago
        Sounds like you're making an argument for plutocracy.
        pochamago 5y ago
        I think it's good that taxes can solve problems a decentralized, and therefore disorganized, system will struggle with, but in the same way i don't think that a centralized economy will run as efficiently as a free market, I think philanthropy will make greater gains if a variety of parties are allowed to spend their money on what they think is important without needing collective approval.
clydethefrog 5y ago
How do you come to the conclusion there is no financial benefit in putting your wealth into charity foundations? I am quoting some parts of an interview last year with BC Law Professor Ray Madoff: >The government provides generous tax benefits for charitable giving but the rules provide very little assurance that this giving will actually make its way to charities. A well-planned gift can save a donor as much as 74 percent of the value of that gift in taxes. That means a $10 million gift can cost the federal government $7.4 million in forgone taxes and therefore only cost the donor $2.6 million after in after tax dollars. >Right now, there's over $1 trillion dollars set aside in private foundations and over $120 billion set aside in donor-advised funds. Donors get all the same tax benefits from putting their money in these intermediary vehicles as when they give funds outright to a working charity, like a food bank. Yet the public has no assurance of getting any benefit from this money, because there's no requirement under current law that these funds ever be distributed for public benefit. Donor advised funds have no payout requirements under current law and private foundations can fully meet their payout requirements by giving to donor-advised funds or by paying salaries to family members. https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/a-new-initiative-aims-to-ramp-up-charitable-giving/ https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/a-new-initiative-aims...

mekal 5y ago

The internet today...dude gives a shit-ton of his money to philanthropy and people find a way to complain about it.

smt88 5y ago
We (as US taxpayers) are subsidizing this donation. He's not just giving away his money -- he's giving away our money, too. It's totally fair to complain about one of the most powerful people in history transferring wealth from public, democratically-elected organizations to institutions that have far less transparency and no democratic oversight.
- panax 5y ago
  I am certain they will be able to deploy that capital far more effectively than the government would and will create much more value to society.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    I do not consider for instance, PARCC / Common Core, to be a great example of why we should let the richies run public things and decide where resources go.
- tinco 5y ago
  That's not how it works at all. Not levying taxes on something is not the same as subsidising something. It's not "our" money until he does something with that money that we as a society have deemed taxable. I fully agree that there is something criticise here, but it's definitely not that he is somehow taking "our" money. It's his money until he decides to spend it. It's money that could be hours, if we instructed our government to take it from him. But we haven't, so that's that. I like the idea of charitable foundations being able to receive tax free, though I would admit that is a matter of taste and not a clear right/wrong distinction. What I do object to is that his family has paid positions in those foundations. That just smells of tax loopholes. If those foundations manage to perpetually break-even, they would be able to fund his family with cushiony jobs forever. But, as far as I can tell they're not being paid egregious amounts, and the foundations are all actually spending their money on good things, so in this case there doesn't seem to be any shadowy business. Especially since most of it is going to the Gates Foundation anyway. But, if we're talking policy, I think it would be a good thing if there were restrictions on how much family members of philanthropes can earn at charity organisations, if anything at all.