4 ms·

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

by mekal 5y ago

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.
luffapi 5y ago
The internet today… nerds will hero worship any billionaire regardless of how damaging their actions are. Gates, Buffet, Musk… do not have your interests at heart but they have created cults of personality that have been adopted by those who are weak of mind.
- tinco 5y ago
  They do though, you're wrong and there's a lot of evidence for it. This very article we're commenting on is hard evidence Buffet has our interests at heart, and you're just too hard headed to interpret it that way. With nerds, you just mean people who take a rational view of things. And with worship, you mean appreciation of their efforts. I'd say they wouldn't hurt a fly, but Gates has saved millions of people horrible ends by literally fighting mosquitos so that goes out of the window. There's loads of horrible billionaires out there, that you would single out 3 of them that are actually accomplishing good in the world is ridiculous. If you're so against billionaires, why don't you go spread the names of some who are not contributing to the world? Do you even know them? I bet you don't because you're just riding some ill informed band wagon.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    You’ve bought their propaganda. Bill Gates does immense damage by gaining control over large swaths public policy. We do not need or want any billionaire in control of policy. You’re literally arguing for oligarchy. When I said “nerd” I meant fan boy culture. A geek who was logical would know centralization of control is bad system design.
    - tinco 5y ago
      Bill Gates doesn't control shit. He attempted influence some education stuff, it failed and it backfired hard and because he didn't actually have control he could also not undo his influence. What sort of policy do you feel he has control over? He doesn't have enough money to actually control anything. He couldn't even get people in Afghanistan to vaccinate when that was his sole goal for a decade, just because some local warlords were working against him. You have a misguided idea about how much control he can actually exert with the couple billion he spends on this stuff. Do you know how little money it actually is in the grand scheme of things? He can barely move the needle on the topics he finds important. A single power plant costs upwards of 10 billion dollars, and that will power maybe 1 large city. You know who really has the money to influence those? Corporations, you know, the things that actually have no soul, and that have no motivation other than greed arguably dictated by law? They'll counter Gates' billions with trillions. All the billionaires in the US couldn't stop a Putin or a Salman from doing anything they want. That's what an oligarchy is. I'm not arguing for oligarchy, I'm not even arguing Gates should even have that much money to spend. But to say he's being nefarious with it, or that he's spending it in a bad way is just ridiculous. And who the fuck fanboys over Gates. Literally no one, he's as unlikable as fuck, he fucked up Windows in the 90's he fucked up my job as a webdeveloper in the 2000s. I think he should spend his money on fighting climate change, but he's spending it on sick and hungry children. He probably saved my life by funding vaccine research, but I still don't really appreciate him. But yeah, complain about fan boy culture and the distinction about geeks and nerds, as if those are not just things you just made up. All this propaganda I'm watching.. you know the movies that really indoctrinate me where I'm watching actual Bill Gates saying things about the things he actually did that you can actually measure and verify that had actual and measurable positive impact in the world. Yeah those things really got to me, I'm so indoctrinated right now.

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

by 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.

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.

luffapi 5y ago

The internet today… nerds will hero worship any billionaire regardless of how damaging their actions are. Gates, Buffet, Musk… do not have your interests at heart but they have created cults of personality that have been adopted by those who are weak of mind.

tinco 5y ago
They do though, you're wrong and there's a lot of evidence for it. This very article we're commenting on is hard evidence Buffet has our interests at heart, and you're just too hard headed to interpret it that way. With nerds, you just mean people who take a rational view of things. And with worship, you mean appreciation of their efforts. I'd say they wouldn't hurt a fly, but Gates has saved millions of people horrible ends by literally fighting mosquitos so that goes out of the window. There's loads of horrible billionaires out there, that you would single out 3 of them that are actually accomplishing good in the world is ridiculous. If you're so against billionaires, why don't you go spread the names of some who are not contributing to the world? Do you even know them? I bet you don't because you're just riding some ill informed band wagon.
- luffapi 5y ago
  You’ve bought their propaganda. Bill Gates does immense damage by gaining control over large swaths public policy. We do not need or want any billionaire in control of policy. You’re literally arguing for oligarchy. When I said “nerd” I meant fan boy culture. A geek who was logical would know centralization of control is bad system design.
  - tinco 5y ago
    Bill Gates doesn't control shit. He attempted influence some education stuff, it failed and it backfired hard and because he didn't actually have control he could also not undo his influence. What sort of policy do you feel he has control over? He doesn't have enough money to actually control anything. He couldn't even get people in Afghanistan to vaccinate when that was his sole goal for a decade, just because some local warlords were working against him. You have a misguided idea about how much control he can actually exert with the couple billion he spends on this stuff. Do you know how little money it actually is in the grand scheme of things? He can barely move the needle on the topics he finds important. A single power plant costs upwards of 10 billion dollars, and that will power maybe 1 large city. You know who really has the money to influence those? Corporations, you know, the things that actually have no soul, and that have no motivation other than greed arguably dictated by law? They'll counter Gates' billions with trillions. All the billionaires in the US couldn't stop a Putin or a Salman from doing anything they want. That's what an oligarchy is. I'm not arguing for oligarchy, I'm not even arguing Gates should even have that much money to spend. But to say he's being nefarious with it, or that he's spending it in a bad way is just ridiculous. And who the fuck fanboys over Gates. Literally no one, he's as unlikable as fuck, he fucked up Windows in the 90's he fucked up my job as a webdeveloper in the 2000s. I think he should spend his money on fighting climate change, but he's spending it on sick and hungry children. He probably saved my life by funding vaccine research, but I still don't really appreciate him. But yeah, complain about fan boy culture and the distinction about geeks and nerds, as if those are not just things you just made up. All this propaganda I'm watching.. you know the movies that really indoctrinate me where I'm watching actual Bill Gates saying things about the things he actually did that you can actually measure and verify that had actual and measurable positive impact in the world. Yeah those things really got to me, I'm so indoctrinated right now.