5 ms·

They call it reputation laundering. His wife left him after the Epstein thing blew up. Former associates describe him as a pretty terrible person. Being evil an

They call it reputation laundering. His wife left him after the Epstein thing blew up. Former associates describe him as a pretty terrible person. Being evil and then making a show of your charity, which is often just another outlet for your own personal power trips doesn’t suddenly make you a good person. It’s just buying indulgences, but instead of the church it’s a corrupt fourth estate.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
People who know him think he’s terrible, the whole humble Warren Buffet act is done for PR (the same reason Warren Buffet does it). He wasn’t just palling around with Epstein, his friendship continued after Epstein was convicted. His excuse was that Epstein gave him access… as if Bill G wasn’t the richest person on the planet at the time.
jacquesm 4y ago
And more often than not those foundations are tax dodges in disguise, you can't spend that much money in a reasonable fashion anyway.
- timsneath 4y ago
  It seems that this is a common misperception for some reason. There are certainly many charities that are ineffective at their mission, inefficient with their funds or working on a mission that few would consider worthwhile. (And there are also some great charities out there that are effective, efficient and important, such as https://givedirectly.org https://givedirectly.org.) But charities (of which non-profit foundations are a subclass) aren't a "tax dodge". Money that you give to a charity is untaxed, so you can claim a refund on income taxes you've already paid on that money. But you don't get new money that you haven't already earned from the IRS; every penny given is money that you already had, and the tax refund is purely of tax that is no longer due on that money. It's possible to be cynical of the motives of some philanthropic gifts, but Gates (and others) aren't financially better off from their giving itself.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    No, but they are also not off materially worse because of the tax deductions and when played smart time wise these can actually lead to advantages. Note that Gates & co have a small army of tax lawyer who are very good at this and for Bill gates buying himself a reputation whitewash at the taxpayers expense definitely makes him 'better off' just maybe not in a pure financial sense.
revolvingocelot 4y ago
I think it all depends. I note the massive amounts he donates, as reported by the press, but I also note scattered anecdata like a sibling of the parent comment suggesting it's mostly ineffective. But what if the money does accomplish something? When I hear the name "Carnegie", I think of music and libraries, but his contemporaries would think of emotional abuse and robber-barony.
Semaphor 4y ago
On the one hand, yes. On the other, if I have to choose between evil and not doing good, and evil but now doing good (for whatever reason), and there’s no one available to choose who’s not evil, I’ll happily pick the one who’s at least doing good, even if it’s for their own reasons.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

People who know him think he’s terrible, the whole humble Warren Buffet act is done for PR (the same reason Warren Buffet does it). He wasn’t just palling around with Epstein, his friendship continued after Epstein was convicted. His excuse was that Epstein gave him access… as if Bill G wasn’t the richest person on the planet at the time.

jacquesm 4y ago

And more often than not those foundations are tax dodges in disguise, you can't spend that much money in a reasonable fashion anyway.

timsneath 4y ago
It seems that this is a common misperception for some reason. There are certainly many charities that are ineffective at their mission, inefficient with their funds or working on a mission that few would consider worthwhile. (And there are also some great charities out there that are effective, efficient and important, such as https://givedirectly.org https://givedirectly.org.) But charities (of which non-profit foundations are a subclass) aren't a "tax dodge". Money that you give to a charity is untaxed, so you can claim a refund on income taxes you've already paid on that money. But you don't get new money that you haven't already earned from the IRS; every penny given is money that you already had, and the tax refund is purely of tax that is no longer due on that money. It's possible to be cynical of the motives of some philanthropic gifts, but Gates (and others) aren't financially better off from their giving itself.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  No, but they are also not off materially worse because of the tax deductions and when played smart time wise these can actually lead to advantages. Note that Gates & co have a small army of tax lawyer who are very good at this and for Bill gates buying himself a reputation whitewash at the taxpayers expense definitely makes him 'better off' just maybe not in a pure financial sense.

revolvingocelot 4y ago

I think it all depends. I note the massive amounts he donates, as reported by the press, but I also note scattered anecdata like a sibling of the parent comment suggesting it's mostly ineffective. But what if the money does accomplish something? When I hear the name "Carnegie", I think of music and libraries, but his contemporaries would think of emotional abuse and robber-barony.

Semaphor 4y ago

On the one hand, yes. On the other, if I have to choose between evil and not doing good, and evil but now doing good (for whatever reason), and there’s no one available to choose who’s not evil, I’ll happily pick the one who’s at least doing good, even if it’s for their own reasons.