Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Eric Roebuck
76 Followers
Ann Waybourn
13 Followers
Ann Waybourn
13 Followers
Johnny Rez
7488 Followers
Johnny Rez
7488 Followers
xsubmergedAug 4, 2010
Is the world ending and I don't know it?
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
Let me translate: One or two billionaires might actually "give away" half their wealth. But it's more likely that the rest will "give away" half their wealth to a tax-free foundation over which they have full control. I seriously doubt that we're going to see all the world's poor benefit from this exercise in public relations.
reposadoAug 4, 2010
These guys have been donating billions for years now and you dismiss it as an "exercise in public relations?"
How much have you donated to charity?
invictus125Aug 4, 2010
I'd be willing to bet that Buffet will really give half his wealth away with no strings attached. He doesn't even use it anyway. It just sits there, except when he uses it to invest and make more money back. As far as living conditions go, though, he lives more modestly than most people with even 1/10,000th of his net worth.
The others, though, I don't know.
isifunded911Aug 4, 2010
If those billionaires were wise they would lobby for a maximum income. For example:
Company A has 1000 employees. Let's say the CEO earns his or her $10 million a year (not uncommon in these times, as the top 10 U.S. CEO's average well over $100 million each a year). The top management tier just below earn their few million a year each. Suppose we took the FDR scenario to heart and "redistributed" some of those top heavy incomes a bit. Suppose we had the CEO cut his or her package from $10 million to $5 million, and the tier below follow suit as well. Let's say we put about 10 million big ones into the pot, to now be spread out amongst the 1000 employees, in equal shares. We divide that 10 million smackeroos by the 1000 and we get $10,000 a year more per employee. Now, I don't know about you, but $10,000 extra a year could buy lots and lots of appliances, clothing, cars, vacations, home improvements, even the down payment for a new house. Think of all the jobs that would be created by this added consumption. Think of all the money banks and mutual funds and money funds would receive. Think of how many families would advance from renting to now owning that home sweet home. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kar3lessAug 4, 2010
thats called socialism.. check sweden's tax format fyi. It's been done and works in certain places.. in the US .. never.. because u dont work to starve and rob other people your whole life to just give it back to them.. and btw what do you think is going to happen to that utopic 100% tax on high revenues. Some nutjob is gonna win elections and spend all that money on defense contracts and starting a few more illegal wars..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maccawaccaAug 5, 2010
Not sure that is desirable. If you have enough to live comfortably and save a couple of hundred a month for a rainy day why you need more? Much better to do what Gates et al are doing and invest in high value projects rather than new tvs and cars you don't need.
What you suggested will just cause an inflation spiral. Wealth is measured in relative terms so if you give everyone 10k more you are basically giving everyone 0k more in relative terms so we are back to square one. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
archangelzltAug 4, 2010
Yes. Nuclear launch detected.
shagg187Aug 4, 2010
"Our base is under attack."
"SCV Ready"
jstock23Aug 4, 2010
WHERE'S THE DOT?!?! I CAN'T SEE THE DOT!!!
TyenotAug 4, 2010
Not the world, just America...though I hope I'm wrong.
maccawaccaAug 4, 2010
what you expect them to hand out cash to people in mud huts... ridiculous! It's more than a PR exercise it's f**king smart. They're investing their money in projects that benefit society as a whole.
xsubmergedAug 4, 2010
When did I say anything about mud huts or who the should or shouldn't give their money to? :P
ryan850Aug 4, 2010
Gates and Buffet have been giving their money away for years.. Can we try to not ridicule people that are trying to do good.. f**k can't do anything without assh**es finding something to bitch about.. How much money have you donated this year?
ipecacneatAug 4, 2010
I feel fine.
reposadoAug 4, 2010
Buffet and gates etc have been giving away BILLIONS for years now.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
No. But I did hear hell just froze over.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Yes did you forget about 2012
tonynfAug 4, 2010
There was a movie about it, how could you forget? Like, John Cusack was the star of it.
rbean44Aug 4, 2010
Where's the Waltons in this list?
Oh wait, they are f**king douchebag money hoarders with no empathy for anyone.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
"A few had dynastic ideas about wealth … an intergenerational compact with family to keep that going."
That's where the Waltons are.
1d1dntdo1tAug 17, 2010
I think they had a plane to catch.
boulderbumAug 4, 2010
I'm a little surprised Larry Ellison is on the list. He's a selfish cutthroat businessman who I always considered a bit of a douche.
+1 on the Waltons rbean44.
maccawaccaAug 5, 2010
maybe he's finally realized that buying another jet fighter isn't going to improve his life anymore
lavarockAug 5, 2010
Nope. Rich people give away f**kloads of money all the time.
addiktionAug 5, 2010
Yes, but you will know it when its time.
eastwood24Aug 4, 2010
Line starts behind me bitches.
tntbassAug 4, 2010
You're giving away half you're wealth too? Kudo's sir!
nerfdudeAug 4, 2010
I don't have much wealth to give away, but if you give me your address, I'll send you a pirated copy of Hooked on Phonics.
tntbassAug 4, 2010
@Nerfdude
Oh f**k, I just saw that. Was so quick to write up my post I didn't spell check properly. Thanks.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Nerfdude brought it back into his court.
tubbyanimationsAug 5, 2010
kudo's? who's Kudo?
schmichAug 5, 2010
What if you're in the negative? Do you receive money when you give half your wealth away?
rendonsmugAug 5, 2010
@TnTBass: Yes I plan on giving away half my wealth.
I'm going to give H4H a fiver.
tmag454Aug 4, 2010
and you're a billionaire?
stanslikewh0aAug 4, 2010
Half my wealth? That's about 13$
flashtoneAug 4, 2010
lets go in half on a case.
deadpoetic333Aug 4, 2010
That's like an 18 pack of Coors light if you're lucky.
kar3lessAug 4, 2010
or 3 beers if ur in canada and u get taxed the fwwwk up
buttsmaugAug 9, 2010
If my current net worth is in the negatives, which charity is going to give me half of that back?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
heres my wealth... http://new.digg.com/login/bacb0c7106dde3bab6c82479ded1e9d59
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
I heard that about you.
jrackowAug 4, 2010
I'm super proud of you. You're an inspiration to us all.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
Looks like I'm seventh.
..
^^
Wink.
chronically420Aug 11, 2010
sorry bro but theyre not donating the way you think they are.
ivandiggsAug 17, 2010
You know what? f**k it, I'll donate 66% of my wealth as well...let me just open my coin case...and...there! Just gave my two cents.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
Screw charities, half of them lie cheat and steal anyway. Lets split up these billions and give America a Cash-Bailout to kill our deficit to foreign entities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wf80diditAug 4, 2010
As crazy as that sounds, it might actually work.
rscan70Aug 5, 2010
Yea I'm sorry but even if every billionaire in the United States donated their entire net worth to the government, it would not come close to "killing our deficit". According to the article they have a combined net worth of $1.2 trillion. Our national debt right now is just under $13.5 trillion, and our estimated deficit for 2010 is $1.17 trillion. We also owe over $3.9 trillion just to other nations. So while it would obviously start... our national debt is too grossly inflated for even our wealthiest to oversome.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
Source?
eastwood24Aug 4, 2010
...also screw puppies and babies. good for nothin' moochers I say.
tarantulusAug 4, 2010
Screw babies? are you from NAMBLA?
6502samAug 4, 2010
Let me explain something to you. How to get rich:
1. Start a charity.
2. File appropriate forms with IRS
3. Take in money
4. Give absolute minimum to said beneficiaries of your organization's charity
5. Profit!
That's how those telemarketers that ask for money for the "Police" work. At most, 2% actually go to the Cop charity. How do I know? I have a family member who's a state cop and when those "charities" call him, he gives them an earful. And it's hysterical to listen in!
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
Yeah, I've heard of things like that. Like I said, fraud exists. What I'm asking for is a source on this "most" claim of yours.
There are watchdog organizations, and reputable groups make available enough information to show where the money is going. The Gates Foundation in particular surely has the resources to vet the charities it endorses, if it so chooses. And call me naive and optimistic, but I don't think they would let all their effort go to waste by completely ignoring this issue. Surely they have warned these billionaires about the existence of fraudulent charities, and offered their help in dispersing the funds in order to make the process as simple as possible.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
@ McNerd ........there is a government website that shows all the current charities and splits them up into which ones are genuine and which ones are frauds......
/ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer
if you know someone who can cook the books well, a charity is very profitable
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
@jucket: not sure I see what you're getting at.
Yes, I acknowledged charity fraud happens, and no doubt it makes money. So since there's no real evidence one way or another (ignoring the watchdog groups and other things I mentioned), you're saying my default assumption should be that most charity is fraudulent, because charity fraud is easy? That's like saying I should assume most companies sell your credit card information to identity thieves, since it's easy and profitable to do so. One simply does not follow from the other.
Since we're talking about charity and the less-fortunate, I'll digress and say people do the same thing with welfare. "I heard welfare fraud is easy, ergo most people on welfare must be gaming the system for their big-screen TV's!" ignoring the fact that studies have repeatedly shown welfare fraud in the US to be a drop in the bucket.
propethicAug 4, 2010
McNerd, there is a website that lists what every charity spend their money on, which is how you can determine if they are frauds, or using the money for something else. You don't have to assume anything, the information is there.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
Whoops. I assumed jucket was being sarcastic, or otherwise he would have provided a link. Oh well, I'm sure it can be found with a couple minutes of Googling if necessary.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Here's a report on one charity that I give to, the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. It gives a breakdown of where the money goes, how its spent, and the efficiency of the organization.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3587
josh4rimAug 4, 2010
Ummm... This is not our decision, because its not our money nor the governments. These are private individuals, they get to decide where their money goes.
mhuntAug 4, 2010
What about redistribution of wealth? No reason to generate class envy if you're not going to use it.
rscan70Aug 5, 2010
That would have to be the decision of each individual though. I seriously hope you're not insinuating that the government or any other entity should force these billionaires to redistribute their wealth.
thedouchecatAug 4, 2010
Our deficit is in the trillions, even if you took half of all these billionaire's money and put it towards erasing the deficit you MIGHT have ~10% of the deficit covered. And unless you see some policy changes regarding our budget then it would be pointless
rscan70Aug 5, 2010
If all of the billionaires donated half of their money, they could actually cover the entire 2010 deficit. The national debt, however, is a different story.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
Maybe we can negotiate for a ~10% repayment and call it even? That's what corporations do for outstanding taxes and penalties after all.
doctechnicalAug 4, 2010
That's called "stealing", and it's generally frowned upon. Amongst gown-ups, at any rate.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
you wouldn't steal a car...
jasvllAug 4, 2010
Piracy techno REMIX!
shandromandAug 4, 2010
You wouldn't shoot a policeman and steal his helmet.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Sure I would.
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
America as you knew it is obsolete has been slated for "reorganization". Obama will be your last president. After the revolt is put down with a false flag nuclear attack on NYC, you will be merged with Canada and Mexico into an economic entity that will be governed (ostensibly) by the UN.
I'm Crazy. Yes. I know, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
This is too stupid and obvious to be a troll, so I'll say only one thing. Remember this post. Remember it in two years when Obama is slated for re-election (six years if you must, but surely this has nothing to do with whether he gets re-elected). At that time, you should be embarrassed, but most of all learn a valuable lesson and re-evaluate the way you go about interpreting world events.
whateverhesaidAug 4, 2010
@CrazedLeper - "I'm Crazy. Yes. I know, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong"
Stupid is more like it. And yes, you are wrong as usual.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
You seriously believe all that? LOL.
peekmanAug 4, 2010
The UN is based in New York...... so...... America will control itself..... yay
thatryanguyAug 4, 2010
No, the fact that you're wrong means you're wrong.
While it was brought up as a possibility, no one agreed to go along with the NAU. If I remember correctly, Bush in fact said that people bringing up the NAU were simply using it as a political scare tactic.
It's old news, and it's not happening.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
You mean to tell me Alex Jones lied to me by creating a sensationalist story that preyed on the fears of insecure, naive 20-somethings, and now it's not even true??? PREPOSTEROUS, what bilderberger has you on his payroll?
/s
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
@McNerd said:
"This is too blatant to be a troll, so I'll say only one thing. Remember this post. Remember it in two years when Obama is slated for re-election (six years if you must, but surely this has nothing to do with whether he gets re-elected). At that time, you should be embarrassed, but more importantly you should use the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson and re-evaluate the way you go about interpreting world events."
I'd like to know how you *know* I'm wrong if we're talking about future events which neither of us has seen but *one* of us has calculated. Please, print it out. Date stamp it. Hell, I'll notarize a copy for you. Time will tell. In the meantime, you have no basis for declaring me wrong.
-------------------------------------------------
@whateverHeSaid
"Stupid is more like it. "
Kiss my ass--as usual.
-------------------------------------------------
"And yes, you are wrong as usual."
Epistemology. *How* do you know? You can't just declare me wrong, I laid ou reasons for my conclusions. Let me hear your version of future events and your reason for your opinion or STFU.
-------------------------------------------------
@Peekman said:
"The UN is based in New York...... so...... America will control itself..... yay"
You have a great deal to learn. Don't worry, though; the hard way is just as effective as any other method.
-------------------------------------------------
@ZaphodBeeb said:
"You seriously believe all that? LOL."
Yes. What basis do you have for doubt? Everyone is declaring me wrong but no one is providing any rationale.
-------------------------------------------------
@thatryanguy said:
"No, the fact that you're wrong means you're wrong."
Could you have said any less?
-------------------------------------------------
"While it was brought up as a possibility, no one agreed to go along with the NAU."
So did "no one" sign those papers, too?
-------------------------------------------------
"If I remember correctly, Bush in fact said that people bringing up the NAU were simply using it as a political scare tactic.
"Bush said"? Are you kidding!? You're going to quote Bush like that serpent ever spoke a true word in his life? Gonna have to do better than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U
-------------------------------------------------
"It's old news, and it's not happening."
It's future news and it is happening. You just don't know what you're looking at. Even when it's done, you won't know.
-------------------------------------------------
@wilcocola said:
"You mean to tell me Alex Jones lied to me by creating a sensationalist story that preyed on the fears of insecure, naive 20-somethings, and now it's not even true??? PREPOSTEROUS, what bilderberger has you on his payroll?"
That was a lot of words for a borg drone. You must be tired; you should regenerate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
My basis for doubting you is that what you predicted is one of the most irrational things I've ever seen.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
"I'd like to know how you *know* I'm wrong if we're talking about future events which neither of us has seen but *one* of us has calculated. Please, print it out. Date stamp it. Hell, I'll notarize a copy for you. Time will tell. In the meantime, you have no basis for declaring me wrong."
To start with, nuking NYC is in nobody's interest and the global economic consequences would far outweigh the benefits to any group that would profit from a unified North American government.
In any case, if in two years America is no longer a sovereign nation by the year 2012, I will certainly remember the one person I've ever talked to who has predicted this. All I ask is the same: that if you find yourself watching the ceremonies on inauguration day, 2012, you think back on this and ask yourself what error led you to such an extreme miscalculation.
whateverhesaidAug 4, 2010
@CrazedLeper - "you have no basis for declaring me wrong."
That fact that you are a proven idiot is good enough for me.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
@CrazedLeper: I like how you say no one here has any basis for declaring you wrong, yet you give absolutely no evidence for your position except for half-c**ked conspiracy theories.
crazedleperAug 16, 2010
@ZaphodBeeb
"My basis for doubting you is that what you predicted is one of the most irrational things I've ever seen."
Irrational? Like putting men on the moon? Everything is irrational --until it happens. You haven't said anything and you didn't prove me wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bille3Aug 4, 2010
Of course, it is much more cost effective to give the money to government and let it be the charity.
artworkz918Aug 4, 2010
/s
bille3Aug 5, 2010
I thougt it was obvious. But then I forget how many children are at digg.
teckieeeAug 5, 2010
well they claim only 10% of what they are REALLY worth so that's like nothing really
zombies187Aug 5, 2010
Charities make our government look transparent and accountable.
eroc668Aug 4, 2010
Yippie!
wiseguy82Aug 4, 2010
I Dugg the golden button for wealth!
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Something tells me that these charities will mostly be concerned with eugenics and social engineering. Just a hunch.
chamroxAug 4, 2010
About time these guys quit sitting on their pile and do something worthwhile.
Let's just hope they don't sink it into a building, or Africa and do something for the unfortunate here in the US.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dontreplytomeAug 4, 2010
And how much of your own income do you give to the poor and needy?
tallestskilAug 4, 2010
How much do YOU?
You sound like a Scientologist: "What are YOUR crimes?"
therednewtAug 4, 2010
@TallestSkil
I didn't know calling people on hypocrisy was frowned upon now.
doctechnicalAug 4, 2010
If someone said they tithed to charity the Digg hivemind would digg them down for having a faith. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
furburgerhelperAug 4, 2010
I am the poor and needy. And I give a lot to myself - as much as I can, in fact.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
having a billion or more dollars at your disposable is far different than what most of us have. You can't really compare situations...unless, of course, Chamrox is a billionaire. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg2point0Aug 4, 2010
Yeah.. 'spechully that Gates feller...
What'd he ever do??
Oh.. that's right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation
sdphostAug 4, 2010
Yeah f**k Africa, lets hope they do something for us since we are starving to death and live in such terrible conditions.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
The only logically conclusion is he doesn't think Africans are equal to Americans as humans. He thinks of them as animals.
chamroxAug 4, 2010
Why send money to Africa? The USA could use some improvement last time I checked. How about making Mexico a great neighbor instead of kicking them out of Arizona and exploiting their labor? Seriously, charity to Africa will not help. They need leaders, they need a government, they don't need money. Keep this money in the US.
And everyone praising Buffett and Gates. Look, you don't get to be a billionaire unless you stepped on the backs of MANY people. Not everyone has pirated Windows, how about giving a price break rather than gouging everyone in the world? Warren Buffet, there are losers in the stock market. Seldom is any transaction a win for everyone involved, someone lost money for his gain.
These men are not saints. Africa is not the place to send the money to absolve their sins. Build a perfect world at home first before empire building somewhere else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
They're hardly sitting on their pile. They invest their money in companies that make it so you can have a job and all of the nice things that keep you happy.
tk0680Aug 4, 2010
The geographical location in which you were born totally gives/prohibits you things.
Idiot.
superharris5Aug 4, 2010
Say what you want about how Bill Gates made all his money, he sure is spending it well.
lennybirdAug 4, 2010
I won't say anything; he's an innovator and entrepreneur--if anything, one of the few who actually earned their fortune.
biglouAug 4, 2010
But ZOMG he stole all that for Steve Jobs!
/s
designerutahAug 4, 2010
Agreed. As much as people love to hate him, he's earned his wealth. Some of it he earned in ways I think are fairly sad, but he still earned it.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
He's earned it, but in some extremely shady ways. I still maintain that his work in trying to treat AIDS in Africa is part of a penance for unleashing Windows ME on the world.
weirddaveAug 4, 2010
Bill Gates did not innovate directly in software in any meaningful way. His innovation was in monetizing it.
phase64Aug 4, 2010
Believe it or not, I actually heard some kids on the train the other day making that claim passionately (zOmg, bill gates stole the idea for EVERYTHING from apple)
/facepalm
tmwoAug 5, 2010
Microsoft DID steal all their ideas (and sometimes products) from other companies. But they obviously did it very well
explodingzebrasAug 5, 2010
Relevant
http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Gates-Buys-Homer-Out
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
So we're told...
rwiggumAug 4, 2010
But it's a worse idea to base the way you treat people on a Ricky Gervais movie.
archangelzltAug 4, 2010
Agreed. I don't like Microsoft (at all), but Bill Gates made his money more honestly than a few of the biggest names in history.
(Tip: Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.)
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
Antitrust is not honesty.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Slightly more honestly. Microsoft still did some pretty bad s**t. Check out the Netscape stuff, or the agreements they made OEMs sign to where they'd be paid for every computer sold, regardless of whether it had Windows on it.
reboareAug 4, 2010
shill for microsoft
rahazAug 4, 2010
When a guy mentions Bill Gates, Rockefeller, and Carnegie in a sentence, Gates is not the one to be accusing of anti trust.
Rockefeller and Carnegie are the definition of anti-competitive practices.
blorcAug 5, 2010
@s73v3r sounds legitimate to me. If you want to blame anyone for anti-competitiveness or monopolies, blame the government for the ridiculous IP laws they purport protect competition.
eschompthisAug 5, 2010
Anybody who says statements like "I don't like Microsoft (at all)" is a deutschbag.
mimimiaouAug 5, 2010
As in they're german?
lostinseganetAug 4, 2010
I'm pooor ,but man would I never expect some one to do this...
moses141Aug 4, 2010
The question is: where are "do no evil" Sergey, Larry, and Eric?
gattacasdAug 4, 2010
Already doing their own philanthropy: http://www.google.org/
schmichAug 5, 2010
Not to try to back them up but do they have billions in cash or "just" in Google shares?
seepage87Aug 4, 2010
Most ultra-rich people do, in the end. This is NOT uncommon except that it is being done by a group at the same and in a large one-off proportion. Rich people are often very very good humans who bear the burden of a negative public image because of their wealth; they know better than any that you can't take it with you, and overwhelmingly have multiple philanthropy foundations doing good work (though rarely as massive and high profile as, e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). Despite what so many think, you don't get rich by being an assh**e, people don't trust assh**es and it only keeps people from giving you jobs, partnering with you, etc. assh**es don't network well.
agretAug 5, 2010
"This is NOT uncommon except that it is being done by a group at the same and in a large one-off proportion"
You mean like now? Hence, the news article?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isifunded911Aug 4, 2010
Did you forget google to check if there is another side to this story?
http://www.dirkbradshaw.com/?p=231923
The Los Angeles Times has revealed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made millions of dollars each year from companies blamed for many of the same social and health problems the Foundation seeks to address. We speak with the lead reporter on the LA Times investigative team that broke the story. the LA Times investigation reveals the Gates Foundation’s humanitarian concerns are not reflected in how it invests its money. In the Niger Delta — where the Foundation funds programs to fight polio and measles – the Foundation has also invested more than $400 million dollars in companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These oil firms have been responsible for much of the pollution many blame for respiratory problems and other afflictions among the local population. The Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds stakes in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most AIDS patients around the world can afford. Other companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes; supporting child labor; and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care. Overall, the LA Times says nearly $9 billion in Gates Foundation money is tied up in companies whose practices run counter to …Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
A vast majority of major corporations are controversial in some way. I don't see you going out and trying to cure malaria in your free time.
stap1egunAug 5, 2010
Why the hell would Bill Gates spend tens of billions of dollars just to marginally help oil companies? Use common sense, he wouldn't. Obviously an organization with hundreds of billions in capital is going to have very diverse investments. Stop trying to vilify the organization for trivial conflicts while they're doing incredibly great service to humanity.
llanowarAug 4, 2010
I've always had a lot of respect for Bill Gates.
Steve Jobs on the other hands... he wouldn't even be worthy to s**t on.
roxgod666Aug 5, 2010
Hell, the word "charity" or "donate" isn't even in Jobs's Wiki. Apple fanboys are dumb as bricks for admiring this guy.
smurfzAug 4, 2010
I wonder how many will follow through with this.
oxidaneAug 4, 2010
Why is this getting dugg down? Knowing the nature of corporate bastards, it's a very legitimate question.
eastwood24Aug 4, 2010
Now you're in the green smurfz.
agvanceAug 4, 2010
According to a study done for Google the rich in America are very philanthropic, I don't know why so many on Digg seem to assume the opposite. The rich in America have always donated large sums of money to charity and worthwhile causes I believe it is probably the best part about being rich. If they didn't donate money how did we end up with so many charities in America.
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/research/giving%20focused%20on%20meeting%20needs%20of%20the%20poor%20july%202007.pdf
Tables start at page 9.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
That's because most people view the rich as being more like Mr. Burns than like Bill Gates.
seepage87Aug 4, 2010
Right! Seriously, I don't think I've met a single person who said they wouldn't donate a good amount of money to charity if they were a billionaire, and I can't imagine those who are actual billionaires somehow feel different. I love you, keep preaching the good word.
lusetonAug 4, 2010
It is interesting that majority on the list are from liberal states. Damn you liberals. :)
texmexrexAug 4, 2010
" A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"
andyswanAug 4, 2010
Let's hope their wealth is used as effectively by the charities as it was by the men and women that produced it!
ashur420Aug 4, 2010
f**k the charities, this money should be donated to science.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Like green energy research, that's a charity to everyone.
ashur420Aug 4, 2010
i did notice that George Lucas is giving his money to education, which is a step in the right direction.
stoanhartAug 4, 2010
Well, I don't know if they're all kicking it into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but Gates and Buffet are. So at least in those two cases, the money will be managed by the people who produced it.
diceauAug 5, 2010
Agreed, I'd like to see this money invested into saving the planet ... we'll work on saving people later. First thing's first.
freckleearsAug 12, 2010
The money should have been taken from the rich during the financial crisis. That way the bailout wouldn't have been necessary.
wiseguy82Aug 4, 2010
I like Steve Jobs, but I wonder if he will have the humility to do this as well.
barrettandersonAug 4, 2010
What is it about Steve Jobs that you like?
wiseguy82Aug 4, 2010
I like his leadership style and showmanship, despite being branded an ass by others who didn't have good experiences with him or his products.
I like the iPods and iPhones, but not the Macs. Still a PC guy when it comes to hardcore computing!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
biglouAug 4, 2010
Yeah, totally dude, that's so hardcore!!!!!
squidvetAug 4, 2010
Yeah, let's see Steve Jerbs put up half his money. Then maybe I'll buy an iphone.
addiggtAug 4, 2010
Dear Bill & Warren,
No.
- Steve
Sent from my iPhone
biglouAug 4, 2010
Dear Steve,
Shove it.
- Bill & Warren
Sent from our motherf**king golden envelopes, motherf**ker!
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
Frakkin' hilarious, @addiggt.
bdog2g2Aug 4, 2010
No.
- Steve
That'd be more Steve's style.
kinseyincanadaAug 5, 2010
Steve Jobs can do whatever the f**k he wants with his own money.
shockzAug 5, 2010
this made me lol hard
wiseguy82Aug 5, 2010
lol u should change name to agentlemen
dougm68Aug 4, 2010
Not bloody likely. Steve is a 'jew' in every sense of the word. Trust me, I'm one too. =)
ubernickAug 4, 2010
Buried =)
d4ftpunkAug 4, 2010
You just said you were a jew. How can I trust you?
(I´m joking btw...)
wiseguy82Aug 5, 2010
He's technically half Arab...he would kill Jews
doshindudeAug 4, 2010
Steve Jobs is too self-important and obsessed with his iPhones and iPads to care about anything else. He'd never do it. It really brings out his character.
deathcodeAug 4, 2010
He will create iDonate, so billionaires such as himself can donate to their favorite institutions easily. Himself included, but the App will be developed by apple and it'll cost 1 billion to download, 70% for the developer (Apple) and 30% for Apple (Apple)
d4ftpunkAug 4, 2010
This whole 'I hate Steve Jobs' thing is getting kinda old.
Just because he doesn´t donate half his wealth doesn´t make him a dick. He has earned his money and may spend it as he wish.
There are thousands of billionares that haven´t signed the pledge as well as thousands of better reasons to dislike Steve Jobs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikekmAug 4, 2010
It's sweet that you're trying to stick up for someone you have a dude-crush on. Yeah he's earned it fair and square and every penny is rightfully his...but realistically, how many billions of dollars does it take to live comfortably? Donating money isn't even all that important, he could donate time....something I highly doubt the CEO and chief creator of ideas at a top tech company would do.
In some form or fashion I believe that you should try to give back to the community/state/country that you live in. Maybe he has it in his will that most of his fortune will go to charity and non-profits; this is something we will never know until years from now.
dandoniaAug 5, 2010
why stop at country when your money could save far more lives else where?
firewall1Aug 5, 2010
RTFA.
There are around 400 billionaires in the US - not 'thousands.'
d4ftpunkAug 5, 2010
@firewall1
Oh! I misread the actual number of billionaires in the US!
There are like, 600 less billionaires in the US then I thought it was.
Boy, do I feel stupid right now..... I´m such an idiot!
I read the f**king article, you moron. Didn´t think the number of billionaires were relevant to my point.
There are still 366 'douchebag' billlionaires that haven´t signed the pledge. How about you name and hassle them too.
My point was that Jobs might be a douche. But in this case, most other billionaires are just as bad. He is however the only one being singled out as an egotistical douche. I don´t think that it´s fair.
@MikeKM
I would sign the pledge myself, if I was a billionaire.
No one needs billions of dollars. But that is not the point here.
I think Jobs should sign, but I don´t hate him for not signing. That his f**king right.
And by the way. Those who think that Gates is doing this solely out of good will, is incredibly naive. This is great PR for Microsoft.
Truly philantrophic individuals donate anonymously.
(But by all means, Bill Gates is a great guy.
But he obviously has his motives)
greenroom628Aug 4, 2010
that's great news, but i'll believe it when i see billion dollar contributions to the red cross, amnesty intl, wwf, etc.
pakobedejoAug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dougdiggertonAug 5, 2010
...NWO, the XFL, roller derby...
skywiseAug 4, 2010
Well either they give half of it away or the government takes half through estate taxes...
makisupaAug 4, 2010
Protip: Deductions don't reduce tax liability dollar for dollar. It still amazes me that people don't realize that money given to charity + taxes - deductions is always greater than taxes and no charitable giving. That is, the total amount of money you no longer control is always greater when money is given to charity, even when accounting for deductions.
skywiseAug 4, 2010
Protip: That's true of income and charitable giving while they're alive but not after they're dead. Estate taxes which will still take roughly 50% of the estate's value if passed on to children.
(Which is why the pledge includes people giving it away after their death.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
makisupaAug 4, 2010
Irrevocable charitable trusts. Trusts take care of this whole estate tax issue as long as the donor doesn't hold back a string (lifetime income interest, power of apointment, etc).
skywiseAug 4, 2010
Right, hence my OP.
skywiseAug 4, 2010
And then you went and edited your post -
It's not that you don't "give away more money" it's that MORE money makes it to your target (child, charity, etc) then would if you didn't go through the tax shelters. YOU lose more money up front (and it's a very small percentage of that amount) but your receiver gains more money.
So, again, you agree with my original assertion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
therednewtAug 4, 2010
Well, unless they die this year.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
In January 2010 Congress enacted a one year 0% estate tax rate across the board. Currently if/when it expires then in January of 2011 it will jump back to 55% with a $1 million deduction, but nobody expects that to happen since it was 45% with a $3.5 million deduction prior to 2010. The big question is whether congress will extend the 0% another year (or more), re-instate the 45% rate or introduce something else.
Aside from that, at least by donating 50% of their wealth these billionaires can decide exactly where their money will go instead of just letting it go to the government. But more importantly, when they do eventually die whatever assets they have remaining will still be fair game for the government to tax based on whatever estate tax is in play at the time.
6502samAug 4, 2010
"I'd rather give up 50% of my wealth then have all of it taken away!"
-paraphrased Joseph P. Kennedy patriarch of THE Kennedys
crazedleperAug 4, 2010
They didn't get to be billionaires by being stupid, generous or naive. They afraid that fiscally-collapsing government's are going to get desperate and start instituting "wealth" or "windfall" taxes that claim net worth and not just income. They could be disposing of wealth (on paper) to protect themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
propethicAug 4, 2010
Wow you know what billionaires are thinking! Amazing.
fidipidirocksAug 4, 2010
Im pretty sure Buffet is going to give more than half. I though he was giving it all away at one point, still nice of them to do so though!
fluoroAug 4, 2010
Gates said he'd leave a couple million for his kids, but he's giving the rest away.
therednewtAug 4, 2010
Yeah, there's really no point in leaving them more than that anyway. They're still going to have enough money where they can do whatever they want, combined with all the other advantages besides money that I'm sure their parents gave them. Dumping billions on your heirs? There isn't much point.
biglouAug 4, 2010
I agree with the two of you. If I was a billionaire, what could I actually do with all that money? Sure, I could spend like crazy, but that would get old and meaningless after a while. I'd also not likely hoard it either for myself or my kids. Sure, they would see a sizable lump sum after my death, but I'd like to know that my money is really making a difference for the world--not just a couple of spoiled jerks.
kibblesnbittsAug 4, 2010
@BigLou
That was more pleasant to read than the lyrics to "Billionaire"
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
@KibblesnBitts: My colonoscopy was more pleasant than reading the lyrics to "Billionaire".
sshrpAug 4, 2010
I believe Buffet said he was going to give over 99%
bdog2g2Aug 4, 2010
Hell his kids said they didn't want it.
They said their father taught them how to make money and if I'm not mistaken they're all self-made millionaires. I'm sure their Buffet helped them in the beginning, but they earned their loot.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Of course they had help from Buffet; if I was his offspring I would expect some help in the form of advice, training, and maybe a little seed money. However, those things are pretty basic. They have found their own way, and their success is pretty much all their own.
rahazAug 4, 2010
Gospel of Wealth. Buffet and Gates are both believers. Obviously they're going to leave some for their kids but come on.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Wow, its like if you don't tax the s**t out of people, most will do the right thing anyway... and be 100% more efficient about it than the government.
fluoroAug 4, 2010
Eventually.
digg2point0Aug 4, 2010
Except not most...
And money donated to charity doesn't do squat for the Government at any level.
donpacific2kAug 4, 2010
Except you're wrong. For starters, it puts people to work for those charities - people who pay income taxes, property taxes, etc.. Those people who are working then have money to buy things which generates sales taxes and keeps other people in business, who in turn pay income taxes, property taxes....... etc. etc. etc..
Oh yeah, and charities improve the society we live in too.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Charity does benefit society, and through that, benefits the government. The more work charity can do, the less work the government has to do.
rizzo2008Aug 5, 2010
Oh God forbid we give money to charity instead of the oh perfect state! /s
analogassassinAug 19, 2010
The fact that you capitalized "government" is very telling.
ivanmarshAug 4, 2010
What? Are you out of your mind?
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
What? The rate of the progressive tax system stops increasing at around $350,000, that doesn't mean you don't pay tax on the rest of it. They pay near 35% in average tax percentage on all of their income.
Plus they pay capital gains tax on non-cash investments.
sshrpAug 4, 2010
I've personally paid over 50% of my earnings in a single tax year and I happen to know someone who has paid well over $350,000 in taxes in a single year.
I'm sick of all these myths.
caseycooldAug 4, 2010
sshrp: stop doing your own taxes, 'cause you're not doing them right.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
If you made $400,000, your average federal income tax rate would be around 27%. Depending on your state and county, you may pay an extra 15% in further income taxes (which are deductible from federal). If you are self employed, you would pay a total of 12.4% for the first $106,800 (SS) and 2.9% (medicare) on the rest (however half of that is deductible from federal).
With this WORST case example of a self employed high income earner, you are talking around a 44% with no deductions. With all the possible deductions (including student loan interest, mortgage interest, businesses expenses, etc.) it would be pretty damn hard to pay more than around 35-38% in average tax.
I won't charge you this time for the tax lesson, but if I do next time, be sure to deduct it.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Actually, most of the people on this list would be paying closer to 15-20% in taxes, as most of their income would be coming from Capital Gains, which is taxes at 15%.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
34 people is not "most," and this took a major campaign on Gates's part. Get back to me in 250 years. If at that point this has become the norm among the upper class, and stayed that way for more than half of America's history, then we'll talk.
apackofmonkeysAug 4, 2010
Sure it's only 34 people, but it's f**king HALF of their wealth-- that's a huge percentage and a huge commitment. Who knows how many people not affiliated with this drive are giving less than half, but still a nice chunk of their change.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
Yeah...it's half of their billions of dollars, after they're dead. Frankly, it's not like they're losing anything: even their wives and children will probably all still be billionaires. From a certain perspective, the fact that every billionaire in America hasn't already jumped on the bandwagon is sort of amazing, if you believe (as the poster I was responding to believes) that people are inherently generous that way. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apackofmonkeysAug 4, 2010
Wow, they've pledged billions and billions of their own money to help people, but that's just not good enough, huh? s**t, if they bought f**king Tahiti and gave it to you for your private use, you'd complain that it takes too long to fly there and it rains too much. f**k, man, you are a wet blanket.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
On the contrary, I've made a big deal elsewhere on this page about how important this obviously is, and how much we as a society should honor them for what they've done (using that precise word).
But the reason they deserve to be honored is not because, objectively speaking, they're making great sacrifices for us. It's because it's such a rarity, and they're setting a good example for others, and if everybody followed that example, we would have a better world.
And for this, they deserve all the thanks we know how to give. This is a good enough reason: I see no reason I should mince words and play pretend in order to make it sound better than it is, when the truth is honorable enough already. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apackofmonkeysAug 4, 2010
I don't know what you said in other threads, so sorry if I misunderstood your views. I hope you can see how I interpreted your posts here has pretty much just dumping on them and implying it's no big deal. But I don't necessarily agree with you that it's not a big sacrifice. Will they still be ultra-rich? Sure, but giving up half of whatever you're used to really is a hard thing to do-- if you showed a poor kid in, say, central Africa, what you or I have, I am absolutely sure they'd say giving up half of what you or I have would not be a sacrifice, because we'd still have so much. But I bet it would sure feel like a big sacrifice if we actually did it, no? We'd almost for sure have to sell our house or get a smaller, dumpier apartment. We'd have to cancel that road trip we'd planned next summer or not give gifts this Xmas. It would certainly feel like a big sacrifice to us, even though we'd still have food and shelter. Just goes to show how selfish we all are no matter what we have, and beating that selfishness at any level is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
I think there's a miscommunication here. The pledge includes people who donate that money posthumously. Meaning they would not see any change whatsoever in their lifestyle. Their children and other beneficiaries might be able to tell the difference, but it's a big stretch to consider this a huge sacrifice: they'll still be handed a massive inheritance check they didn't have before, and of course the person who died won't be around to see it.
With that said, I neglected that some of the donors have reportedly pledged much more than the 50% requested, and no doubt many of them WILL give significantly during their lifetimes, and even if they don't it's still a big deal for the reasons I described above.
But my original point stands. If I were a sociopath and also a billionaire, I would STILL take this pledge and do the bare minimum, give 50% when I died, just to receive the resulting accolades for a choice that has no drawbacks whatsoever. It's pretty hard to talk about how all the rich people would be socially responsible in the absence of taxes, when only 10% of people are giving to charity even though it's in their own self-interest!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
And yes, I can certainly understand how I was coming off as disparaging these donors, and maybe I still do come off that way. I get that it's very tricky to reconcile the two things I'm saying, but I think both points are too important to ignore, so we have to walk that tightrope.
artworkz918Aug 4, 2010
Over half their money will go to pay the death taxes. So really, they're only giving away, half of half of their fortunes
atarioAug 5, 2010
"Wow, they've pledged billions and billions of their own money to help people, but that's just not good enough, huh?"
In the paraphrased words of Chris Rock: I've you have thirty billion, and give away fifteen billion, you ain't starvin'. If you have three /thousand/, and give away fifteen /hundred/...you might have to move back in with mama.
therednewtAug 4, 2010
Um...what? This isn't "most" people. It's 34 people. Plus, the money isn't going to the same things that taxes go to, but whatever. Be trite and ridiculous.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The mindset today is that the government is somehow morally superior to private citizens. I wish the left feared big government as much as they do big pharma,oil,business, etc.
They will someday.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
"The mindset today is that the government is somehow morally superior to private citizens."
"Somehow" is a little vague, isn't it? In what way is the government supposed to be morally superior to private citizens? Surely you can elaborate on this, if you yourself understand the point you're trying to make.
seltaeb4Aug 4, 2010
Just the opposite.
The government is our only protection against corporations.
Putting trust in corporations is like making an appointment to have your throat slit. Just look at American history.
You'll get it eventually.
shandromandAug 4, 2010
"The government is our only protection against corporations."
That has to be the biggest f**king joke I've ever heard. Corporations buy and sell, and politics is just another commodity.
artworkz918Aug 4, 2010
wow, seltaeb4, you can't actually be that ignorant can you?
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
@artworkz918: Ignorant how? Do you disagree with his statement that the government is our only protection against corporations? If so, what other protection exists?
Or are you trying to make a nuanced point about how his post is factually correct but in the bigger picture we have to prioritize other issues such as the danger posed by government overreach itself? If so, a stupid personal attack is a pretty bad way to go about it. But I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
artworkz918Aug 4, 2010
How would it protect us against ourselves? Corporations are made up of "We the People". We work for them, own the stocks, use the products. We need no overreaching govt. trying to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps they should breast feed you and wipe your ass for you tooComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nofrickenwayAug 4, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip
danisthAug 4, 2010
Then they wouldn't be the "left."
farfle10Aug 4, 2010
McNerd ftw. that was a pretty swift e-ass kicking
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
@artworkz918
How would it protect us against ourselves? Corporations are made up of "We the People". We work for them, own the stocks, use the products. We need no overreaching govt. trying to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps they should breast feed you and wipe your ass for you too
Corporations are interested in serving their shareholders interests, and that is making money, not protecting the general public. Not everyone owns the same stock and tons of people don't own any at all. There are so many conflicting interests that there is no "we" in this situation and that's why government is necessary.
Based on your logic, we wouldn't need a court system, because people aren't greedy or anything and will work things out for themselves. lol
mcnerdAug 5, 2010
@artworkz918: If corporations are made up of "we the people" (a phrase that, ironically, you drew from the constitution of the US government) then so is the government, which at least has an electoral system to keep it accountable to the people. I'm not saying it's perfect, but if your own argument held water, then it would serve even better as a pro-government argument.
artworkz918Aug 5, 2010
the govt no longer is. It was supposed to be everyday citizens that went and served and then had to return to their businesses and the world they created with their laws. it no longer is. It's held by career politicians who have NO accountability to the madness they enact on the general public.
You should be far more outraged by what the govt is doing to you than corporations, which are just businesses (large yes) owned by the people getting screwed by the govt
texodoreAug 4, 2010
Trickle down economics only took 30 years to kick in...
kinggorillaAug 4, 2010
It kicked in?
toxicshokAug 4, 2010
it kicked in years ago, it just kicked in in India and China.
jeepyAug 4, 2010
100% more efficient at re-investing it in more risky ways to increase thing profit margins, maybe. I'm assuming you haven't forgotten that little financial meltdown that was caused by the rich and economically savvy a little whiles back. I know the world losing 40% of it's GDP over the course of a few months is an easy thing to forget after almost two years.
The myth that the "rich" somehow have a better idea of money management is horses**t. They just have more safety nets than anyone else to where they can absorb mistakes. When Trump loses 30 million dollars on a failed investment he has other ways of making it back. When banks and investment firms lost billions of dollars they were deemed to big to fail. Where is this awesome incentive you speak of to manage money well that comes from having the lowest taxes in 40 some odd years?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ymegAug 4, 2010
So they wouldn't have donated if the arbitrary "tax the s**t out" of rate was imposed?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
I'd hate to put a damper on a good point, but a large inheritance tax might have been included in some people's decisions.
rahazAug 4, 2010
Oh come on. The inheritance tax isn't nearly big enough that someone would prefer giving away a large amount of their money just to avoid it.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
45% is a huge chunk. And I never said it was solely to avoid the estate tax. I was just pointing out that donating almost twice the amount as you could give your kids might have been considered.
artworkz918Aug 5, 2010
goes up to 65% next year
woofers07Aug 4, 2010
How does donating to charities and the impoverished do anything to help the struggling lower-middle to middle class?
cyclonusripAug 4, 2010
Ya I'm sure that's exactly what Buffet and Gates would say if they ever weighed in on taxes. It's just too bad neither of them have made their opinions known.
/s
rahazAug 4, 2010
34 out of over 1000.
Yeah sure. Not to mention that charity does jack s**t for certain vital infrastructure and other areas.
rizzo2008Aug 5, 2010
I would rather money go to charities that actually give a s**t than a bunch of corrupt and/or inept government bureaucrats.
artworkz918Aug 5, 2010
we're already paying taxes for infrastructure. hold your almighty govt accountable if you want progress
solecizeAug 5, 2010
The greatest generation- most of whom are teabaggers now, approved the largest tax increases in american history for the wealthy and kept tax rates high for the wealthy until 1981 (63%-90% for the highest brackets)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
You can't blame 50 years of tax bulls**t on just the democrats- that was at the very least some bi-partisan buttf**kery.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trey9128Aug 4, 2010
Big deal! I'm not even that rich and I "donate" half my income every year to federal and state income taxes, property tax, self-employment tax, etc. Yet half of America pays no federal income tax, and the superrich (like these billionaires) typically pay a capital gains rate of only 15-20%.
Remember that hypocrite John Kerry? He and Teresa paid 13% tax on 6 million dollars the year he was a presidential candidate. How did he "earn" his money? He married a rich widow, who "earned" her money by marrying well. Yet he advocated reinstating the Clinton tax increases, which would mean a higher rate for those "paupers" who made a twentieth of his income for the year, yet were already paying 36%. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ontainAug 4, 2010
looking at the actual Bush tax cuts. I see that most tax brackets are either unchanged or only get a 2% reduction.
the top bracket got a 3.6% reduction. I wonder who came out ahead.
what we need to do is create more brackets up top (311k is the top right now) so that we can tax the very top some more.
trey9128Aug 4, 2010
No. What we need to do is to tax the superrich on "investment income" they same way we tax earned income. Charles Schuemer, D-NY told superrich investment bankers not to worry during the Obama campaign. They would still only have to pay their paltry 15%. f**king Democratic hypocrites.
ontainAug 4, 2010
you realize that if they are going to be reinvesting that money it's not income anymore. if a business owner reinvests that income into more jobs or more equipment it's not taxed. also this is income tax we're talking about not capital gains which is the other type of "investment income". that's already taxed at a much lower rate.
dusanmalAug 4, 2010
So, discrimination against particular minority who are not you is OK?
There should be no legal right to tax richer proportionally more. The only answer is to remove all brackets and have all people equal in front of the tax man. And no exemptions. If you earn 1$ you should pay same percentage of it to Govt.as million $ earner pays from his million. Or it is discrimination and negative feedback to the productivity of whole nation.
ontainAug 4, 2010
richer ppl can get taxed proportionally more because they have more disposable income. lets say you want to eventually pay down that debt. you can't up the tax burden on the poor and middle income because they are just barely getting by already. it would also hinder them from being able to have any upward mobility because they wouldn't be able to have much to start new businesses.
remember that in the last 30 years the average ceo salary has gone from 30x an average employer to more than 300x. wealth grows proportionally. this is why the rich get richer at a much faster rate.
the lives of the super rich are much less effected by the tax increases.
peekmanAug 4, 2010
It is not discrimination at all........... Any person who makes $100,000 in employment income pays the same amount of taxes on their money.
It is not even negative feedback....... Making your first $100,000 is harder than making your second $100,000 and thus your 'hard money' to make is taxed more than your 'easier money' to make.
algeeeAug 4, 2010
what would you prefer, 13% on 6 million or 36% on 50k? assuming you earned both with you own hard work, one way your paying 780K in taxes and the other your paying 18K. or 2.3% of the wealthy you's taxes. if i had to pay 3/4ths of a million in taxes i would be pretty pissed. but then again, if say.. the top 2.3% of people pay this much, and the rest pay the 36%, each bracket is pretty much paying the same amount in taxes. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trey9128Aug 4, 2010
I really can't figure out what the hell you're saying.
beatpunchbeefAug 4, 2010
I was told there would be no math
ontainAug 4, 2010
i'd be much more willing to pay 13% on 6 million. rather than earning only 50k and getting taxed 36%.
the high tax on the lower income household will have a much larger effect on their quality of life.
jgzmanAug 4, 2010
I want to know why we're taking away 1/3 of the money of a man who is only making 50k. That's a lot of money; he only has 32K to live on after taxes. I, personally, would LOVE to have 32K to live on, even before taxes. But I know the guy who makes 50K will miss it.
The guy who makes 6M will never miss the 13%. No, f**k off, I don't care, he won't f**king miss it. Hell, he would probably barely miss the 36%, if it were charged him. That would leave him with a paltry 4M, which is more money than my entire huge rambling Italian family makes, before taxes. And we've got a banker, a biologist, and a nuclear engineer in the family, so we're not exactly poor here.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
haha, you're gonna get dugg down from the typical digger here who wants the government to give them other people's money.
rockyshoalsAug 4, 2010
"Yet half of America pays no federal income tax..."
The reason that wealthier people pay a higher pecentage of the nation's tax burden is not because poorer people have been let off the hook. Federal tax rates have been at/near historical lows for a few decades now, and poorer people pay a smaller percentage of the fed revenues because their real wages and income have stagnated or declined for the past four decades. This is in contrast to the wealthiest 10%, which has seen huge increases (thereby causing them to pay more in taxes while staying at the same low tax rate).
Almost everyone I know hears a version of this factoid and thinks, "Wow, the rich are getting screwed!! They pay most of the taxes, while poorer people leech off the system" when the statistics are stating almost the opposite. The more accurate reaction should be, "Wow, even though tax rates have remained stable, the wealthy are contributing a much higher percentage to federal revenues! Why have the rich gotten vastly richer while everyone else stayed put?"
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
You realize that most of those people who don't pay any income tax do so because they don't f**king have any money to start with. Taxing them wouldn't get anything, would likely place an undue hardship on them, and would probably end up with higher crime and hunger rates.
chenthebigotAug 4, 2010
What do you expect billionaires to do with their money?
Geez. It shouldn't be too surprising for them to donate half.
Warren Buffet has refused to donate to charities in the past. He just told people why donate a few million now when it would be a few hundred million later?
It's not like earning money takes away human compassion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
biglouAug 4, 2010
Why are you being dugg down? You didn't say anything false.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
think your being dugg down cause your post is a little contradictory...do you expect them to donate their money or do you think they shouldn't be expected to?
andyroo316Aug 4, 2010
It's not contradictory at all, to be fair.
What he means is that if someone doesn't donate while alive, and simply lets it collect interest in their account, when they die, the amount left in their will will be so much greater.
So he doesn't expect them to donate while alive, but when they're dead and gone and have no use for the money (which will, with proper financial care, be much greater than the amount they could donate while alive).
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Anybody know the 34 billionaires on the list? The article only mentions a handful, and a quick Google search doesn't find anything either...
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Maybe they are donating through blind trusts and other ways that may be anonymous. There are plenty of billionaires who like to keep themselves under the radar.
biglouAug 4, 2010
From an earlier article on the subject, I remember Oprah was one of the billionaires on the list.
kettekAug 4, 2010
fta: http://givingpledge.org/ lists all and a personal statement from each pledgee
1kewldudeAug 4, 2010
Dugg for T. Boone Pickens
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
George Lucas is doing it to make up for the midichlorians.
dollar0dot02Aug 4, 2010
Thanks for the link.
The great minds think alike. Apparently Steve Jobs thinks different.
explodingzebrasAug 5, 2010
George Lucas is doing it to make up for Ja Ja Binks
deathcodeAug 4, 2010
I know I'm not one of them!
asus3000Aug 4, 2010
This guy: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LGOBgjHfuzM/R-6Y5xaQFVI/AAAAAAAAAVY/C3AUOOhNfXw/s1600-h/billionaire5.jpg
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
And as private individuals being concerned with private interests, you can bet that money is gonna go someplace where they can keep a REAL close eye on how it's dispersed. I'm just saying, if they're so heroic, why not invest in the United States of America and help us regain our strength? Imagine all the good stuff we could accomplish without the ever-growing deficit looming in the background.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
doctechnicalAug 4, 2010
The first sentence in your post answers your question.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
Are you insinuating that it's a bad thing for people to want to make sure their charity money actually goes to helping people rather than being squandered by the myriad ways our government has figured out how to waste it?
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Forgive me if I am confused by your statement. But as major business owners, are they not the top investors in the United States of America already? Or you are actually implying they should just cut the government a check and hope for the best? They wouldn't even dent the national debt by the way.
jgzmanAug 4, 2010
I believe that the pledge is for after death. Hard to manage money from the Other Side.
danj484Aug 4, 2010
"invest in the United States of America"
That's what many of them are doing, giving money to causes in the United States.
dadumtishAug 4, 2010
Hmm I wonder whos going to welsh on the deal. There is no way all 34 will do it.
doctechnicalAug 4, 2010
If these deals are to be part of the generous billionaire's will I would expect a king-hell probate battle after they kick off - the family has got a whole lot of incentive (and potential cash to feed the shar - er, lawyers) to get that charity boon invalidated.
makisupaAug 4, 2010
You really think the will wouldn't have an in terrorem clause? Plus, they will make their dispositions by trust anyway.
doctechnicalAug 4, 2010
"What grounds could they possibly challenge the charitable giving on?"
30% of several billion dollars will *find* grounds. I have more faith in the greed-driven creativity of lawyers than you do evidently :) Call me cynical.
peekmanAug 4, 2010
I think most will do it before they die anyways.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
I'm with Doc on this one. For that kind of money, someone will find a way to get at it. However, I would hope that most of the people on that list have discussed it with their families, and have them respect their wishes. And many of these people's families are somewhat well off on their own anyway.
doctechnicalAug 5, 2010
So a very rich old man who's terminally ill is on his deathbed and he calls to him his three closest advisors: His doctor, his lawyer, and his priest. He gives each one of them an envelope and tells them "In each of those envelopes is a million dollars. I've heard all my life that you can't take it with you, and I want to find out. I want each of you to promise me you'll put that envelope in the coffin with me before I'm buried." And each man agrees.
A few days later the man passes, and as they pay their final respects the doctor, lawyer and priest each put their envelope in the coffin with the old man's corpse. After he's buried the three are sharing a limo back to town, and the priest says "I have something I want to tell you - the day before the old man died one of our churches in Mexico burnt to the ground, and since he was always a generous contributor to our missions, I took five thousand out of the envelope for it's rebuilding. I was sure he wouldn't mind."
And the doctor says "As long as we're confessing, I have to say I didn't put the full amount in the coffin either - the old man died of a disease that, had we detected it earlier, we might have been able to treat and give him many more years of life. I put ten thousand of his money towards a new screening machine for the hospital, I'm sure he would have seen the benefit in that."
And the lawyer looks at the other two in disgust: "I can't believe you reneged on your promises, you denied an old man's dying wish! I'll have you know the envelope I put in the coffin contain my personal check for the ENTIRE million dollars!"
artosrcAug 4, 2010
Depending on how and where they donate, this could be the shot in the arm the country needs. Think of the jobs that could be made if one of these billionaires floats some money to a needy business or cause.
ivanmarshAug 4, 2010
I love the assumption that any of it is going to be donated to America... I'm guessing Africa.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Not all of it. I'm guessing that they are all going to different causes. Bill Gates is probably going to spend most of his money in Africa, fighting AIDS, but at least a third of these people are going to choose causes in the US. T. Boone Pickens is big on alternative energy, and would probably put most of his money in that.
archangelzltAug 4, 2010
Because clearly the U.S. is the neediest country in the world with thousands of kids who have nothing to eat and only dirty water to drink.
artosrcAug 4, 2010
Well, call me heartless then. I'd rather see the money go to the needy in my own country.
fordsvt1Aug 4, 2010
To be fair, there are thousands of kinds in the USA who go to bed and wake up hungry in the morning for one reason or another. I'm not saying we should make everything 100% better here before we do anything anywhere else, but when you're talking billions there is plenty to go around. The B&M Gates Foundation has put hundreds of millions into North American projects of all kinds, for example.
toxicshokAug 4, 2010
Yes but donating money to Africa does nothing. Charities are great for patching holes in infrastructure caused by disasters. However it is not good at creating an infrastructure and the supporting businesses. In fact it actually suppresses local businesses by replacing them with free alternative (something no one can compete with). Furthermore when we give Africans free things, it has no value to them, and they don't care if what we gave them breaks or doesn't work, because will give them a new one.
This is not too say charities don't do good. They do a lot, just in the right areas.
strawb411Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
falserAug 4, 2010
You can't buy your way out of hell.
thatinternetguyAug 4, 2010
It can help the poor out of hell.
newesAug 4, 2010
If you're catholic you can.
danj484Aug 4, 2010
Catholic ca. <1567
smokedgoudaAug 4, 2010
This is probably the most significant news story of the year.
biglouAug 4, 2010
"...significant philanthropy news story..."
/fixed
smokedgoudaAug 4, 2010
I don't think so, I think that when you look at what effect this could potentially have upon millions of people's lives it dwarfs the gulf oil spill, Afghanistan, whatever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
artworkz918Aug 4, 2010
have you forgot about lindsey lohan already?
smokedgoudaAug 4, 2010
There's always Lindsay to contend with...
But real news? Not even in the same world as this.
mcnerdAug 4, 2010
This can't get enough attention.
For many of these people this might be the best thing they've ever done for the world (and that's no insult: it's a damned hard thing to top). And there's nothing we can give these guys to thank them and encourage others to join them, that they don't already have, except sincere appreciation.
If we really want a culture where generosity is valued, where the rich WANT to donate money to help those less fortunate than themselves, the only way is to honor people who do this sort of thing. So digg the story up!
mhttAug 4, 2010
I guess doing the right thing for it's own sake is obsolete then?
mcnerdAug 5, 2010
"Obsolete" would imply that it was previously fashionable. Which doesn't appear to be the case, judging from the fact that this story is newsworthy (as opposed to living in a world where the headline reads "34 Billionaires DON'T intend to donate their wealth upon death).
farfle10Aug 4, 2010
yeah, pretty much
checkers103Aug 5, 2010
because we should honor Bill Gates for inoculation and his miracle mosquitoes.
I will honor him for Windows 7, wait.. no.. Windows 7 was my idea.
edstateAug 4, 2010
As opposed to the Government stealing most of it when they die.... makes sense in every way.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Donate it before you die. Simple enough.
ontainAug 4, 2010
Buffet and Gates have been doing great things with their money. kudos to both of them.
checkers103Aug 5, 2010
[ citation needed ]
dougm68Aug 4, 2010
If they give me half of their wealth, I'll donate 75% of it to charities. So suck it.
ivanmarshAug 4, 2010
Hey! Right here! You're going to give away half a billion? All I need is $20,000 and I'm set.
biglouAug 4, 2010
Half a billion? Bill and Warren are worth $90B combined. Half of that would be $45B.
nofrickenwayAug 4, 2010
so $l.8mil?
ivanmarshAug 5, 2010
A billionaire by definition has at least 1 billion dollars, half of a billion is half a billion.
werfwerAug 4, 2010
I'm on that list of people giving away the money, but I prefer to remain anonymous. please PM me your bank account number, PIN and SSN and I'll put the $20k in tonight.
amnesianAug 4, 2010
I don't have a bank account. Meet me at Tony's, on the corner of 12th and Montgomery, with the money, unmarked, at 11:26pm, this Sunday. Come alone and don't tell anyone where you're going. No funny business, capiche?
ivanmarshAug 5, 2010
Nice.
flashtoneAug 4, 2010
student loans are a bitch.
icadilAug 5, 2010
Give me 1 mill for one year and I can live of the interest for the rest of my life, and give the mil back.
amnesianAug 5, 2010
The interest rate is pretty low right now...
jfreiscAug 4, 2010
Apparently they aren't familiar with Andrew Carnegie. He didn't give a dime to charity but instead put $350 million (7.5 billion with inflation) back into libraries and schools and basically helping people that wanted to help themselves. He was too smart with his money to trust charities with it.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Many of them, like Gates, set up their own foundations where they can approve where the money goes. Is that not the equivalent?
bahamut240Aug 4, 2010
I am not sure everywhere that Bill and Melinda Gates donate, but as an NPR listener, it sometimes feel as if they are singlehandedly keeping the station running, and NPR is definitely educational.
kauthonAug 5, 2010
Joan Krok left 200 million to NPR. Her husband, Ray Krok founded McDonalds.
I love NPR just wanted to make sure she got her due. Go McDonalds.
recruzAug 4, 2010
I think this is one of the best places to donate money. You can't go around giving money to just anybody; you have to give it to those that will really put it to good use. Investing it into schools that can dish it out as grants and scholarships to the most deserving students is my preferred way to continue progressing the human race.
slodyAug 4, 2010
Your implication that smart people don't donate to charities sounds like a personal rationalization for your policy of not donating any money to anyone. Did you read the letters from the donors? Many of them list education and libraries as the primary causes they intend to support.
But are you really suggesting that government employees (e.g. school administrators) are of a different caliber than non-profit employees? I'm sorry to offend both groups, but it seems like a silly debate ... both are known for bureaucracy and incompetence.
As an aside, couple of the letters I read re education and libraries specifically mentioned that it is a full-time job to manage how the money is spent, the programs that they support, and that it's never just a matter of "giving it away".
adhomineeAug 4, 2010
Isn't putting it in schools and libraries charity?
I know you're making the distinction between long term and short term benefits, but there's value in both.
brassbudAug 5, 2010
It's sad that the only way people can think of a library existing is through charity...
rattusrattusAug 4, 2010
Not relevant--but he build some beautiful libraries. The one in Oakland, Pittsburgh, is just amazing.
shynerAug 4, 2010
It sure is! I live in Oakland, so get there anytime I can.
dirtyfriesAug 4, 2010
Agreed, between that one and the Boston one in Copley, two of the nicest libraries I've ever seen.
Spent a lot of time at that one when I went to Pitt.
alecsputnikAug 4, 2010
carnegie helped establish the dumbing down of america with that money. f**k him.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Just imagine if they built a not-for-profit public transportation system with that money all around the country. Like, they pony up the money to build high speed rail from San Diego to San Francisco, and the tickets only cost what it takes to maintain the infrastructure (and a little more for new rail). Imagine how much they could improve our infrastructure.
But I'm sure they'll be careful where they donate the money either way, and it will be put to good use.
dlite922Aug 4, 2010
I'd like to ask Gates or Buffet for $40,000 for my student loans.
I'll show them my track record for success and self-employment.
That's the only wall that keeps me from being successful. Pile of debt because cost of higher education is too high.
siblyAug 5, 2010
many of the billionaires signing the pledge are giving to libraries and schools...
many consider these non-profits a form of charity
domer137Aug 5, 2010
**** Andrew Carnegie. His money came off the backs of the Eastern European immigrants who worked 7 days a week for little money. Look up the Homestead Strike in history book.
dc7407Aug 5, 2010
That is smart, but the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation (im guessing who their going to donate to) is very credible from what I hear and spend most of every dollar that comes in on the people that need it not staff, CEO, etc.
jfreiscAug 19, 2010
Andrew Carnegie, "The Gospel of Wealth" (1889)
a well-known writer... admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him.... He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar; knew not the use that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly.... The quarter-dollar given that night will probably [injure more than it will help].... [The donor] only gratified his own feelings, saved himself from annoyance and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life....
globalswarmingAug 4, 2010
I'm guessing most of them will donate the money after they die. Still it's pretty generous of them. Also a good way to screw some relatives you don't like out of inheritance.
dralhaAug 4, 2010
Giving it to charity is nice and all, but the benefits won't have a lasting impact. What they really need to do is distribute that money to the workers they exploited to generate that wealth in the first place. When workers have more money, they spend more money. They boost the economy, hiring picks up, and that would spell the end of the Bush-Cheney Recession. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
biglouAug 4, 2010
No, I'd still much rather see this go to charities and NFPs that will use the money to better the communities.
iptunnellAug 4, 2010
Excuse me, Obama is in office now. That means it's "Obama's Recession". Enough of the "it's all Bush's fault" dem propoganda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantAug 4, 2010
Damn right! Everything that came before magically became Obama's responsibility the moment he took office. I personally am really pissed at Obama for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his escalations of the conflict in Viet Nam, the failure of the League of Nations, and the Stamp Tax.
iptunnellAug 4, 2010
Wait, Obama's blaming all of those presidents too? I've only heard him whine and cry about Bush, I guess I just missed those. He's a bigger pansy than I thought. Thanks for bringing that to light.
bille3Aug 4, 2010
Tell us more about exploited workers.
toxicshokAug 4, 2010
Having a job is exploitation. You see when you earn a job with a company and make real contribution that help the company, and the country expand bettering the lives of everyone, your being exploited.
Now unemployment, that's every slaves dream.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
You want to talk about exploiting people's labor? Let's start with the part where the government takes 25% or more of everyone's income whether or not they want it to happen. Makes voluntary, mutually agreed-upon contracts seem a little less exploitative, doesn't it?
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Taxes aren't theft. Taxes are the price of admission to live in civilized society.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
So you think people should be able to vote to take someone else's property? Perhaps you've heard the quote "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch."
bookantAug 4, 2010
"voluntary, mutually agreed-upon contracts . . . ."
s**tty exploitive compensation offered by CompanyA, s**tty exploitive compensation offered by CompanyB, s**tty exploitive compensation offered by CompanyC, s**tty exploitive compensation offered by CompanyD, s**tty exploitive compensation offered by CompanyE . . . . . . take your pick!
Your definitions of "voluntary" and "mutually agreed upon" are apparently different from mine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
I'm sorry that you've never had a job where you felt you were compensated fairly. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places. Big companies will tend to offer less flexible employment contracts. If that's not your thing, then seek employment with smaller companies or create your own employment. No one is forcing you to accept employment under terms you don't agree with. That is the definition of voluntary.
No company owes you a job under the terms that you prescribe. If your skills are not sufficient to make a company want to hire you under your terms then it is on you to change that. It is your choice to settle for an offer with unfavorable terms or to refuse it and make yourself more desirable.
bookantAug 4, 2010
@TheGreat0ne
I work for a small private university and am quite happy with my situation. I have also, in the past, been a faceless cog in the giant corporate machine.
But it isn't just about me, or you. It's about the bigger picture. And in that bigger picture, the employers hold all the cards. For millions of people there's nothing "voluntary" or "mutually agreed upon" about it. It's "take the s**tty pay we're offering you, or take the same s**tty pay from any of our 'competitors' (we get around price-fixing or anti-trust issues by all *tacitly* agreeing to pay the same wage and then saying the magic words, 'it's the market rate for position X') or go hungry.
I'm fairly certain the OP is also referring to "exploitation of labor" in the sense that Marx did. It's a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the Capitalist by definition makes his money by paying all his workers less than the value of their work. That surplus - value produced by the workers' labor for which they are not compensated - is where profit comes from.
I'm not a Marxist. I don't believe that exploitation can or even should be eliminated (though I do believe it can be limited to aceptable levels by reasonable government regulation). But that also doesn't mean we have to bury our heads and deny what reality is like for the many millions who aren't as lucky as we are by insisting that everything is "voluntary" when it is anything but.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
Speaking frankly, I have very little pity for people who complain about being forced to take s**tty pay and don't actually do anything to try to improve their situation. Employers only hold the cards because the majority of workers are either complacent or unwilling to do anything to improve their situation. It is possible for any person to improve his or her desirability and plenty of people have done that. I don't think that the complacency or laziness of any person or group of people is sufficient reason to place restrictions on such fundamental rights as the right to contract.
As for the market rate comment, I'm sure there are plenty of companies that say that. But if they are looking for run of the mill employees that will just do the average quality of work and are not willing to make compromises to get a better quality worker then a person looking for better than average compensation in exchange for better than average work should not be working there. There are places that look for better than average workers and compensate them better than average.
I'm not certain OP was referring to Marx. I had that thought, but the rest of the comment did not seem to be overflowing with hate for the bourgeoisie.
bookantAug 4, 2010
"It is possible for any person to improve his or her desirability and plenty of people have done that. I don't think that the complacency or laziness of any person or group of people is sufficient reason to place restrictions on such fundamental rights as the right to contract."
It is possible for *any* person to do that.
It is not possible for *every* person to do that.
There simply are not enough non-s**t jobs to go around. As for restricting the 'fundamental right to contract,' there are certain restrictions that (a) simply have to exist in order for the entire thing to work and (b) we have always accepted. The fact, for example, that a contract signed under duress is not valid. "We control all the jobs. Here are a bunch of s**tty ones. Pick one or starve." counts as duress in my book. So putting a few limitations on exactly *how much* can be taken from someone under duress (labor laws, overtime rules, minimum wages, etc), is entirely reasonable and necessary.
thegreat0neAug 4, 2010
Employers, even the biggest ones, are not so stubborn that they wouldn't change their policies if they realized that fewer and fewer people were putting up with their terms.
A contract signed under duress is invalid because, by definition, it is not signed voluntarily. You have the right to practice whatever religion you choose but no one can force you to practice a religion. Same idea.
""We control all the jobs. Here are a bunch of s**tty ones. Pick one or starve." counts as duress in my book."
The fact is that employers do not control all of the jobs and in addition the vast majority are not in league with one another. I am not an employer but I imagine that most compete against each other in the skilled jobs market. I can't really see how it would be considered duress unless they actually were colluding and they actually could stop you from making a living. Sure, they're the easiest path to a living, but if you always take the easy way out you can't really expect much good to come to you. Unless your daddy is rich.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
morginoAug 4, 2010
Yeah cause when you work for Microsoft it's total exploitation. I'd hate to get paid a ton of money, have free lunches and be treated awesome
bimtottAug 4, 2010
Please, this has nothing to do with tax rates for the wealthy, or our national debt, or our budget deficit. This is about charity and philanthropy that might make a tremendous difference in the world, and there's no reason to be so cynical.
badenglishihaveAug 4, 2010
It has everything to do with it. You either believe that charity like this exists, or you believe you need to force people to give to charity.
ymegAug 4, 2010
How the hell is that a dichotomy?
ryanman7Aug 5, 2010
Taxing is, for the most part, a forced charity Ymeg. We donate something like 30 or 40 percent of our income after everything. The problem with the government handling our money is not only are we threatened with jailtime if we don't pay up, but it goes to s**t not everyone can agree on.
It's pretty non-partisian actually, it's just that people bitch in cycles depending on who owns congress. Right now it's conservatives like me complaining about individual people getting handouts for blaming the recession on their lack of a job, but in a couple years it might be liberals lamenting how much of our budget goes to bulls**t wars and industrial tax cuts.
Badenglishihave is arguing that, way back when, charities did actual social work. Churches did more than suck their patrons dry, they also took in the homeless and were our original welfare system. At some point, somebody decided that we needed a gun to our heads to be good people. Some people still go above and beyond the call of duty, like the people this article mentioned, but I'd argue that my taxes shouldn't go to social programs and we should start taxing churches until they prove they're being useful.
rendonsmugAug 5, 2010
Kant would say that the person donating out of a sense of duty is more worthy of praise than one who does it because it makes them feel good.
tnoyAug 4, 2010
Most people have zero understanding of what the actual tax benefits are with charitable donations.
satualanus69Aug 4, 2010
screw charity pull our country out of debt!
russ3Aug 4, 2010
it said half their money was 600 billion dollars, even if we took all their money it wouldn't sratch the debt.
danj484Aug 4, 2010
Yeah, screw converting an inherently meaningless concept (money) into something that can positively impact countless people's lives, and focus it into relieving something else that is also inherently meaningless.
satualanus69Aug 5, 2010
Yup no economy no charity.....doh
erohenAug 4, 2010
I thought this was an Onion story after first reading the headline.
dougm68Aug 4, 2010
34 billionaires huh? That's pretty much all of them.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Except for the other 366 or so. Read the article.
biglouAug 4, 2010
And that's the other 366 or so... in the US!
And if that's only 40% of the world's total, that would mean there's another 600 elsewhere.
afflussoAug 4, 2010
Too bad the government already takes around half of it (and the government isn't a charity btw).
tarantulusAug 4, 2010
no, they really don't. with the loopholes and such these guys pay very low taxes in relation to income. I remember Buffet actually saying he pays a lower % of his income in tax than his secretary.
dushAug 4, 2010
These guys don't pay very low taxes. They pay more money in taxes in one year than the average middle class person will probably earn in a lifetime. These guys pay TONS of taxes.
Don't fall for the lower percentage rate statistic. The top 1% of earners pay something like 50% of all the income taxes. The top 5% pay over 75% of all the taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jbcseeAug 4, 2010
Your missing the point, as someone who is middle class I pay around 50% of my wages in taxes (including things like SS), however someone who is earning a couple billion a year will only be paying 15-30% in taxes. Yes it's a lot more money, but it's still a lower percentage. Who do you think could use that extra 20% more, someone in the middle class or someone who already has billions in assets?
So please take your head out of your ass and think for a minute or two.
davidyeahAug 4, 2010
I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has Dush's talking point on his front page like he did every single time I went to his website.
Power corrupts, Dush. Even economic, market based power. I fully support very high tax rates on the wealthy because they'll swing their wealth and power around in lots of ways, and many of them might hurt me or my family. Even after taking lets say 70% in taxes, they're still insane wealthy at the end of the day.
The problem with economic power is that it can't be taken away by vote in November when the polls close like democratic power can be taken away. This is one thing that all the people who are calling the liberals in congress tyrants seem to forget. If congress goes too far or does things the people start to disapprove of, then get rid of them. Maybe this is already happening for the majority of the country, and Democrats will feel that in November. If the wealthy start influencing society in negative ways, nothing can be done to stop them.
Don't let your rich people take over your country. Good government and an active citizenry are what is needed.
dushAug 4, 2010
Oh I am thinking clearly jbcsee. I'm thinking let's lower the taxes of those people who make less money to the rate the rich people are getting rather than jack up the rate of the rich people to what the poorer people are paying.
This whole class warfare garbage is ridiculous and the politicians are playing the masses perfectly.
"They make more than me but don't pay as much, waaa!" "They are so rich they can afford to not keep most of the their money, waaa!!"
Good grief, people need to grow up.
paulyoung1980Aug 4, 2010
This is so good to see, but I wish there was more public pressure to make this redistribution of wealth mandatory. Yes, within your lifetime you should be able to strive to create wealth for a better lifestyle for you and your family, but surely there is a point where we should say enough is enough. Set a healthy cap per child that you can leave to your children, but have anything over that cap distributed back into the public sector to fund education, infrastructure & health care. The way I see it, a healthy amount of motivation would remain to work hard, innovate, and grow your business / wealth and provide for your family, and the inequity of trust fund babies inheriting millions of dollars to squander whilst millions of others miss out on basic services (or receive poor basic services) would be mitigated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kyzelAug 4, 2010
You earned the money, why the hell should you be forced to give it away?
It's the right thing to do, but being forced to do it goes against the entire foundation our country was built on.
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
You shouldn't be forced. However, you should be made to feel like s**t if you don't.
trentdeuxAug 4, 2010
Why is it the right thing to do? Are you born into the world responsible for another person? Why is it that way and not the opposite? If it is morally good to give money to others, doesn't that make all the recipients of this aid morally bad? After all they are just taking, not giving?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Your utopian dream of having the government take money from one group and give it to another is naive.
paulyoung1980Aug 4, 2010
Isn't collecting money and redistributing it essentially what government does?? Care to elaborate on why you think my thoughts are naive?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
That's the problem right there, that the modern generation thinks that the federal governments purpose is to redistribute wealth. The US constitution is very specific about what powers the feds have. Do you not fear a powerful central government that can take your hard-earned money and give to others as they see fit?
paulyoung1980Aug 5, 2010
It's not it's sole purpose, but you can't escape the reality that governments collect taxes are responsible for spending that money on basic services and to help those who can't support themselves financially. I am fortunate to earn a reasonable income, and I am happy to have the government take some of my money for those purposes.
Sure governments squander money, but as the public we have to try to hold them accountable for that. I'd still prefer the billions being somewhat effectively distributed by the government rather than continuing to increase the wealth of the already excessively wealthy.
trentdeuxAug 4, 2010
If only paulyoung1980 could be the supreme dictator of all of us and every aspect of our lives, this wonderful dream could become a reality.
fighttocoalesceAug 5, 2010
If you make that much money, you're smart. Therefore, your children are smart, having you teach them. When you give your money to dumb people dumb things happen. No thanks...
paulyoung1980Aug 5, 2010
so poor children are dumb?
2serveAug 4, 2010
Meh -- Okay, so they've announced they'll be handing out money. Cool. However, I believe a truly giving heart wouldn't announce their act of love to everyone in the world... they'd just do it -- not needing any praise from those who've observed their act.
Publicity act, if anything. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gone2013Aug 4, 2010
The media would of found out about it eventually.
dwninjunglelandAug 4, 2010
Most of the list is anonymous.
siafuAug 4, 2010
Larry Ellison is one of the billionaires who made the pledge to give away his wealth (95% or ~$26B). Apparently this has always been his intention and he has never made it public before because he did want the praise. Buffett convinced him to go public because he felt it would encourage other billionaires to make a similar pledge.
visionAug 4, 2010
At the same time, their generosity could encourage other people - millionaires, other billionaires, and other very comfortable people - to donate very generously as well. Publicity act yes, but perhaps with good intentions.
biglouAug 4, 2010
They've been meeting in secrecy for a while now. They even admit the reason they are being so public about it is to inspire other wealthy people to give as much as they can.
Stop being so bitter. Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean they no longer have a heart. Stop mixing movies/TV with real life.
2serveAug 4, 2010
I'm not being bitter, I just don't see the need to exalt someone that does such things. I have more respect for the person with little money, yet, gives what he or she can to others despite their own depraved financial condition.
Much praise to all of you out there that give even during our hard times. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaervektooAug 4, 2010
Ah, morality.
:)
kwanijmlAug 4, 2010
Ah, sense of entitlement.
:P
elhombrelocoAug 4, 2010
In addition to Buffett and Gates — America's two wealthiest individuals, with a combined net worth of $90 million, according to Forbes —
that's a pretty big typo :p
manikfoxAug 4, 2010
I'm glad someone caught that as well...
dipdog21Aug 4, 2010
+1
bdog2g2Aug 4, 2010
or this recession hit harder than expected
s73v3rAug 4, 2010
Dude, the recession hit them pretty hard.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The stock market just plunged 1000 points from that typo.
7king7kingAug 4, 2010
$_$
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Well that's nice.
urbanetruthAug 4, 2010
no Waltons on that list, I bet.
whodoneitAug 4, 2010
Yeah, they were on that list until they slashed the amount they were donating to the roll back price of $0.99.
Pricks.
cglassAug 4, 2010
*assh**es
I believe you misspelled their name a touch.
thegreatgazooAug 4, 2010
Actually, 100% Helen Walton's estate went to charity (all $16 Billion of it)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100008717/index.htm
samoan27Aug 4, 2010
Nor the Mars family, in fact best I can tell by the list there isn't a single person on it who didn't actually earn their billions. Lottery sperm will continue to produce lottery sperm.
lovewidescreenAug 4, 2010
They're too busy investing that money in more factories in China.
icadilAug 5, 2010
Which puts more people to work, creating more middle class, which creates more markets for what few American products there are.
ryanman7Aug 5, 2010
I'm glad you included that they were the founders of wal-mart, otherwise nobody would have known.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
"A few had dynastic ideas about wealth … an intergenerational compact with family to keep that going."
Enough said.
rudegarAug 4, 2010
but how will this affect the prices in wow's AH :O :P
wrath017Aug 4, 2010
I feel there has to be a cop out here somewhere. I'm positive none of them is actually going to be half as rich a year or two from now.
gustomuchoAug 4, 2010
"The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him." - Voltaire
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
> Implying that billionaires donating billions isn't truly charitable.
flashtoneAug 4, 2010
implying they should give the money while they are alive.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
> Implying implications
tukaAug 4, 2010
thank you captain obvious.
crunchydeluxeAug 4, 2010
Saying that there's nothing a billionaire "should" do with his money. It's his to do with as he pleases. If he donates it upon death, that's still a hell of a lot better than what most people on Digg will ever do.
ryanman7Aug 5, 2010
@Flashtone
Why should they donate it all while they're alive? While Voltaire's cynical observation is true, I'd argue that there's no point to giving it away while you're still making it. Wealth begets wealth, I'm sure that many of these guys have used their own private funds for ventures that made them more money. If they'd been donating it on a running basis throughout their lives, the net gain for society (if you believe charities like this are especially effective) would be lessened.
Anything to still villianize them though.
flashtoneAug 5, 2010
I agree with you.
warriorpoetistAug 4, 2010
Better than the wealthy man ordering all his money to be burned when he's on his death bed!
fawkzAug 5, 2010
Voltaire is a wise f**king man, I love that guy.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
CrazedLeper, I think you may be right... but please don't wish a false-flag nuclear attack on us. Just by mentioning the possibility you've made it statistically more likely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kyzelAug 4, 2010
"Why oh why has it come to be, that people look up to celebrities, they do nothing for you and me, they should be giving it up to the community" - Rebelution
Maybe some people are getting the message
shadygAug 4, 2010
"Don't you care about me anymore? Don't you care about me? I don't think so."
-- Wake Up Call by Maroon 5
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Sooooo sad and so stupid.
The vast majority of "charities" do nothing but hand out money....and giving people money does NOT help them. If you can't see that after 50 years of "The Great Society" programs, then YOU, my friend, are an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
visionAug 4, 2010
What about stuff like the cancer research charities, aids research, other diseases that have made leaps and bounds over the last several years in curing diseases and/or extending life expectancies for people with diseases? I'm not really sure what "The Great Society" programs are, but from what I've seen, lots of good things have come from charities. Maybe researching charities before you donate to them is worth it.. but certainly you don't believe that all charities are stupid and a waste?
iptunnellAug 4, 2010
Right. So should we just give it to the government so they can hand it out to welfare recipients instead? I mean, that program has been sooooo good since inception, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peekmanAug 4, 2010
Vast majority my ass..........
What charity just hands out money (to the poor)??? I can't actually think of one.
strawb411Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user