40 U.S. Billionaires Pledge Half Of Wealth To Charity

catefrances

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

if the rewards having people be nice, to offer support and freindship, like recently after having talked to an australian PJ fan ( one of the aussie life wasted crew) she asked after my little one and found out that she has been sick for a while . a few days later a big ballooon arrangement turned up on the door from the aussie crew. how wonderful is that.
how wonderfully generous and beautifull is that.
when I sold My surfboard for charity ( Cystic Fibrosis) so many beautiful people from these boards did so much in moral support, in finacial support to the organisations who help support my daughter and those like her.
I managed to raise over $10,000 .and am so grateful to all who helped me reach that.
thats the karma I talk off. my reward
No profit for me, except happiness and knowledge that peolple are wonderful creatures

call it what you want.. reward.. hope that good will come to you.. its all just semantics but it means the same thing.

Kat

Be careful with contentious, accusatory posts and personal comments. TONE is important when communicating through text. Reposting this here...


Posting Guidelines
1. Be nice. We're very big on RESPECT here. Respect for each other, the band and the Ten Club Community forum environment. Please think of it as if you are as a guest in someone else's home. Please do not put your posting privileges at risk.

2. Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here. This includes abusive Private Messages.

It seems people are getting personal and offending each other on purpose. It's not ok. If you can't debate the topic without getting personal, you don't belong here and will be leaving the forums. So just remember, if you're not following these guidelines, you're banning yourselves. Personal grudges will open the exit door for you. Let the bannings begin.

Your choice.

Admin

know1

I don't believe people should question the motives or reasons for someone's charitable actions.

EquallyWorthless

know1 wrote:

I don't believe people should question the motives or reasons for someone's charitable actions.

Especially not when those charitable actions are helping to lead the way in pretty important stuff like AIDS and Cancer research. Who cares about the obvious tax breaks if a sizable donation leads to the funding that finds the cure for cancer?

Mike's Side

I think it's a great idea! With that large amount of money the interest alone is crazy. This fund will go on forever.

cincybearcat

catefrances wrote:

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm not saying that this is the only reason that they are doing it, but I am saying I bet it has crossed their mind. You don't amass that size of a fortune by being stupid. Yes they want to do good for the world but they also want to make sure their families are set up for eternity.

Or should they just keep everything and let the government tax them 55% or more?

Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.

and why should they??? ive never understood the expectation of inheritance.

Well, you know, sometimes a person's family actually helps them in life. And...well, while someone is off making a fortune they can often be neglecting things at home. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the family of someone to inherit that $. They aren't all douchebags.

unsung

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

_

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

Jason P

This could have ramifications on the "Richest 1% own 38% of the wealth" sociological statistic.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

And we your family doesn't have to worry about $, they are free to focus on those more important things, no?

I think it's great that they are donating lots of money. But I never would hold it against someone to leave a bunch of $ for their kids/grandkids, etc.

Drowned Out

EquallyWorthless wrote:

know1 wrote:

I don't believe people should question the motives or reasons for someone's charitable actions.

Especially not when those charitable actions are helping to lead the way in pretty important stuff like AIDS and Cancer research. Who cares about the obvious tax breaks if a sizable donation leads to the funding that finds the cure for cancer?

I don’t have a problem with people questioning the motivation behind a charitable action. Of course it’s a good thing if the donation leads to breakthroughs…But if the person’s motivation has more to do with personal gain (or gain for those close to them), then they don’t necessarily deserve to be held up as some kind of champion of the underprivileged.

There are legitimate concerns about venture philanthropy. I don’t want to get into a pissing match about it, as I don’t fully understand the workings of charitable organizations, and it’s difficult to say if there is a better way of distributing the money ….but it’s concerning that this organization can single-handedly influence policy on paramount national or international issues, can change the course of medical research, can stifle good science or promote bad science on a whim, etc.
For example, the Foundation is taking a leading role in reshaping the educational system in the US, for good bad or otherwise…also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I believe they’ve minimized their investments in Big Pharma over the last couple years, but there is still a conflict of interest in investing in, and giving grants to, companies that work contrary to the goals of increased access to drugs in the third world. They are tied heavily to big business and international organizations like the World Bank, the WTO, and the WHO, who would seem to often be the adversary in the challenges the Foundation faces. If these organizations are partially responsible for malnourishment in a developing country, is working with them to get drugs to people who can't take them without food going to do any good? (aside from adding to the coffers of the pharma company???)
There are complaints of cronyism/nepotism in who is receiving the money, with lesser qualified organizations or individuals receiving grants because of relationships with foundation members. Apparently there is less oversight for this kind of thing within the Gates Foundation than there is in most charities (but this is where my ignorance on the system becomes obvious; I have no idea how this works)…anyway....more rambling food for thought.

…this website is interesting for anyone who'd like to follow the actions of this ‘venture philanthropy juggernaut’:
http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/

Blazenup wrote:

I think it's a great idea! With that large amount of money the interest alone is crazy. This fund will go on forever.

The Gates have stipulated that all funds must be dispersed within 50 years of their deaths.

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

So if you receive an inheritance, you’ll be donating it all to charity, I presume?

unsung

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

True. But wouldn't you want your loved ones to be able to enjoy life and not have to worry about paying the bills? I know I'd make sure my family would never have to worry about college tuition.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

And we your family doesn't have to worry about $, they are free to focus on those more important things, no?

I think it's great that they are donating lots of money. But I never would hold it against someone to leave a bunch of $ for their kids/grandkids, etc.

Hmm... and I didn't say I would either.

_

Drowned Out wrote:

also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.

I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.

Drowned Out wrote:

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?

There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.

So if you receive an inheritance, you’ll be donating it all to charity, I presume?

unsung wrote:

True. But wouldn't you want your loved ones to be able to enjoy life and not have to worry about paying the bills? I know I'd make sure my family would never have to worry about college tuition.

I'm not really sure how this conversation took this strange turn. Unsung said these people were donating to charity BECAUSE it would leave more money for their families and I said Warren Buffett is not doing that and that some people think there are more important things than money. I never said I would or wouldn't accept or leave an inheritance and I don't see how that's in any way relevant to this thread.

Drowned Out

Ya, the inheritance thing isn't really relevant to this, so whatevs...

scb wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.

I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.

Don't worry, I'm not either
This is the article I was thinking of when posting that:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/14 ... ntroversy/

This is the paragraph that jumped out at me:

Abortion-rights advocates see the issues of maternal health and abortion as inseparable. That line of reasoning posits: if, as the United Nations Population Fund states, 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, and 20 times that number are injured during the same, women's health must, necessarily, address the question of abortion. Providing funding without addressing this subject may be politically savvy, but practically impossible. Not to mention the fact that many women having abortions are already mothers.


I realize this is the Gate's money, and theirs to do with as they see fit....but that is part of what I find so intriguing about this pledge...the way wealth is actually being redistributed....according to the beliefs of a few....

Drowned Out

This was just posted on the blog I posted a link to earlier.
Some good points made. Everyone is tip-toeing around criticizing the pledge itself, but it's interesting to see some of the discussion arising from people putting some thought into just how fucking RICH some people are, and how imbalanced our world has become.

As prefaced by the mod on the gateskeeper blog:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation. The links in the original article lead to some interesting views."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... ledge-4623

The Backlash Against the Billionaires' Pledge
By Heather Horn on August 06, 2010 12:23pm

Even as the praise continues to roll in for the 40 billionaires pledging to donate a full 50 percent of their wealth to charity, a few writers are beginning to see the darker side to the story. While all are careful to call the pledge "admirable," some journalists and pundits worry about the initiative's echoes of robber-baron philanthropy in the Gilded Age. A roundup of commentators taking a closer look at the pros and cons of philanthropy, writ large:

Back to the Robber Barons The donations themselves are great, says Berkeley public policy professor Robert Reich. What's troubling is what these large sums of money mean--"how much money is now concentrated in so few hands"--and how reminiscent it is of an earlier era:
It's more evidence we're back in the late 19th century when robber barons lorded over the economy and almost everyone else lost ground. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers made so much money they too could give away large chunks to charity and still maintain their outsize fortunes and their power and influence ... America's median hourly wage, meanwhile, dropped last year, and it continues to drop. That's not even counting the 15 million Americans still out of work. Most Americans don't need charity. They need good jobs.

Confirmed: Carnegie Returns "40 of the country's billionaires have resurrected and updated Andrew Carnegie's doctrine of the 'gospel of wealth,'" writes Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post. He's not taking issue with the billionaires or their donations. "There can be little doubt, however, that their commitment has raised the bar on social responsibility even as it raises questions about the social value of large personal fortunes." Pearlstein then launches into a review of the "gradual hollowing out of the middle of the U.S. economy," growth since the 90s coming "at the top and bottom of the skills ladder," resulting in the "'polarization' of the labor force," exacerbated during the recession.

'Noblesse Oblige That Might Have Embarrassed Even John D. Rockefeller' While pointing out that he's not "pick[ing] on the billionaires for their charity," The Wall Street Journal's Evan Newmark compares the gesture to Obama's "workers-of-the-world" rhetoric at a recent AFL-CIO meeting: they're both "condescending, nearly cartoonish PR exercises--the exact opposite of good leadership." He's also irritated that, on the same day as the Giving Pledge announcement, Secretary Geithner made another case against tax cuts for the wealthy. Newmark doesn't like the Giving Pledgers being confused with America's "wealthy," who, according to the tax code, aren't so much the Gates and Buffet types as "the local doctors who treat your mother, the McDonald’s franchise owners who feed your family, the Toyota dealers who sell you a car."
Donations? How About Actually Paying Taxes Peter Wilby takes the opposite approach in the Guardian, with a more comprehensive critique of so-called philanthrocapitalism. "The US treasury already loses at least $40bn ... a year from tax breaks for donations," he writes. Not only does the government lose the money, but the billionaires then get to determine what the "good causes" are. Other problems with philanthrocapitalism include that it tends to "[tackle] symptoms of poverty and distress rather than underlying causes," and tends to towards "do[ing] things to the poor, rather than with them."

Just as market approaches carry dangers when applied to public services, so they do when applied to charities. The emphasis on "rates of return" and "value for money" may exclude people in great need who happen to be difficult to reach or, even if made fit and healthy, would be of marginal economic utility ... If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill.

KDH12

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm not saying that this is the only reason that they are doing it, but I am saying I bet it has crossed their mind. You don't amass that size of a fortune by being stupid. Yes they want to do good for the world but they also want to make sure their families are set up for eternity.

Or should they just keep everything and let the government tax them 55% or more?

Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.

This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own

Drowned Out

KDH12 wrote:

scb wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm not saying that this is the only reason that they are doing it, but I am saying I bet it has crossed their mind. You don't amass that size of a fortune by being stupid. Yes they want to do good for the world but they also want to make sure their families are set up for eternity.

Or should they just keep everything and let the government tax them 55% or more?

Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.

This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own

See, I think this is where the PR aspect of what these people are doing is interesting. Do you really think Buffett's kids need the money?
One of them is a director (in line to be chairman) at Birkshire Hathaway! I'm pretty sure they'll be ok.

_

Drowned Out wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

scb wrote:

Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.

This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own

See, I think this is where the PR aspect of what these people are doing is interesting. Do you really think Buffett's kids need the money?
One of them is a director (in line to be chairman) at Birkshire Hathaway! I'm pretty sure they'll be ok.

I don't know what PR has to do with it. I'm pretty sure Buffett's been saying this about his family not getting his money since long before he started giving most of it away like this.

_

Drowned Out wrote:

Ya, the inheritance thing isn't really relevant to this, so whatevs...

scb wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.

I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.

Don't worry, I'm not either
This is the article I was thinking of when posting that:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/14 ... ntroversy/

This is the paragraph that jumped out at me:

Abortion-rights advocates see the issues of maternal health and abortion as inseparable. That line of reasoning posits: if, as the United Nations Population Fund states, 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, and 20 times that number are injured during the same, women's health must, necessarily, address the question of abortion. Providing funding without addressing this subject may be politically savvy, but practically impossible. Not to mention the fact that many women having abortions are already mothers.


I realize this is the Gate's money, and theirs to do with as they see fit....but that is part of what I find so intriguing about this pledge...the way wealth is actually being redistributed....according to the beliefs of a few....

Well the pledge itself doesn't preclude funding safe abortions and I'm sure much of the money is donated to that cause - just not the money publicly donated by the Gates Foundation.

While I agree that maternal health & abortion are inseparable, I also agree that the best way to address it is through prevention efforts, which is what they are doing. The absolute best way to prevent unsafe abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancy. Besides, abortion is unsafe primarily because it's illegal. What are they supposed to do about that?