59
Cool now it's just going to get stolen by the rich.
Yeah, I've seen this trick before. And I have a feeling he'll be "earning" many billions in the same time period; how much I don't know, but I'm cynical enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "more than he donates."
And even then he will still have donated a huge amount of money.
I'm not defending billionaires, but between Musk and Gates you can definitely see a spectrum (pun not intended)
Yes, and? The money Gates makes from capital he owns comes from somewhere, and I firmly believe that it comes disproportionately from the poor, as that is how America tends to work. So for all he may or may not donate, that money is circulating right back to him. It's like if a slumlord "donated" $200 to you right before rent was due. You might find it preferential to not getting a de facto $200 discount on rent that month, but he's still a slumlord and nothing about the "donation" makes him ethical.
As for being better than Musk, I really don't care. "Better than a Nazi" is not a defense.
Have you seen the price of Maggi these days?
Here's a crazy thought: How about paying people living wages instead of grabbing a megaphone and talking about the good you're doing for the world? Not that MS paid poorly (I worked for them back in college as an orange badge [contractor]), but a stitch in time, as they say, saves nine.
I believe Gates and Buffet are sincere. Musk, on the other hand ...
I believe Gates and Buffet are sincere.
One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously. If Gates were sincere Microsoft wouldn't be the monopoly it is now.
I mean, according to this, the plan is to not be a billionaire. If his net life transaction ends up being bilking Western technophobes to pay for mosquito nets and clean water that's cool.
One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously.
Says who? You? Maybe they once were not that sincere and have since had a change of heart. BTW, the Gates Foundation has done a tremendous amount of good over the years.
One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously.
"Says who? You? Maybe they once were not that sincere and have since had a change of heart. BTW, the Gates Foundation has done a tremendous amount of good over the years."
No. They might have done some good, but the harm of hoarding that much wealth outweighs their good contributions. Anyway, it's not the billionaires fault per se, but our flawed systems that have allowed it to happen. If I or most other people were put in the position of Bill Gates in his heyday, we likely would succumb to our vices as well.
"“They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].
“Your "Giving Pledge" has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that's it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc
His charitable foundation is a personal tax haven/PR machine.
Fuck him.
Even if that's true, it doesn't diminish the very real good that the foundation has accomplished, like Polio eradication or HIV/AIDS research. You can feel about Bill Gates whatever you want, but you cannot deny that his money has done very good things for humanity.
It gives away way too much to serve either purpose well.
I couldn't actually tell you what all the Gates foundation does. Greedwashing exists, but as you say I don't think Gates is doing it.
If Gates was serious he would sign up with https://patrioticmillionaires.org/
His name is not on the list.
Bollocks. If these rich assholes felt guilty and inclined towards altruism they'd have spent it already instead of "pledging".
"[…] Furthermore, their supposed philanthropy isn't just them giving money away no-questions-asked. More often than not they aim to benefit their coffers and/or virtue signal their “conscience”:
“They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].
“Your "Giving Pledge" has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that's it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc
Gates foundation has donated over 100 billion already, 60 billion directly from him
That's a bit more than "tossing a few million a year".
It will close after it spends around 99% of Gates' personal fortune, he said. The founders originally expected the foundation to wrap up in the decades after their deaths. Gates, whose fortune is currently valued at around $108 billion, expects the foundation to spend around $200 billion by 2045, with the final figure dependent on markets and inflation.
Look , I know we should analyze the Gates Foundation's spending closely and make sure the money is going to effective places. I know it would be better if we taxed these assholes and resdistributed wealth in a more efficient way. But I want to believe that this is genuine, and Gates is having a late-life crisis change of heart and realizes that billionaires should not exist. giving away 99% of your personal fortune is pretty sincere, if he follows through.
He has been going at it for over three decades already (Gates foundation was started in 1994) and he founded and signed the Giving Pledge in 2010, so it isn't really that late-life.
Oh, darn. The kids only get $2 billion. From what I've seen, he's been making good on his pledges so far, solving international health crises and such. I get strong "I done fucked up and need to fix it" vibes from his actions since stepping down as CEO, and we have demonstrable examples.
He once said that his kids will only get $10M each. I don't know if that still stands.
solving international health crises
if anything, he made them worse by lobbying world governments for more draconian vaccine patents.
the reason why the first polio vaccine took off was because its creators refused to patent it.
I'll take that with a grain of Salk.
The Nobel switcheroo, look what a saint I am.
I would like a small percentage of this. Hey just say, one percent.
I'm not greedy and I'm not too good at maths.
I would be fine for the rest of my life with 0,005% (10 million €)
Now that I think about it some more, I don't know anyone who could not live a great life with "just" 10 million. Over 80 years that's 125k/year!
High yield savings is currently at 4.66% at best right now...
With just 1 million in a bank account... That's 47k a year in interest. Considering that I don't need to work in this scenario (And thus wouldn't need a car, and all the other costs that come with needing to maintain stuff for a job)... I could probably make that work for the rest of my life.
At the risk of sounding sexist or misogynist, you could make it work unless you have a wife......oh dear.
I do have a wife. I pulled up our current budget and looked. We'd have to cut a couple of things but I could make it work pretty easily. It's the kids that would make it actually hard. But at this point they're spoiled enough. They'll live (they can live without food right?).
Edit: missed an entire word.
Edit 2: the real answer is that you can consume more than 47k.. if you have to spend an extra 5k a year, you could keep doing that for the rest of your life and be fine... you'll just make a little less each year until you exhaust the 1m... but you'll likely die before you do.
Example....
At 55k/yr, you'll exhaust at year 43. Which the kids would be long gone out the house by then which would lighten the consumption again... so really probably longer. Would probably last 60+ years as long as you maintain some frugality...
Edit3: This does assume that costs don't rise (fat luck here)... that the 4.66 is static (which it's not... and can go up or down)... etc... You could also invest in "riskier things" with higher returns to get more money... general market returns can be higher and are only a minor "risk".
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22355 readers
70 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS