747
Malaria (fedia.io)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeena@jemmy.jeena.net to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 152 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I consider Gates to be "better" than most billionaires, but, I recognize that he's still a billionaire, and as such, his philanthropic endeavors are as much about him having wealth and maintaining his wealth as they are about him being a "good person".

Let me explain: it's a tax write off. Basically, billionaires often donate to charity, not because they're particularly giving, but because it reduces their taxes. They basically take the money they would otherwise pay in tax, and instead pay it to a charity that then does whatever they do with it.

By establishing a charity for himself, he can personally pay his charity the money that would otherwise go to tax, then as the charity, dictate where those funds are spent. Instead of giving the money to someone else to do with as they will, he basically pays himself, so he can dictate what happens with his money.

In turn, he pays little to no taxes, and only has to ensure the money circles around his charity somehow. That may be in the form of paying himself (or others) as a function of running the charity, or sending the money to places and people who he believes can benefit from it (or indirectly, benefit him).

It becomes a large circle jerk of money that otherwise would have gone to the government for taxes.

EDIT: before this gets any worse: he's not making money with tax write-offs. That's literally impossible. The point is to control where your money goes. Here's an example. In situation A, bill, the individual, wants a thing to happen.... Say, it's research into a new form of energy. So Bill takes $1000 from his gross income and pays someone to research that thing to make it a reality. At the end of the year, bill gets a knock on the door, it's the tax man, looking for his cut off the $1000 bill earned. His cut is 30% or $300. Now let's move to situation B. Bill wants the thing to happen, but Bill owns a charity. So Bill donates the money to his charity and gets a tax write off for it in the form of a receipt that he can submit later. As a representative of the charity, bill then pays that $1000 to people to make the thing. At the end of the year, the tax man comes calling for his $300 of bills income. Instead, bill hands the tax collector the receipt for the charitable donation he made with the $1000 of income. The tax man accepts it and leaves with nothing.

The charity is a tax shelter so that bill has more money available to spend on the things he wants to have happen. So more of his money can go towards those things without being taxed.

I hope that clears it up a bit. Jesus, there's a lot of people here that don't understand tax write-offs. There's more that simply don't understand me, or have literacy issues, and assume far too much about what I'm saying here. Yikes.

[-] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m convinced no one on Lemmy or Reddit knows what a tax break actually is or that YOU DON’T MAKE MONEY FROM THEM!

[-] HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The above post seemed to be saying that:

  1. Bill Gates pays less taxes as he donates to a charity

  2. Bill Gates runs that charity

  3. Bill Gates then gets to decide how that charity spends his donated money

This then means that he can use what should have been tax to:

  1. Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity

  2. Lobby politicians using the charity's money

  3. Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests

Which part are you disagreeing with? I guess he doesn't "make money" in the strictest sense, but it sure seems like he's exploiting the system to keep more of it

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity

Why does Bill Gates earn nothing through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Lobby politicians using the charity’s money

A 501(c)(3) organization is subject to heightened restrictions on lobbying activities, A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. Lobbying may not constitute a “substantial part” of the activities of the 501(c)(3) organization. ^[source]

Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests

I guess you can argue that eliminating malaria is in his best interests, but it's pretty reaching. I guess nobody should do anything good if it might indirectly benefit themselves.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Issue is if he's paying himself with the charity's money he'd have to pay tax on that, and if he wrote that off with a donation and paid himself again then it'd reset the loop - there's no loophole there, literally, as it'd be an endless closed loop of transferring money.

Given the best interests of the US government are destabilising other countries and supporting unfair healthcare companies, and given what is known about Bill Gates' charity spending I think a higher proportion actually goes to the betterment of society than would if it went to the US government

[-] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

The part where he "gets to keep more of it."

$1 in charitable contributions does not lower your tax burden by $1, and certainly not more than $1.

If that dollar would have been taxed as capital gains, assuming 20% capital gains and 3.8% NII tax, it saves 23.8 cents meaning the $1 donation costs 76.2 cents.

If that dollar would have been taxed as normal income, assuming a marginal tax rate of 37%, it saves 37 cents meaning the $1 donation costs 63 cents.

(These two examples are not intended to be an exhaustive list.)

Charitable contributions cost money, just not as much money as they would if there wasn't a tax deduction.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago

I've come to the same conclusion. Every time there's a corporation or billionaire either scrapping something or giving something away, then it's "for the tax breaks".

[-] druidjaidan@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

None of that makes sense with how taxes actually work. For every $1 donated to charity, the maximum you're getting back is 0.37 from the tax deduction. That's assuming you're in the max tax bracket. The higher your tax bracket, the cheaper it is to give to charity, but it's never better than keeping the money yourself.

There are games that can be played with charitable donations, but cash to a foundation is not really the way. The real games are played around with hard to value assets like art/jewelry where massively inflated values and weird lease terms can lead to some really questionable outcomes. For example "loaning" art to a museum and writing off the "rent" after having it appraised for some insane value.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

The 0.37 you get back is the tax you paid on the income. The exercise is more about controlling where your money goes and what it goes to.

Instead of giving the money to the government, who you may not agree with, you're giving it to a cause that either directly or indirectly can benefit you, whether that cause is a direct benefit in the form of helping with a problem that is causing you trouble, or simply as a good PR move.

You spend money to get there, but now often than not you're getting a benefit from the transaction.

Billionaires and their mentality and interests are fairly well known, for the most part. Bill is a co-chair of the foundation and likely recieves many benefits from holding that position, including a salary. He can also, as chair, influence who is hired, providing stable employment for people who are in his favor, while also getting a massive boost to his public image, all while paying himself a salary. He can also direct the funds that would normally go to the government as tax, who may spend it on things he doesn't want to happen, and redirect those funds to something he would like to see happen, such as R&D into technologies (which is a nontrivial part of what the foundation funds).

For Bill, the charitable foundation is a win all the way around, except to his billion dollar bank account, which I'm certain is providing plenty of income on its own.

Quite literally he's taking money out of the hands of the government and making sure money is being funneled into things that he thinks should happen. It looks very selfless on the surface but gates is a business man, this is just his most recent endeavor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago

Let you explain? That's literally not how taxes work. Who falls for this shit?

[-] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago

The number of people who don't understand the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit is too damn high.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're not wrong.

Check out the Behind the Bastards episodes on him to see how his charitable efforts often end up more destructive than not.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Isn't he the sole reason that the covid vaccine (that was funded by 97% publlic funding) was sold for a profit?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/15/oxfordastrazeneca-covid-vaccine-research-was-97-publicly-funded

[-] unphazed@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Just listened to Behind the Bastards on Gates... Gates Foundation is all about drumming up capitalism in other countries. Worth a listen I assure you.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

He's not doing it for tax write-offs, he's donating billions of dollars per year because he genuinely wants to help. He crushed a lot of people to get to the top, that's indisputable, but he's genuinely trying to offset that destruction now, and he's possibly at a net positive effect on the world now. Actually, I'd say he's probably at a net positive impact on the world.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 92 points 1 year ago

You should see what he released on Epstein's island

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 107 points 1 year ago

We joke, but Epstein masqueraded as a wealthy investor/entrepreneur for like two or three decades before he was caught, so him merely having some one's contact written down doesn't mean much. In fact, Bill Gates has never been shown to have visited the island at any point, and Epstein was very invested in the Gates Foundation charity work such as loaning his plane for high profile individuals to fly to charity sites across Africa.

[-] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 year ago

The fact that Melinda immediately filed for divorce after the news came out is pretty damning to me.

While I thought the same at the time, since then I've adopted a more nuanced view. My guess is that she was planning to divorce him for a while and just used an opportune moment to actually do it. Some rumors that can be explained away are not something that would end a healthy marriage.

[-] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago

Some rumors that can be explained away are not something that would end a healthy marriage.

I agree. My theory is he came clean with her, because he assumed it was going to come out anyway, and that what he told her was really bad.

[-] Leeker@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I always thought it was more to do with the fact that their youngest son had just turned 18. So he was probably moving out of the house to college. There is a big culture here in the US to "stick it out for the kids until they move out" mentality. So I just thought that is what they were doing.

[-] Hnazant@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Thought it was because his office behavior was sus.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

There's evidence that Gates knew what was going on at Epstein's parties, didn't participate, but still choose to stay silent. Gates had enough power and wealth that he didn't need to worry about retaliation either.

[-] Agrivar@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Does any of this "evidence" exist in a tangible way, or is it all hearsay?

[-] chellomere@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It's listed in Wikipedia and they have three sources listed for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 43 points 1 year ago

"There's no reason only consenting adults should have the experience."

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 56 points 1 year ago

I hate mosquitos. All my homies hate mosquitos.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Mosquitos, flies, roaches. I could do with them all gone.

[-] loudWaterEnjoyer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago

You probably couldn't as the ecosystem is linking into each other

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago

I'd take 1 global apocalypse for having all those suckers die. Thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I don't know man... So many species died out naturally and unnaturally and things moved along. I'd guess wager we can do without them 😝

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

One of the reasons mosquito populations are out of control is that we've killed off a lot of their predators. No mosquito anywhere is a keystone species, and you would only need to wipe out the vector species. Other, less harmful species of mosquito would fill in nicely with less competition.

At least, that's the theory. Previous theories included introducing mosquitofish to eat the larvae, but that backfired because the moquitofish are aggressive and don't eat as many mosquitos as local predators driven off by the mosquitofish.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One of the few good billionaires (lol maybe he is the only one ).

Edit : By comparison of course like good he done : evil he done ration . Not saying he is a saint.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

He helped championed one of the Covid vaccines, but also forced the private ownership and profit of it. Something the scientists working on it didn't want to do. This in an stark contrast to the polio vaccine, which was free and who's lead scientist referred the idea as "trying to own sunlight".

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 year ago

You are unfortunately mistaken. Maybe in comparison better than others but that does not mean good.

I don't have any links ready to prove that though, so I understand if you disregard that.

[-] THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 15 points 1 year ago

Of course i meant by comparison and no need for links i have heard some shit

Even with issues like polio where he's supposedly doing good, he does lots of harm from my understanding. Probably not though malice, but being a know-it-all who uses their money to shape policy, the end result is still the same. Having a tech billionaire in charge of medical policy has caused many more people to suffer from polio as a result than would have without his meddling. And that's the problem with billionaire: even if they try to be good, they're no dieties and giving that much power to unaccountable individuals means they can accidentally cause lots of harm. And often the have perverse incentives (see Bill Gates and all he's done to hurt education in the US, for example).

[-] THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 10 points 1 year ago

Sauce or it didn't happen .

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] axim 8 points 1 year ago

only a forcibly expropriated billionaire is a good billionaire

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] kebabslob 41 points 1 year ago

He also held on to that COVID vaccine

[-] kralk@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago

He fucking did! Why the downvotes? He personally lobbied governments to make sure nobody released the patents to allow cheap vaccinations in developing countries

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 year ago

Gates got a bunch of defenders for some reason

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] cobra89@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Anyone doubting this claim should read this article: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969

Gives a really good breakdown of the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had in the global pandemic response and how they donated more money to the WHO during that time than any member country. How they have close ties to the WHO and how they hoarded the IP rights to the COVID vaccine resulting in lower income countries not having access to the vaccine.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

It wasn't "lower income countries not having access to the vaccine". It was just preventing them from making it. They can have subsidized access to high quality vaccines.

India wanted to manufacturer the vaccine in less than ideal factories. That would have hurt or killed some of the people who took it, and the vaccine would have been blamed. This is the literal reason why they said "no". They fucking invented the vaccine. They would know.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
747 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15221 readers
1097 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS