Topic: Philanthropy as a paradox for the uber-rich (Read 361 times)

For sure. You also have to consider the potential tax advantages that these foundations bring.

The intentions of the elite are very well veiled but this is one of the cases where an idiot can tell what is going on.

They are trying to cement a legacy through this play - it is completely hypocritical for them to establish a monopoly, perform anticompetitive behaviour, and proclaim that they are some sort of a saint. But people buy the narrative for some reason.

It's difficult to say. On the one hand, there is a cynical element to it; why appear to be kind when you make a lot of money and don't pay taxes? On the other side, some businesses don't do anything at all, even charity, and still manage to avoid paying taxes. On the contrary, these behaviors do not appear to be very harmful.

I think the real question is: What is better, that a few rich people who have come to prosperity through ideas and entrepreneurship have the money and give this with foundations to charitable purposes or whether the state skims the money, e.g. through higher taxes, and distributes it according to its own ideas? I think both come out the same. It is a mistake that the state always makes the better decisions than private persons concerning charity and distribution.

One of the main aims of that particular fund is population reduction of countries where large families are traditional.  Its a form of politics rather then just being generous and the fund brings with it influence and kudos that is not taxable like any normal use of the money.   True charity is a hard business because there is always fraud and if not that then costs sometimes large to distribute the money properly, its harder to do right then most realize.

The billionaires mostly earn money from some kind of efficiency gain and also benefitting from large gains via government bias towards the largest entities over the smallest unlike capitalism we have a system which favors the richest where plain capitalism favors the strongest growth from the smallest companies.  I dont blame the rich people themselves, in time they will pass away but the system is far larger then that.

Obviously, Draconian laws happen when there is a majority  that choose to have them, with support from lobbies and all that. I am surprised that I have to explain that again.

Why do you assume that I am Spanish and that I live in Spain? Please, note that renewables include hydroelectric, which in a mountainous country like Spain has been in full use more than 60 year ago. Still, solar and wind are low... I am writing this as I pass by a wind generator´s field...you would say that´s karma I guess.

I am zero worried about paying any of my bills. I am very worried about leaving behind a world full of shit. Money won´t buy you another planet.

 Furthermore, I have zero interest in discussing anything on personal terms because that is simply an emotional response to a perceived threat - I do not feel threatened by your views nor your opinion, I simply think these come from your experiences, the people you talk to and the information you access and do not seem to match or resist a check with the real world.

Good point. Still, while hunger will still exist, although only in certain areas, while diseases outbreak, diseases the westerners would ask "wasn't that eradicated?", this view on Africa, although now a bit incorrect, will remain.

---

And back to OP:
Taxes means leaving governments (in many countries) handle that money. In many countries this is done inefficiently, especially due to corruption.
So in certain cases it makes sense to optimize taxes and use money for "greater good" in a much better way. But it's only in certain cases...

a lot of problems here right now there's a lot of people dying and there's hunger everywhere and the actual philanthropic funding is very small, most of the big countries they're just interested in getting big capital. In the military, according to statistics, most of the funds I find out are put into research into advanced military weapons and philanthropic funds are only a small part of that fund.

That is fine, instead of "free" you may call it anyway you like, but at the end it means that the state is responsible for providing education and healthcare or guarantee that it is somehow given to its citizens regardless of their means, at least to a certain level.

There is an eternal debate on how big a state should be. Usually, large states tend to be inefficient but tend to let fewer people behind, while more liberal economies are more competitive but tend to not care for the weaker members. What you consider best is always best for some, worse for others. I am in favour of state provided minimum public services including a level of healthcare, a level of education, a level of safety and a level of basic needs covered. We can argue about those levels and how (who will) to pay for it. Personally, I never had to make use of state aid, but I think they should be there - but only to provide opportunities, not to place people under a permanent subsidized existence.

There are a few reason why I think this is best:

- If you leave too many people behind in a Democracy, populist parties and extreme wing candidates tend to appear. These tend to endanger the democratic regime itself (US is a recent example, but there is pretty much the same across Europe after 2008).

- For me, it just does not feel right to live in luxury while your neighbour cannot buy a can of beans. That is just me.

- I believe that part of being a great place to live is to live in safety. Safety is compromised when too many people are left behind - they are simply not going anywhere and they will try to eat and have a roof even if they have to steal. Sorry to use the US as example again, but having 7 million people under some kind of probation, parole or in prison is just ridiculous. You can also consider Brazil as an example of a poorly ruled society in some ways.


Poll Amazon workers.

Imagine being a fake philanthropist like Bill Gates while in the same time openly talking about population reduction, trying to block the sun, experimenting and sponsoring all research in this field.
We know that Gates is against Bitcoin according to his won statement, because he obviously can't control it, and all his charities are one big money laundering and tax evasion operation.
He invested a lot of money sponsoring mainstream media and creating this fake image of himself but it won't last forever, and I don't trust any words coming out from his mouth.

I quite enjoyed the debate between stompix and paxmao. In general I tend to agree more with stompix but just to point out one thing:


The population of Africa was about 100,000 in 1900. Today is 1.4 billion people and is projected to be 4.3 billion by 2100. That has not happened because people in Africa are starving. Without denying that there is still hunger in some parts of Africa, the continent has seen a dramatic reduction in hunger over the last 100 years, as has the world in general.

Regarding the OP's point, I don't see such a paradox. Entrepreneurs today are not like the slaveholders of earlier times. If Microsoft has a quasi-monopoly position it is because it has earned it, not because some political power has forbidden anyone to compete with it. You say that Microsoft does not have a bad reputation for treating its employees badly, I can tell you another one that has a pretty good reputation for treating them well: Google. That's why I was coming to say that I don't buy the story that businessmen are all exploiters who would dream of being the slavers who beat the slave with the whip if they saw that he didn't perform. Many companies have realized that the best way for their employees to be productive and perform is to treat them well. There are also companies and employers that are scum, of course, but it is far from the general rule.

Then I have already seen that the debate has drifted to left (more taxes, more regulations) or right (less taxes, less regulations). In general, I don't trust politicians. None of them. So I prefer less taxes and less regulations because then my progress depends more on me and less on what the politician does.

Then, I don't want to get long, I have seen some clichés:


Here I have to remember that it is never free. Calling it "free" is inaccurate to say the least.

And I say this despite the fact that I am very much in favor of the state providing public health and education, and also despite the fact that I believe that the best way for an economy to function is with reduced state intervention. 

At the end of the day, they can't bring all their riches under their grave. Their situation is done many times over in other countries or other personalities. People will remember what you've done to humanity, how you do it sometimes doesn't matter. As long as they can change someone's life, that's the important thing for me. And let's admit that some big corporations are really hiding their wealth thru their charitable foundations, and that I believe, won't be changing anytime soon.

Yep, that is exactly what I am saying, although I would not say "me and my friends", I would say that any qualified majority that may or may not include me and people and I friend with.

However there is a catch on this: a Democracy has to respect individual rights and, as of today, private property is one of them. Unless there is a national emergency you cannot size people´s assets, so you are reasonably safe against confiscation, but you do live in a country and countries do have laws (most anyway) and taxes. If those are made in some short of democratic way you will get taxed according to your income and that is the way it should be. That is how it works since most Europe got rid of nobility privileges and USA decided to spin-off the UK.

RE agriculture: Farming and agriculture in most Europe is just not competitive and only lives thanks to the PAC aid. Someone like you who seem to dislike any tax and like "self sovereignty" above all should go into a different business.

I would definitely say this is what *business manipulation of the rich class sounds like* people have power and tend to abuse it, I would say since at the end they should be the ones paying taxes at a reasonable price for sure. I do think that what they are doing is reasonable for sure, at least they are bothering to do it. Most of them don't even understand the impact of the heir actions and ends up doing nothing.
But there is also another low point that the governmental policies are a bit loose when I comes to stuff like that, I think there should be better governmental policies and at the same time it's the issue of morals and integrity which is essentially personal.

I've heard it a hundred of times, but there is a problem.
When you have record production, so do others. Then demand and offer kicks in, with huge crops and costly storage everyone wants to get a better price before the others hit the market, so the prices go down. And then there is simple math, you harvest 3 tons that sell at 1$/kilo, 2 tons that sell at 1.5/kilo or it was a drought and you harvest 1 tonn but you sell it at 3$ per kilo.

You said you've never seen happy farmers, but you know how many have gone out of business? From the Netherlands to Hungary I can show you the remains of hundreds of farms that are abandoned, after being seized for unpaid debts they just sat there, rotting away, not worth being sold even for free. If agriculture would be that profitable and risk-free, don't you think everyone would be doing it?


So being your own back, keeping your bitcoins safe from being seized as it happened with fiat in Cyprus is just a myth, right?
Tomorrow you and your friends, outnumbering us 47881 to 47880 can decide that our keys but your money!


How was that....my decisions, my laws...my karma? 
Besides, how do you fit those draconian laws with this?


Btw, serious advice, save some money for the winter bills, trust me! I've seen there times what a dunkelflaute can do, prepare a few extra satoshis to pay for your green energy. 

It is a very tricky situation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation did a lot of good work in the developing world, unfortunately at the expense of the American taxpayer. Since the shares were transferred to the Foundation, they will never be taxed. According to estimates, this has cost a loss of $20 billion to $30 billion to the American treasury. You can say that the African and Asian nations need the aid, but then there are many in the US also who deserves the aid. Microsoft made most of its profits in the US, and that's why I think that what they did was not fair to the Americans.

Bill Gates was an aggressive businessman in his young days and he battled anyone who he saw as a competitor and destroyed their business and mocked them. The most famous one was his fight against Netscape which is well documented and to drive them out of business he started giving away free browser with the OS.

When he started with his foundation i really thought that Bill Gates was doing that to change his image from an ruthless businessman to a different one and i still stand by my view  , having said that i am not sure about the companies tax filings and whether they are getting any undue tax exemption.

Well, that wouldn’t seem right to most people, because others have to pay that tax, so why are they being exempted from paying it? They should even be the ones to pay more than others.

But anyways, equality is very important, so everyone should pay the same level of tax with others, there shouldn’t be people being treated specially and others being forced to do that, it’s wrong. Then if they decide to do philanthropy, it’s in their pockets, they can decide to do it or they can go ahead and leave it. Anyways, that’s how we have seen it and this is not the first time that people are talking about this and it still hasn’t been fixed.

Uber rich people usually prefer to work for the public good our relationship with you can start with just one tap, but it deepens with cities. Their goal is to improve the quality of life by keeping it stable and to serve as a role model for others to build smarter, more efficient cities in the future they are carrying out their activities in harmony with the harmony of the people in every work. Easy to plan through Uber enables the rich to reward every lower class of people.

I have never heard a farmer or agriculturist saying "I had great crops this year". Most of the time I hear complaints similar to the ones you are making, although I can admit that yours are much more elaborate and I would not be able to assert how accurate they may be and what are the reasons for those regulations.

Of course, you keys, your money, your decisions... no problem for that, it is just that it is also my country, my vote, my decision, my laws... so you are free to create your own place if you dislike the arrangements or try to change these in your favour. As said, yes, you (or the top 10% of wealth owners, I do not know if you are included) are privileged in comparison with others and that has a cost.

I am personally in favour of free healthcare and free education up to secondary. That´s what makes a country great, not having charities.



So? Yes, that is right, green energy is more expensive IF you consider only the cost of production and not what happens afterwards. Carbon credits are putting a price on a negative externality (climate change) so Spain and any other country that is not keen on nuclear power have to pay the price for it.

The difference with nuclear energy is that the external negativity are the residues, which basically are each country´s own problem (unless you decide to dump them in the ocean). So that is fine, go for it, just make sure that your grand-grand-grand-grand children understand why are you leaving them with a bunch of shit they cannot get rid of. Oh, BTW, Fukushima and Chernobyl were producing very cheap energy... right?

Electricity prices in Spain are high precisely because draconian legislation on renewables. It is the perfect country for solar and wind, particularly for microgeneration, yet you have the most unbelievable laws and barriers around it. That is not due to the rich or the poor or the investment, that is simply due to the lobbying of the major energy producers. (e.g. ex-president Felipe Gonzalez being and advisor of Naturgy or Rajoy setting a "tax on the sun" as they called it a while ago.) that has left the country with an unbalanced energy mix.


Anyway, a decent post analysing the energy sector is beyond what I intend to do... ever. Politics are so strong on this that it is impossible to really have a sensible chat about it.



What I just do not get is why would you lobby to have the lowest taxes (nearly zero) and then do privately what those taxes should actually be doing, such as caring for the needy and call that philanthropy.

To be honest, while the Gates foundation may do incredible work when it comes to things like vaccinations in Africa (which must be commended) it definitely feels like they are vastly under-utilizing the huge amounts of wealth that are available. I think they are hoarding far too much cash trying to hold out for some sort of miracle cure from one of their small scale research branches. They should be putting lots of money into things that help people more quickly - like renewable energy, more effective transportation links or creating well managed sovereign wealth funds that cannot be abused by politicians. At present it just looks like a vanity project for Bill to call home (and probably hit on the interns)