Topic: when the rich say 'ill give 95% of my billion away over my lifetime' explained (Read 313 times)

Rich people already experience being rich that can afford everything without looking at the price, all of the expensive things they can now really afford they continuously making an investment and of course in a good return for all of their hard work giving a small amount to the people of the community as help them in a good way but again not all the rich people will do the same thing some of them still want to make a dominance into this world which have their own power and do what they want that's the power of money. This kind of privilege is quite risky too they can use those power to help or to manipulate.

One would never do that, they don't care that much, no matter how good they preach they are or how much money they give to charity or whatever humanitarian work they do around the world when it comes to distributing a very large percentage of their total wealth, they wouldn't be ready to do that even if that percentage wouldn't make them become poor or something but they will lose their status which to them is the most important thing, in my opinion.

Take Elon Musk as an example. He is currently the richest person on the face of the earth with a net worth of $246.4B according to Forbes, now if he decides to give away about $50B worth of his assets, someone else will take that position and he probably wouldn't want that to happen.

salary Pfft
the richguy can put (instead of $40b in one go..) $2B a year for 20 years
the trust can sell upto $2b/yr of asset and invest in-kind in a 'loan facility'. thus no capgain... and give a'personal' loan to himself from trust to personal. so rich guy receives a loan (tax free money) and as a repayment(to himself as trust) puts another $2b into trust. to cancel loan. which again is no gain for trust

This is how it works:

A rich person is having assets worth $50 billion. Out of that, he announces that he is "donating" $40 billion for charity (any resemblance to criminals such as Bill Gates is purely unintentional). Now he forms a "charity trust" with him and other relatives as the board members. $40 billion worth of cash and other assets such as stocks and bonds are moved to a bank account earmarked for this charity. Any income in the form of interest payments or dividends are tax-free, as the account is owned by the charitable trust.

Now comes the irony. Instead of purchasing luxury houses and yachts from his own account, the billionaire will just purchase them using the charitable trust. Instead of bribing politicians openly with his own money, he will do so with the bank account owned by the trust, in the form of "speaking charges". On top of that, he will write down a few million USD every month for himself in the form of salary.

its not about any rich person needing to help others..

its about the ones that say they will help others using 95% of wealth.. but the results dont match the sales pitch/promise/pledge

separate subject
when there are millions of people leaning towards one political position.. who is chosen as the local and national representatives is not done by the public.. there is alot of internal posturing and garnering donations and sucking up to win favour within the close doors of political party meetings

yes the public then vote on who sounds better of those chosen representatives to then decide which party should be elected based on the parties representatives/spokesman.. but there is much more going on behind te scenes of who got chosen as representative/spokesman for the party

and dont get me started on gerrymandering and also community/social media pandering that swings votes

You don't have to accept that image and also don't have to create another that they make the world worse.

Not all businesses are tied to child labor.
The businesses which are tied to it still has thousands of customers, who finance the business but do not consider themselves to be part of the problem. People buy the jewelleries, the devices etc, but will take the moral high ground because, "I wasn't involved in the chain of supply".

The rich are not taking money off the table of the half of the world population by building their businesses. Many of them when starting out never even expected their companies to get as large as they did, but they do get emotionally attached to it and cannot be expected to halt it's growth cause they are getting to rich.

If I for example invested in Bitcoin when it was not worth even a dollar and held on for it to be worth billions, should I be ashamed cause more than half of the world cannot access safe water but I have billions?

But we vote the politicians in and not the elite, so who should we hold accountable?

Of course we can have different opinions and I respect everyone's right to express their opinion. However, I look at things in a much wider context and I do not want to accept the image created about someone by the mainstream media, which in some cases is financed by the same rich people who present themselves as people who make the world a better place.

I personally would wake up very ashamed every morning if I knew that my wealth was largely the result of exploiting children and slave labor, but for the world's richest people, this is obviously not a problem.


Source


It's not something I didn't know, the rich always want more, and to achieve that they have to invest part of their earnings and it's logical that they don't keep all those billions in cash or in banks. But then the question arises as to why one should find justification for the fact that someone has tens or hundreds of billions that they do not really need, while on the other hand, half of the people in the world today cannot provide enough food on their table.


The same politicians whose pockets are filled by these entrepreneurs? It's no secret who the biggest donors to politicians are, and it's also no secret how those same politicians return the favor when they come to power. Politicians are just pawns, someone else makes the moves, and we know that the one with the most money has the most power.

Don't be too surprised most of them doing this humanitarian pledge don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, charity money is a way for them to not pay their taxes hell there's probably even more evil billionaires or rich people out there that's using charity as a way to funnel themselves laundered money so they don't have to pay any taxes that could've helped the people of the country much more since taxes are useful in terms of social welfare programs. Can't really do anything about them doing this, unless the working class is fed up with all the suffering then right now, there's nothing that we can do about it.

It is true that rich people giving a lot of money doesn't mean they are giving up their wealth. But most if not all of these giving or donating stuff, are actually through their foundations. It means that rich people's tax gets minimized to the lowest levels. Having foundations and charities is the best way of avoiding tax legally. So they're paying very low taxes plus they're receiving a good image from communities and governments. It's like having free advertisements then.

And rich people have little cash in the banks. They're investing it from different types of assets, be it lands, bonds, stocks or even constructing huge projects that will grow the value of their money over time. Rich people are masters of avoiding inflation which is why they're rich.

In general he has fulfilled his promise, but there are conditions. This condition is used by these people to fulfill their humanitarian promise by paying in installments for the next 19 years. It's a truly extraordinary mathematical calculation, they seem to be very generous in keeping their humanitarian promises. Even though they only use a certain percentage of the interest earned from their savings at the bank.

This method is very effective in attracting the sympathy of poor people. If they run for legislative office, they are certain to win the election. Usually people like this don't really care about the poor, in theory they don't donate their property, but rather their monthly income obtained from bank interest.

It is true that some people who have a lot of wealth make donations just to get recognition from other people that they have a lot of wealth and will not care about the people they help, they have interests for themselves, they will still have quite a lot of wealth. what they have and what they give is only a little of what they have, you are right that the poor remain poor because it is very difficult to improve their financial condition.

there are people that do help.. but its more about of the billions shuffling around. how much of it actually gets to the intended frontline need to actually help those that need help

for instance where im from there is a foodbank "trust" registered charity, that asks for financial donations. aswell as food
but if i was to donate:
£100 to the "trust" charity
vs
40 tins of beans (£100) to the local front line foodbank

the monetary £100 of donation to a "charity" does not end up as 40 tins of beans

just checking out their annual reports shows
charity income: £34m
£28m goes to the "foodbanks" grants (82%)
but wait. that is not 82% going to buy food. its grants..
these grants end up paying for admin of referral services locally authorising vouchers. and advertising local campaigns.. training staff, offering other hardship advice(debt, financial advice, help to get social security payments, budgeting, downsizing), etc etc etc
of the £100 monetary donation less than £10 ends up as food

Well, I for one would not really blame the rich for saying or making such a pledge because in all sincerity, any person willing to do such already has a secure financial aid anytime they want and even if they do not want it.
They know that money comes with value and even if they give out such amount, the value that got them such wealth will still shine on.
Afterall, what is it that they say about a good name. It is better than riches, because it is what brings riches, if it is from a truly genuine source.

Yea, I get it, a lot of them pledge all that for their selfish reasons, be it to avoid taxes, to make more money, or to seem good in the eyes of the public. A good number of them are frauds in this regard, I know. I didn't know about the interest they pay instead of the actual amount you talked about till today, but I always knew there was no way they would be giving 95% of their net worth away.

My reply was to the post that said "It's rare to see a billionaire helping those in need". I don't think that's true. Generalizing like that isn't fair on the ones that actually help don't you think? Because there are millionaires and billionaires actually helping instead of just acting like they're helping.

these days putting 4% a year into a foundation/trust you manage is charity
these days using foundation funds to buy up agricultural land, displacing farmers is charity
these days displacing hundreds of farmers family, to then put one manager inplace to tend the land is charity
these days mass production harvests and selling it to impoverished countries government at higher rate than local farmers is charity
these days governments then distributing that harvest to the poor, thus not allowing the poor the need to farm/sell own produce is charity

when 'big-agri' displaced african farmers and big agri harvested rice was sold to african gov and NGO's who then gave it "for free" to the displaced as charity. it then caused other local farmers not handing land to big-agri to go out of business.. after all how can they sell their local rice if the big-agri is giving it away to everyone

I remember a very long time ago while I was still in high school, I read an article that said Bill Gates as Warren Buffett give out 90% of their earnings away. A part of me couldn't understand how a human being can give out 90% of his net worth to charity because to be frank I can't do it and I'm pretty generous with the little I have. Then I get confused even further when a year later, I still see these same people among the richest people in the world. So to me it was like either the article I read was false or these men make so much money that subtracting 90% of their net worth won't take them away from the top. I use to assume so many things then.
I also assume the money given away to charity was also calculated as their current net worth.
Now it all makes sense to me.
Well, giving up 5% of $1b for 19 years is no small task though.

we all get that. but as you say..
when they make a pledge to donate 95% of wealth.. but their wealth increases
when they say donate it to help others.. but it doesnt get to the people who really need it.
when they say altruism.. but it turns out to be a tax dodge or wealth creation

then what was the point of the pledge

i understand its their money, their choice and shoudnt have to pander to the masses.. but why pledge then(rhetorical)

lets take FTX ex-ceo scam bankman fraud...
his altruistic pledge.. but how many tins of baked beans did he donate to foodbanks vs buy houses for his parents

We can have different perspectives on things and I am open to contrary views, but I do not think the rich are villains simply for owning more wealth, or that they would have a sad life cause they are richer than majority of the world population.
I do not also think they have a responsibility to the world due to how much wealth they have amassed.

Wealthy people do not actually own billions of liquid cash. For the most part their wealth is stored up in stocks of businesses they own and have built from the ground up. I will not expect them to crumble their businesses and give it up to charity while surviving on what they have left (which is enough to survive on). Weirdly, if we took out a couple of billionaires along with their networths, the life of the majority of the population will remain the same.

The politicians are 100% to blame for the half of humanity that are starving; they make stupid policies, start silly wars and only exist for more control, but somehow entrepreneurs he laddened with the blame.

This is not true. A lot of billionaires help out. You can say that they just do very little, but it's their money and they can use it for charity however they want. It's their money.
The problem is most of the money they donate doesn't get to the people who really need it. 
A lot of billionaires and millionaires are funding charity projects around the globe and it's their money. They can decide to do no charity at all and they will not be wrong in any way because it's their money.

the funniest part is
these small "4% contributions to society" dont actually draw down someones wealth by 4% a year
dont go to independent foodbanks/shelters. but instead fund go to some foundation where the donator is a trustee or on the board. and its used to generate new business.. and the original 4% becomes a tax writeoff meaning they pay 4% less on the other 96%

its all business tricks to generate business but to make their employees and customers feel empathy for the rich rather then think he is greedy for accumulating.. and when they do these pledges. where they say "more people should join my pledge" its a call of.. "dont feel guilt or regret, now gimme your money"

where these other donations and circulating of donations between each others trust and all the business creations put these guys wealth not at a 4% draw down per year but a wealth increase per year.. and we still see 'starvation', 'displacement', 'civil unrest' in news headlines

---

i have more money then i need. and for a while i was pondering all the ways to best utilise my btc when i finally decide to exit because it will be way more than my lifetime would handle. so when looking into all these pledges. i started to see all the holes in it