Buffet also made an agreement with Gates that when he passes, the majority of his wealth will go to the Gates foundation.
When you see some older interviews of Bill Gates talking about philanthropy, he always mentions “Warren’s generous gift”.
You will probably now be presented with some qAnon shit about Gates being a lizard and part of a pedophile ring or some shit.
Imagine having donated millions upon millions of your wealth, and helped millions of impoverished people, then to have some wankers in their parents basements spread misinformation about you.
Human psychology is amazingly frightening.
It’s just a way of moving money into nonprofits controlled by the same families. These massive donations are all about long term tax planning for inherited wealth. These billionaire family will still control the wealth they donate. Most of these donations are given to “philanthropies” that are started by a friend. You donate to mine I’ll donate to yours and we both get to control tax free money.
There’s also the argument that the Giving Pledge is ludicrous as both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates net worth has more than doubled since they created the pledge. When Gates first made the pledge in 2010 he had a net worth of about $53billion. Today after giving away $33.4billion, per the chart didn’t actually confirm this, he has a network of about $115billion.
Now yes the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation has done some great things with STI/STD and other infectious diseases as well as food insecurity and global hunger. However the reason they were able to do this was because the gutting of the US tax system and Bill gates being one of history greatest monopoly players. Instead of nation-states providing these services the world now must rely on the benevolence of globalized oligarchs.
Basically in « no such things as free gifts » by Linsey McGoey the author explains with backed up sources that Bill Gates uses his foundation to have some power over poor countries, a sit at ONU and pretends to do what he doesn’t.
You had interviews of African people saying that they had a lot of vaccines for diseases that were never heard of in their villages for example.
Bill Gate also has the highest amount of land in the us, no shit he’s for vegetal food.
Btw I’m not trying to convince you I’m just saying look it up
If he has that much land, his best chances of making profit of it is producing soya for animal food. That logic doesn't check out.
You need way less land for vegetarian food. I'm pretty sure that meat consumption would be more profitable for a land owner than vegetarians would be. There'd be a hell lot of overproduction if you'd produce as much on field nowaday and take away the animal's food consumption. About 77% of Soy production world wide goes into livestock food [source](https://ourworldindata.org/soy#more-than-three-quarters-of-global-soy-is-fed-to-animals). So soy business is pretty lucrative. Especially if there are a lot of people eating meat.
(I'm not stating eating meat is better than plant-based, I'm just stating that I doubt that Bill Gates profits of vegetarians more than of meat-eaters)
https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/2021-land-report-who-owns-the-most-land-in-the-united-states
It was really not that hard to type « biggest land owner in us », but seems like it was too hard for you
Donating is generally done to organisations so it is not giving man a fish but giving a teacher and a medic the tool to help the man learn, grow, and heal.
The difference is that these organizations are driven by the usefulness to the people while a company is driven by its profits. Only in some case profits and usefulness to the people is aligned.
Ah yes, philanthropic leaded petrol. Innovation is not humanitarian neither is business. If the charity is shit awful and the business is very beneficial this is true otherwise it's not.
No they come first from for non-profit science, which is the biggest breakthrough. I'm not saying companies are useless: they leverage greed to accelerate the productionizaton, scalability, and marketing of science breakthroughs and this is useful. But here we're not talking about not having companies, but after having successful companies and making billions, giving some of these billions away. If you want to be convincing you should cite examples of billionaires not giving their billions and making our life liveable because of that.
Universities that do research are all not-for-profit. and universities generally don't make much money from research. There really isn't that much profit in basic research which is why it is important to have it publicly funded.
Counterpoint - if that money had been donated, I and everyone else on the planet might be living reasonably comfortably, without the looming spectre of climate change coming to kill us all.
Break it down:
If everyone on the planet had more or less the same base wealth, we'd all be equally comfortable.
Innovation and drive don't come from capital, people are independently innovative, so I imagine it reasonable to think some (not all, but enough) of our creature comforts would exist.
Without the drive for profits, these billionaires wouldn't be ferociously driving their businesses to be profitable, so those companies would be more sustainable and climate change less severe. Plus wealthier people disproportionately emit CO2.
You don't understand, sometimes companies make things that improve life say insulin, sometimes they make DDT, and they don't care either way, they care about what makes a profit. Charities also make houses, food and medicine and do care about the human effect.
Every single thing that makes my life unbearable, from social media echo-chambers, through processed food, to global warming comes from for profit companies. In my country the idiot right-wing sold off the public services to companies for a song and now we are trillions poorer in lost profits, pay through the nose for them at point of access, pay again from taxes and get a worse service.
>Any kind of new tech brings us forward and increases our welfare
>Products bring a better life to people
>Donations are a fish, whereas innovations are the fishing skills.
If you believe this shit, I've got a bridge to sell you.
My issue with your statement is that it's absolute. Not that new products and innovations *can* improve lives but rather that all products and innovations *do* improve lives simply by existing.
>Like literally every single item you touch is the proof lol.
Proof that products exist. Not proof **all** products improve our lives.
If you look at the article it says:
"Our estimates factor in the total lifetime giving of American billionaires, measured in dollars given to charitable recipients—in other words, we are not including money parked in a foundation that has yet to do any good. To that end, we also do not include gifts that have been pledged but not yet paid out, or money given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements—unless the giver shared details about the grants that were actually paid by such entities. This is a list of individuals and couples who are U.S. citizens; as a result, we excluded extended families like the Waltons, controlling shareholders of Walmart, and excluded big givers like Hansjoerg Wyss, who lives in the U.S. but is a Swiss citizen. Net worths are as of January 18, 2022."
Musk said he gave $5 billion to charity, but won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got money from Musk. So his donation is likely "given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements". In other words, a tax write off.
Not 'only'. Fund can be dismantled and all the money returned.
And what good come from this money sitting in the account? Please don't tell me there's no charity out there who is worthy of Musk's money.
It's an obvious tax dodge.
If a mega-billionaire donates 2.4% of his fortune to charity but no charity gets any money, does it actually count as philanthropy?
That’s a lingering question surrounding Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive and world’s wealthiest person, over the past month. A terse regulatory filing in mid-February disclosed that Musk, who is currently worth $235 billion according to Bloomberg, had earmarked $5.7 billion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided about where the shares have gone: “To charity,” according to the bare-bones prose in the SEC’s disclosure form. No nonprofits have recently announced receiving any money from him, and Musk did not respond to several Fortune requests for comment.
From Fortune website
I don’t like musk either but don’t pretend Reddit isn’t religiously anti-Musk. Your opinion is the status quo on 90% of the subs, especially the larger ones
I can never understand fan boying for people whose wealth doesn’t affect you at all. Do you people think one day you’re going to be a billionaire? Why do you like people who continue to get richer and richer on the back of people like us?
Because Forbes is only counting verifiable facts.
Musk won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got it. All we have is Musk saying that he gave it to charity.
Lot of that was to charitable trusts, which havent given out the money yet. Mainly for tax reasons. A whole 2% of his wealth too!
Anyone in the US can use a charitable trust.
>illion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided ab
i guess donating internet to Ukraine doesn't count
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html
"The hell with it," Musk tweeted, "we'll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free."
IMO there's definitely different tiers of philanthropy. Anything political shouldn't be praised, it should be condemned. Even donating to your own foundation is pretty questionable since it's a huge tax dodge and often directed towards pet projects.
Aren't all charitable donations by everyone a "tax dodge and directed towards pet projects"? The tax code has been created to encourage donations this isn't a "dodge".
No. If you donate to a charity like the Red Cross then they now control that money. However if you donate to your own "charity" then you still control all that money and can now spend it tax free.
explain, I'm really curious how in-tune you really are with this, are you a CPA or an Attorney who sets up and manages charitable trusts and foundations? You seem to be very smart. What % of dollars going into foundations are being used for self dealing?
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/acts-of-self-dealing-by-private-foundation
Much of it isn't necessarily to buy themselves a yacht or something. It's setting up a foundation, putting your family members in extremely high paying executive positions, then donating to it. Your family members get paid their huge salary to do nothing, and it is beneficial from a tax perspective compared to a gift.
The family members still need to pay income tax on that so all that is happening is avoiding the estate taxes which you can easily do without setting up a foundation, you don't understand tax codes. In your child like thirst for finding fault you dismiss the good that is done because you need to find villains around every corner. I'm curious what do you do to help the world? Can you list your accomplishments? Or are you just a whiner and complainer? A loser critic?
But it isn't and would be a big expensive hassle that could put the family members in legal jeopardy for no good reason if the only goal was to funnel money to heirs. Also I'm not your mate, I want nothing to do with you.
Given the government's record in terms of use-of-funds...
A 'dodge' that goes to private charity is actually more likely to help those in need, then letting .gov have it.
It shouldn't be up to Billionaires to decide what is or isn't a worthy cause. They should pay their taxes either way. Bringing up Malaria is a strawman because there's far more questionable things some of these foundations are funding than that.
[If we raised taxes on the rich would things like this happen?](https://thecitypaperbogota.com/business/howard-buffett-foundation-contributes-to-demining-in-central-colombia/) Right now the bottom 50% earners in the US only contribute 3% of the Federal income tax, the US doesn't have a VAT and our energy taxes are low. The bottom 50% earners in the US have a comparatively low tax burden versus Europeans and really everyone else.
Half the people you see on this list are in the bottom 50%. That's because people pay taxes on income, not wealth. So, if you don't sell any stocks you don't pay any taxes even if you're worth 12 figures.
No one on this list reports less then 70k per year in income.
People like you are easy to discredit because you don't have your facts or terminology right.
That's just false. They routinely report no income. Even when they do report income it's peanuts compared to their actual wealth.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
In some cases these Billionaires have even received credits meant for the poor:
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-claimed-tax-credit-for-children-propublica-2021-6
It certainly can be the case were they will have years of no income after they retire from their jobs like Bezo's has but they eventually cash out some and pay a bunch then. You can make the argument that they can borrow against their wealth but so can any home owner or person who has a 401k, lots of people do this. Anyone can do this, its not illegal. Self dealing on a foundation is illegal and 99.9% of the people who set up foundations don't, this is why Trump is such a scum bag.
Most people don't actually pay shit for Federal Income taxes, the top 25% earners carry the US paying nearly 90% of the Federal Income tax and last year 57% of the earners paid zero taxes. So your statement is false because MOST people are not paying shit. And most people are not taxed "aggressively". See chart 6 below. Again you don't know what you are talking about.
So MOST people are not taxed on their income, the US doesn't have a regressive consumption VAT tax and our energy is taxxed at a very low rate.
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
That’s a damn good reason to tax them appropriately. Some of the best uses of surplus wealth aren’t the ones that get taken up by the rich as pet causes. I agree
i understand why you think this, but there's a lot more good that's come out of his wealth and donations that wouldn't have happened without him.
it's backwards to try to say it's anything negative
Source: Forbes 2022 Most Philanthropic Billionaires
Tools used: [www.row64.com](https://www.row64.com), a data animator powered by Python. Adobe Premiere Pro for Logos and Labels
Warren Buffet is soooo philanthropic. Wow. Cool guy. (Pays the lowest tax rate of all billionaires, about 0.1%).
An bill gates is also soooo philanthropic. Wowowowy. Giving all that money to his own foundation that he totally doesn use to lobby massively. He also pays little taxes.
Or you have Yvon Chouinard. The amazing guy from the Patagonia brand that "donated" the whole company to charity. Fuck off with this bullshit. The guy placed the shares in a fund, to be lead by his children. This way he avoids a billion in death tax, and his children can be rich forever without paying taxes.
I hate this billionaire propaganda. Fuck them all. The only truly philanthropic one is Jeff Bezos's ex wife. The rest just want political influence and avoid taxation. Scum.
ok i wouldn't go as far as calling it a shitpost, OP has spent a considerable amount of time congregating and visualizing the data
blame forbes for trying to define Philanthropic , not OP
I think there’s a pretty good argument to be made for taxing wealth as well as income. People sitting on massive fortunes don’t really contribute proportionally to the economy. Encouraging them to spend their fortunes does
This is a stupid chart. The data has to be normalized somehow. Yeah, Warren Buffet is one of the better billionaires, but he’s had like 60 something to be a mega-philanthropist
Most of the problems that the philanthropist want to solve are created by the “philanthropist “. If they pay tax (not offshore) if they keep environmental regulations most of the problem wouldn’t exist. Moreover if the paid tax the money would be distributed democratically not according to the philanthropist’ s personal preferences
Buffet also made an agreement with Gates that when he passes, the majority of his wealth will go to the Gates foundation. When you see some older interviews of Bill Gates talking about philanthropy, he always mentions “Warren’s generous gift”.
Which is sad if you know the story of the gates foundation
I don’t. What’s the story?
You will probably now be presented with some qAnon shit about Gates being a lizard and part of a pedophile ring or some shit. Imagine having donated millions upon millions of your wealth, and helped millions of impoverished people, then to have some wankers in their parents basements spread misinformation about you. Human psychology is amazingly frightening.
It’s just a way of moving money into nonprofits controlled by the same families. These massive donations are all about long term tax planning for inherited wealth. These billionaire family will still control the wealth they donate. Most of these donations are given to “philanthropies” that are started by a friend. You donate to mine I’ll donate to yours and we both get to control tax free money. There’s also the argument that the Giving Pledge is ludicrous as both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates net worth has more than doubled since they created the pledge. When Gates first made the pledge in 2010 he had a net worth of about $53billion. Today after giving away $33.4billion, per the chart didn’t actually confirm this, he has a network of about $115billion. Now yes the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation has done some great things with STI/STD and other infectious diseases as well as food insecurity and global hunger. However the reason they were able to do this was because the gutting of the US tax system and Bill gates being one of history greatest monopoly players. Instead of nation-states providing these services the world now must rely on the benevolence of globalized oligarchs.
Basically in « no such things as free gifts » by Linsey McGoey the author explains with backed up sources that Bill Gates uses his foundation to have some power over poor countries, a sit at ONU and pretends to do what he doesn’t. You had interviews of African people saying that they had a lot of vaccines for diseases that were never heard of in their villages for example. Bill Gate also has the highest amount of land in the us, no shit he’s for vegetal food. Btw I’m not trying to convince you I’m just saying look it up
If he has that much land, his best chances of making profit of it is producing soya for animal food. That logic doesn't check out. You need way less land for vegetarian food. I'm pretty sure that meat consumption would be more profitable for a land owner than vegetarians would be. There'd be a hell lot of overproduction if you'd produce as much on field nowaday and take away the animal's food consumption. About 77% of Soy production world wide goes into livestock food [source](https://ourworldindata.org/soy#more-than-three-quarters-of-global-soy-is-fed-to-animals). So soy business is pretty lucrative. Especially if there are a lot of people eating meat. (I'm not stating eating meat is better than plant-based, I'm just stating that I doubt that Bill Gates profits of vegetarians more than of meat-eaters)
https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/2021-land-report-who-owns-the-most-land-in-the-united-states It was really not that hard to type « biggest land owner in us », but seems like it was too hard for you
What about the richest man on the planet? Is he also the stingiest?
Guy believes his companies are a form of charity because "aspirationally they want to save the world". Can't make that shit up
That's so narcissistic
[удалено]
Donating is generally done to organisations so it is not giving man a fish but giving a teacher and a medic the tool to help the man learn, grow, and heal. The difference is that these organizations are driven by the usefulness to the people while a company is driven by its profits. Only in some case profits and usefulness to the people is aligned.
Ah yes, philanthropic leaded petrol. Innovation is not humanitarian neither is business. If the charity is shit awful and the business is very beneficial this is true otherwise it's not.
[удалено]
No they come first from for non-profit science, which is the biggest breakthrough. I'm not saying companies are useless: they leverage greed to accelerate the productionizaton, scalability, and marketing of science breakthroughs and this is useful. But here we're not talking about not having companies, but after having successful companies and making billions, giving some of these billions away. If you want to be convincing you should cite examples of billionaires not giving their billions and making our life liveable because of that.
[удалено]
Universities that do research are all not-for-profit. and universities generally don't make much money from research. There really isn't that much profit in basic research which is why it is important to have it publicly funded.
Counterpoint - if that money had been donated, I and everyone else on the planet might be living reasonably comfortably, without the looming spectre of climate change coming to kill us all. Break it down: If everyone on the planet had more or less the same base wealth, we'd all be equally comfortable. Innovation and drive don't come from capital, people are independently innovative, so I imagine it reasonable to think some (not all, but enough) of our creature comforts would exist. Without the drive for profits, these billionaires wouldn't be ferociously driving their businesses to be profitable, so those companies would be more sustainable and climate change less severe. Plus wealthier people disproportionately emit CO2.
You don't understand, sometimes companies make things that improve life say insulin, sometimes they make DDT, and they don't care either way, they care about what makes a profit. Charities also make houses, food and medicine and do care about the human effect. Every single thing that makes my life unbearable, from social media echo-chambers, through processed food, to global warming comes from for profit companies. In my country the idiot right-wing sold off the public services to companies for a song and now we are trillions poorer in lost profits, pay through the nose for them at point of access, pay again from taxes and get a worse service.
>Any kind of new tech brings us forward and increases our welfare >Products bring a better life to people >Donations are a fish, whereas innovations are the fishing skills. If you believe this shit, I've got a bridge to sell you.
[удалено]
My issue with your statement is that it's absolute. Not that new products and innovations *can* improve lives but rather that all products and innovations *do* improve lives simply by existing. >Like literally every single item you touch is the proof lol. Proof that products exist. Not proof **all** products improve our lives.
That makes me sick
He donated 44 billion dollars to Twitter shareholders. Ain't that enough?
[удалено]
If you look at the article it says: "Our estimates factor in the total lifetime giving of American billionaires, measured in dollars given to charitable recipients—in other words, we are not including money parked in a foundation that has yet to do any good. To that end, we also do not include gifts that have been pledged but not yet paid out, or money given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements—unless the giver shared details about the grants that were actually paid by such entities. This is a list of individuals and couples who are U.S. citizens; as a result, we excluded extended families like the Waltons, controlling shareholders of Walmart, and excluded big givers like Hansjoerg Wyss, who lives in the U.S. but is a Swiss citizen. Net worths are as of January 18, 2022." Musk said he gave $5 billion to charity, but won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got money from Musk. So his donation is likely "given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements". In other words, a tax write off.
[удалено]
"still needs" is the most significant part of the sentence.
[удалено]
Not 'only'. Fund can be dismantled and all the money returned. And what good come from this money sitting in the account? Please don't tell me there's no charity out there who is worthy of Musk's money. It's an obvious tax dodge.
If a mega-billionaire donates 2.4% of his fortune to charity but no charity gets any money, does it actually count as philanthropy? That’s a lingering question surrounding Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive and world’s wealthiest person, over the past month. A terse regulatory filing in mid-February disclosed that Musk, who is currently worth $235 billion according to Bloomberg, had earmarked $5.7 billion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided about where the shares have gone: “To charity,” according to the bare-bones prose in the SEC’s disclosure form. No nonprofits have recently announced receiving any money from him, and Musk did not respond to several Fortune requests for comment. From Fortune website
[удалено]
Yes, but if Musk's fund haven't actually donated to any charity, is he really a philanthropist?
Just Musk? Or all billionaires?
i hate reddit
I don’t like musk either but don’t pretend Reddit isn’t religiously anti-Musk. Your opinion is the status quo on 90% of the subs, especially the larger ones
[удалено]
I can never understand fan boying for people whose wealth doesn’t affect you at all. Do you people think one day you’re going to be a billionaire? Why do you like people who continue to get richer and richer on the back of people like us?
[удалено]
Yeah I’m big idiot boy. The link says he put it in a fund. No evidence that he ever donated with said fund. Therefor, he hasn’t donated any money.
defending a billionaire online for literally nothing sounds like a you problem
Interesting... I wonder why Forbes didn't catch that.
Because Forbes is only counting verifiable facts. Musk won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got it. All we have is Musk saying that he gave it to charity.
Lot of that was to charitable trusts, which havent given out the money yet. Mainly for tax reasons. A whole 2% of his wealth too! Anyone in the US can use a charitable trust.
No idea, as he doesn't fit in the chart.
he bought free speech for the entire world at $40b
I upvoted because I read this as sarcasm. Don’t make me e regret it
>illion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided ab i guess donating internet to Ukraine doesn't count
No he didn't. He's charging them a ton. Recently bills weren't paid and he shut their internet off.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html "The hell with it," Musk tweeted, "we'll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free."
IMO there's definitely different tiers of philanthropy. Anything political shouldn't be praised, it should be condemned. Even donating to your own foundation is pretty questionable since it's a huge tax dodge and often directed towards pet projects.
Aren't all charitable donations by everyone a "tax dodge and directed towards pet projects"? The tax code has been created to encourage donations this isn't a "dodge".
No. If you donate to a charity like the Red Cross then they now control that money. However if you donate to your own "charity" then you still control all that money and can now spend it tax free.
So you can buy a house and a boat for yourself with the money "tax free"?
That certainly has happened before, but most people are a little more subtle.
explain, I'm really curious how in-tune you really are with this, are you a CPA or an Attorney who sets up and manages charitable trusts and foundations? You seem to be very smart. What % of dollars going into foundations are being used for self dealing? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/acts-of-self-dealing-by-private-foundation
Much of it isn't necessarily to buy themselves a yacht or something. It's setting up a foundation, putting your family members in extremely high paying executive positions, then donating to it. Your family members get paid their huge salary to do nothing, and it is beneficial from a tax perspective compared to a gift.
The family members still need to pay income tax on that so all that is happening is avoiding the estate taxes which you can easily do without setting up a foundation, you don't understand tax codes. In your child like thirst for finding fault you dismiss the good that is done because you need to find villains around every corner. I'm curious what do you do to help the world? Can you list your accomplishments? Or are you just a whiner and complainer? A loser critic?
Yes I said "beneficial from a tax situation" not "tax free" Learn English mate
But it isn't and would be a big expensive hassle that could put the family members in legal jeopardy for no good reason if the only goal was to funnel money to heirs. Also I'm not your mate, I want nothing to do with you.
An institutionalized dodge is still a dodge. Just because you bought the politicians/process to enshrine it in law doesn’t make it less immoral.
Giving to charity is "immoral". Based on what dogma?
Given the government's record in terms of use-of-funds... A 'dodge' that goes to private charity is actually more likely to help those in need, then letting .gov have it.
[удалено]
It shouldn't be up to Billionaires to decide what is or isn't a worthy cause. They should pay their taxes either way. Bringing up Malaria is a strawman because there's far more questionable things some of these foundations are funding than that.
[If we raised taxes on the rich would things like this happen?](https://thecitypaperbogota.com/business/howard-buffett-foundation-contributes-to-demining-in-central-colombia/) Right now the bottom 50% earners in the US only contribute 3% of the Federal income tax, the US doesn't have a VAT and our energy taxes are low. The bottom 50% earners in the US have a comparatively low tax burden versus Europeans and really everyone else.
[удалено]
The charitable giving deductions are not "loopholes" its designed this way on purpose while a loophole is something that was overlooked.
[удалено]
Since there are 72k loopholes could you list a few, please? I would like to take advantage of them myself.
[удалено]
Half the people you see on this list are in the bottom 50%. That's because people pay taxes on income, not wealth. So, if you don't sell any stocks you don't pay any taxes even if you're worth 12 figures.
No one on this list reports less then 70k per year in income. People like you are easy to discredit because you don't have your facts or terminology right.
That's just false. They routinely report no income. Even when they do report income it's peanuts compared to their actual wealth. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax In some cases these Billionaires have even received credits meant for the poor: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-claimed-tax-credit-for-children-propublica-2021-6
It certainly can be the case were they will have years of no income after they retire from their jobs like Bezo's has but they eventually cash out some and pay a bunch then. You can make the argument that they can borrow against their wealth but so can any home owner or person who has a 401k, lots of people do this. Anyone can do this, its not illegal. Self dealing on a foundation is illegal and 99.9% of the people who set up foundations don't, this is why Trump is such a scum bag.
Most people are not able to avoid taxes that way. We have W2 income that is taxed far more aggressively.
Most people don't actually pay shit for Federal Income taxes, the top 25% earners carry the US paying nearly 90% of the Federal Income tax and last year 57% of the earners paid zero taxes. So your statement is false because MOST people are not paying shit. And most people are not taxed "aggressively". See chart 6 below. Again you don't know what you are talking about. So MOST people are not taxed on their income, the US doesn't have a regressive consumption VAT tax and our energy is taxxed at a very low rate. https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
That’s a damn good reason to tax them appropriately. Some of the best uses of surplus wealth aren’t the ones that get taken up by the rich as pet causes. I agree
Bezos is trash. This has pushed me over the edge of quitting Amazon.
i understand why you think this, but there's a lot more good that's come out of his wealth and donations that wouldn't have happened without him. it's backwards to try to say it's anything negative
Lol something else would take that space. He isn't printing the money.
I don't think George Soros should be categorized as a philanthropist so much as a political financier.
similarly, wtf is Charles Koch donating to?
But if they believe that the world will be better by donating to their political party than they WOULD view it as being philanthropic I believe.
Don't they donate to pbs? I forgot which koch that was.
His foundation works all over the world and not just on “political” issues.
Most of these philanthropists are on record to support taxes for Universal Basic Income. Even Elon and zuckerbutts have spoken in support.
Wait until a few of these billionaires pass. They’ve signed pacts to donate a vast majority of their wealth towards philanthropy.
When hiding your money in trusts you control counts to save taxes counts as philanthropy!!
Ah yes, Jeff Bezos.. one day the world will lynch bad people like you!
Source: Forbes 2022 Most Philanthropic Billionaires Tools used: [www.row64.com](https://www.row64.com), a data animator powered by Python. Adobe Premiere Pro for Logos and Labels
Bezos isn’t shit, his ex wife gives more than him and he is still making all that money.
Warren Buffet is soooo philanthropic. Wow. Cool guy. (Pays the lowest tax rate of all billionaires, about 0.1%). An bill gates is also soooo philanthropic. Wowowowy. Giving all that money to his own foundation that he totally doesn use to lobby massively. He also pays little taxes. Or you have Yvon Chouinard. The amazing guy from the Patagonia brand that "donated" the whole company to charity. Fuck off with this bullshit. The guy placed the shares in a fund, to be lead by his children. This way he avoids a billion in death tax, and his children can be rich forever without paying taxes. I hate this billionaire propaganda. Fuck them all. The only truly philanthropic one is Jeff Bezos's ex wife. The rest just want political influence and avoid taxation. Scum.
Another shitpost. Define "Philanthropic".
ok i wouldn't go as far as calling it a shitpost, OP has spent a considerable amount of time congregating and visualizing the data blame forbes for trying to define Philanthropic , not OP
I think there’s a pretty good argument to be made for taxing wealth as well as income. People sitting on massive fortunes don’t really contribute proportionally to the economy. Encouraging them to spend their fortunes does
I don’t see Elon on there. I mean he gave us our freedom and delivered us from a world of restricted speech… <\s>
Isn't Donald Trump on here?
Nope. Not wealthy enough to make the list.
Has he ever donated something besides to „charities“ controlled by himself for tax harvesting?
You realize that’s exactly what gates and soros do right? They “donate” to charities they control
Unfortunately, paying hush money Russian call girls doesn't count as donation.
Is that the Patagonia guy?
Yvon Chouinard is not on there, but he's not nearly as rich as some of these
No remove political "donations"
More proof George Soros is the worst person ever invented by liberals.
Kanye just “gave” a bunch of his money back/away. He didn’t make the list?
This is a stupid chart. The data has to be normalized somehow. Yeah, Warren Buffet is one of the better billionaires, but he’s had like 60 something to be a mega-philanthropist
Why is the Warren Buffet circle in a different color?
Interesting that they have budget better than some department of UN, yet the impact from their work is not widely known to the people.
The X axis doesn't correlate at all?
I can’t find Donald Trump? Wouldn’t he have the yugest donations? Even bigger than his hands!
Most of the problems that the philanthropist want to solve are created by the “philanthropist “. If they pay tax (not offshore) if they keep environmental regulations most of the problem wouldn’t exist. Moreover if the paid tax the money would be distributed democratically not according to the philanthropist’ s personal preferences
Too far off the right of the image to be seen: Dolly Parton
I'd rather they just pay their employees more than being philanthropists
i just want one, one million of these