I will give away virtually all my wealth through the Gates Foundation over the next 20 years to the cause of saving and improving lives around the world. And on December 31, 2045, the foundation will close its doors permanently.
I'm actually kind of disappointed to hear that. The org does some truly amazing work, and even after Bill himself has given away the majority of his wealth I would hope they have enough other...
And on December 31, 2045, the foundation will close its doors permanently.
I'm actually kind of disappointed to hear that. The org does some truly amazing work, and even after Bill himself has given away the majority of his wealth I would hope they have enough other donors to keep the org's mission going. :/
People need to read history but look forward. Clinging to the vestages of names from bygone eras isn't helping anyone. Trying to make sure your name is on everyone's lips for 500 more years is...
People need to read history but look forward. Clinging to the vestages of names from bygone eras isn't helping anyone. Trying to make sure your name is on everyone's lips for 500 more years is just selfish. Legacy isn't a real thing.
I respect Bill for sending the good out into the world, instead of leaving it as a foundation that will ultimately get over-taken and exploited in the long history of man. Better to send out that wealth to do good now, and hope that it echoes longer than a foundation from a successful 1900's business man would otherwise.
Maybe I'm the odd one out here... but I actually think it's almost more egotistical for someone to end their well-regarded charitable org that is doing tangible good in the world when they're no...
Maybe I'm the odd one out here... but I actually think it's almost more egotistical for someone to end their well-regarded charitable org that is doing tangible good in the world when they're no longer contributing their own money to it, or can't run it directly themselves anymore. Feeling that only you can truly run such an org and have it continue to do good in the world is pure ego.
And I suspect fears about his "legacy" potentially being corrupted in the future is a large part of why he plans on ending it once he's no longer around too. Which is also selfish, just in a different way.
cc: @OBLIVIATER, since you touched on a similar idea.
The only way to keep an philanthropic organization running like that is via the principal of the endowment being kept from being given out; that is, you keep the majority of the money tied up in...
The only way to keep an philanthropic organization running like that is via the principal of the endowment being kept from being given out; that is, you keep the majority of the money tied up in investments to fund the rest of the giving.
That's a good idea when you consider that there will always be problems to solve and you'll always want to have the money to solve them.
The issue with that thinking is that it's easier to solve problems now than later. It's cheaper and easier to vaccinate someone against HPV than it is to treat cervical cancer. It's easier to build a solar farm instead of a coal plant than it is to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the air. So by that theory by spending the principal now, rather than hoarding it for later, you're doing the economically responsible thing. You also have no say on what happens to your money after your death, so going along with the concern about corruption, it's not just that you want to protect your legacy, you want to protect people in the future from being harmed by your resources.
Besides that, on an individual basis, losing your kid to starvation because the NGO that's supplying your village with food isn't allowed to touch their principal is a real harm that being able to spend that principal avoids. There are problems right now that need to be solved with the hope that in the future, there will be fewer.
This feels like a false dichotomy to me. Yes, there is definitely an advantage to spending the majority of the money reasonably quickly rather than hoarding significant portions of it for later....
This feels like a false dichotomy to me. Yes, there is definitely an advantage to spending the majority of the money reasonably quickly rather than hoarding significant portions of it for later. But so long as the organization can keep donations flowing and continues finding good causes to put that money towards (which there will never be a lack of, IMO), there is no particular advantage to shutting the entire organization down at a set time, or once the initial endowment is depleted either.
I think part of why you're on the other side, is that you're looking at modern problems with a modern lens. There will be future geniuses and savants. There will be people who change the world in...
I think part of why you're on the other side, is that you're looking at modern problems with a modern lens.
There will be future geniuses and savants. There will be people who change the world in the next 3-4 generations who will be revolutionary in their time. They won't do it the way it's been done in the past, and having charitable foundations from a bygone era trying to help using old ways isn't forward thinking.
Spread the wealth now to create the foundation for better growth in the future.
Eh, I can see wanting to avoid handing off to a committee. Like how the March of Dimes had a purpose and was really good when it was focused on polio but now seems to be more of a vehicle for...
Eh, I can see wanting to avoid handing off to a committee. Like how the March of Dimes had a purpose and was really good when it was focused on polio but now seems to be more of a vehicle for perpetuating its own existence.
I wonder if he doesn't trust anyone else to manage his money long term after he's dead, worried it would get corrupted over time like so many other large endowments. 20 years is probably all he's...
I wonder if he doesn't trust anyone else to manage his money long term after he's dead, worried it would get corrupted over time like so many other large endowments. 20 years is probably all he's got left even though he's a billionaire with access to ridiculous amounts of medical technology
I appreciate Gates' philanthropy and his willingness to give away his wealth instead of hording it for generations to come. I can easily imagine that one of the reasons he may want to give it all...
I appreciate Gates' philanthropy and his willingness to give away his wealth instead of hording it for generations to come.
I can easily imagine that one of the reasons he may want to give it all away before he's gone is that all that wealth, even in a foundation, is famously good at destroying relationships. He has three kids and thankfully none of them are on the board, but I know families that have bitterly feuded over a couple thousand dollars, its not hard to imagine bloodshed over a few billion at the board level if Bill's no longer around.
Im one of the people who has benefited from a foundation. When I started a non profit charity money was always an issue. I didnt even know how to apply but found a local foundation set up by a couple who had already passed. Figured out how to write a grant application and was very pleasantly surprised to receive a substantial cheque in the mail without any further communication. We put it to good use.
I would love to be that wealthy some day and spend time figuring out how best to give it away.
Related, people have the dumbest conspiracy theories around Gates giving away his wealth, like this well-voted Reddit comment: Like, okay, Bill Gates wants to give $100+ billion to a non-profit,...
Related, people have the dumbest conspiracy theories around Gates giving away his wealth, like this well-voted Reddit comment:
Unless the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is actively spending down its endowment (it isn’t) this is just tax evasion and a way to pass down wealth tax-free to his daughter who can draw large income as an executive of the foundation.
Like, okay, Bill Gates wants to give $100+ billion to a non-profit, where executive salaries are regulated, so that his daughter can draw a measly salary? Non-profit executive salaries top off around $10m, so his daughter would have to work 100 years to gross $1 billion.
(The Gates Foundation CEO gets paid $1.7m a year, which is quite modest for a top non-profit executive.)
I guess people just have a hard time believing that billionaires can do something good for the world 🤷 Which I obviously don't blame them for, Bill Gates does seem like an exception here. That,...
I guess people just have a hard time believing that billionaires can do something good for the world 🤷 Which I obviously don't blame them for, Bill Gates does seem like an exception here.
That, and also, as @stu2b50 said, people just don't understand how tax deductions work. I guess that just assume that if you donate $1m to a charity you own you just get all that money back and magically have to pay $1m less in taxes? Which is, yeah, obviously not how that works. There are many much easier ways for rich people to avoid taxes, and even without that, just paying full inheritance tax and giving that money directly to his children would probably cost him much less than keeping up an elaborate fake charity scheme for years.
Bill Gates keeps things pretty positive in that article, but he names names elsewhere: Bill Gates Accuses Elon Musk of ‘Killing the World’s Poorest Children’ With DOGE Cuts (Gizmodo)
Bill Gates keeps things pretty positive in that article, but he names names elsewhere:
Gates zeroed in on Musk’s cuts to the United States Agency for International Development, which he called stunning and worse than he ever imagined. “I thought there’d be, like, a 20 percent cut. Instead, right now, it’s like an 80 percent cut. And yes, I did not expect that,” he told the New York Times. He also didn’t shy away from placing the blame for those cuts directly on Musk, stating, “He’s the one who cut the U.S.A.I.D. budget. He put it in the wood chipper.”
The results of those cuts are going to be devastating, and in no small part, the result of a complete misunderstanding of what it is that USAID does. For instance, Gates said that one of the consequences of Musk’s bizarre claim that the government was spending $50 million on condoms for Hamas was the cancellation of grants that would have gone to a hospital in Gaza Province, Mozambique, that works to prevent the transmission of HIV to children. “I’d love for him to go in and meet the children that have now been infected with HIV because he cut that money,” Gates told the Financial Times.
He didn’t mince words about what the results of Musk’s work will be, either. He told NYT, “Because of these cuts, millions of additional deaths of kids.” And fixing it isn’t going to be as easy as tearing it down was. Gates said he’s currently expecting a four- to six-year interruption in funding. While he’s still optimistic that aid organizations that he’s involved with will be able to reduce childhood mortality in the long term, he said, “The cuts are so dramatic that even if we get some restored, we’re going to have a tough time.”
And so you can accuse me of being by nature an optimistic person. But I just think I’m being realistic. I think it’s objective to say to you that things will be better in the next 20 years.
In any case, let’s say somebody convinced me otherwise. What am I going to do? Just go buy a bunch of boats or something? Go gamble? This money should go back to society in the way that it has the best chance of causing something positive to happen.
To be honest, this seems absurd. For $2 USD you can buy a mosquito net that has a high likelihood of saving a human life from death by malaria. To say that buying gold and dropping it in the ocean...
If I had an ungodly amount of money, I think I'd give it to Social Security or maybe buy a bunch of gold and drop it deep in the ocean where nobody including me could find it
To be honest, this seems absurd. For $2 USD you can buy a mosquito net that has a high likelihood of saving a human life from death by malaria. To say that buying gold and dropping it in the ocean is a remotely useful or humanistic way to spend money is insane.
TLDR:
I'm actually kind of disappointed to hear that. The org does some truly amazing work, and even after Bill himself has given away the majority of his wealth I would hope they have enough other donors to keep the org's mission going. :/
People need to read history but look forward. Clinging to the vestages of names from bygone eras isn't helping anyone. Trying to make sure your name is on everyone's lips for 500 more years is just selfish. Legacy isn't a real thing.
I respect Bill for sending the good out into the world, instead of leaving it as a foundation that will ultimately get over-taken and exploited in the long history of man. Better to send out that wealth to do good now, and hope that it echoes longer than a foundation from a successful 1900's business man would otherwise.
Maybe I'm the odd one out here... but I actually think it's almost more egotistical for someone to end their well-regarded charitable org that is doing tangible good in the world when they're no longer contributing their own money to it, or can't run it directly themselves anymore. Feeling that only you can truly run such an org and have it continue to do good in the world is pure ego.
And I suspect fears about his "legacy" potentially being corrupted in the future is a large part of why he plans on ending it once he's no longer around too. Which is also selfish, just in a different way.
cc: @OBLIVIATER, since you touched on a similar idea.
The only way to keep an philanthropic organization running like that is via the principal of the endowment being kept from being given out; that is, you keep the majority of the money tied up in investments to fund the rest of the giving.
That's a good idea when you consider that there will always be problems to solve and you'll always want to have the money to solve them.
The issue with that thinking is that it's easier to solve problems now than later. It's cheaper and easier to vaccinate someone against HPV than it is to treat cervical cancer. It's easier to build a solar farm instead of a coal plant than it is to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the air. So by that theory by spending the principal now, rather than hoarding it for later, you're doing the economically responsible thing. You also have no say on what happens to your money after your death, so going along with the concern about corruption, it's not just that you want to protect your legacy, you want to protect people in the future from being harmed by your resources.
Besides that, on an individual basis, losing your kid to starvation because the NGO that's supplying your village with food isn't allowed to touch their principal is a real harm that being able to spend that principal avoids. There are problems right now that need to be solved with the hope that in the future, there will be fewer.
This feels like a false dichotomy to me. Yes, there is definitely an advantage to spending the majority of the money reasonably quickly rather than hoarding significant portions of it for later. But so long as the organization can keep donations flowing and continues finding good causes to put that money towards (which there will never be a lack of, IMO), there is no particular advantage to shutting the entire organization down at a set time, or once the initial endowment is depleted either.
I think part of why you're on the other side, is that you're looking at modern problems with a modern lens.
There will be future geniuses and savants. There will be people who change the world in the next 3-4 generations who will be revolutionary in their time. They won't do it the way it's been done in the past, and having charitable foundations from a bygone era trying to help using old ways isn't forward thinking.
Spread the wealth now to create the foundation for better growth in the future.
Eh, I can see wanting to avoid handing off to a committee. Like how the March of Dimes had a purpose and was really good when it was focused on polio but now seems to be more of a vehicle for perpetuating its own existence.
I wonder if he doesn't trust anyone else to manage his money long term after he's dead, worried it would get corrupted over time like so many other large endowments. 20 years is probably all he's got left even though he's a billionaire with access to ridiculous amounts of medical technology
I can respect this move, once he's gone maybe it's better not to have his name attached to an org that could undergo massive changes or even scandals.
I appreciate Gates' philanthropy and his willingness to give away his wealth instead of hording it for generations to come.
I can easily imagine that one of the reasons he may want to give it all away before he's gone is that all that wealth, even in a foundation, is famously good at destroying relationships. He has three kids and thankfully none of them are on the board, but I know families that have bitterly feuded over a couple thousand dollars, its not hard to imagine bloodshed over a few billion at the board level if Bill's no longer around.
Im one of the people who has benefited from a foundation. When I started a non profit charity money was always an issue. I didnt even know how to apply but found a local foundation set up by a couple who had already passed. Figured out how to write a grant application and was very pleasantly surprised to receive a substantial cheque in the mail without any further communication. We put it to good use.
I would love to be that wealthy some day and spend time figuring out how best to give it away.
Related, people have the dumbest conspiracy theories around Gates giving away his wealth, like this well-voted Reddit comment:
Like, okay, Bill Gates wants to give $100+ billion to a non-profit, where executive salaries are regulated, so that his daughter can draw a measly salary? Non-profit executive salaries top off around $10m, so his daughter would have to work 100 years to gross $1 billion.
(The Gates Foundation CEO gets paid $1.7m a year, which is quite modest for a top non-profit executive.)
People on Reddit got the idea that charitable tax deductions are a magic button that makes you pay no taxes ever.
I guess people just have a hard time believing that billionaires can do something good for the world 🤷 Which I obviously don't blame them for, Bill Gates does seem like an exception here.
That, and also, as @stu2b50 said, people just don't understand how tax deductions work. I guess that just assume that if you donate $1m to a charity you own you just get all that money back and magically have to pay $1m less in taxes? Which is, yeah, obviously not how that works. There are many much easier ways for rich people to avoid taxes, and even without that, just paying full inheritance tax and giving that money directly to his children would probably cost him much less than keeping up an elaborate fake charity scheme for years.
Same people that don't want to make more money because that would mean they would pay more taxes.
Bill Gates keeps things pretty positive in that article, but he names names elsewhere:
Bill Gates Accuses Elon Musk of ‘Killing the World’s Poorest Children’ With DOGE Cuts (Gizmodo)
The New York Times interview was also interesting.
To be honest, this seems absurd. For $2 USD you can buy a mosquito net that has a high likelihood of saving a human life from death by malaria. To say that buying gold and dropping it in the ocean is a remotely useful or humanistic way to spend money is insane.