It's a longish article but it goes on about how he feels frustrated by the political system, educational and health systems of the country and that he and Buffet believe they should be taxed more.
Moreover it appears, that like Jobs thought, wealth, after certain point is redundant -and to them, it was a side effect of their pursuit of their interest. It seems despite Jobs' jabs at Gates, Gates is personally a quite normal guy, psychologically speaking -he's not the megalomaniac people kind of make him out to be sometimes.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
I'm sick and tired of people who have already made enough income to last multiple lifetimes telling us that income taxes should now be raised. The government lets you tax yourself at 100% if you want. Ship them the money. They won't refuse it.
Enough with this "I'm feeling guilty, therefore other people should also pay more" nonsense.
I can donate money to the government. It would be to my detriment to do so. This does not negate the fact that I think the government needs to raise taxes. This is especially so since companies are sitting on record levels of cash and are not hiring. Added to this is the fact that taxes for the wealthy are at historical lows.
Maybe Gates is a hypocrite for not donating money to the government. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. This hypocrisy does not have anything to do with wether or not it is a good idea for the government to raise taxes on certain segments of the population.
I think you're missing the point. First off, Gates is doing a lot of amazing things with his money that benefit many people, not just in the US. Second, it's more of the ideal that a lot of the wealthy have more money than they really need... it's the point of redundancy. That money could be put to good use to help our country. Gates is doing enough good things with his money already.
"the wealthy have more money than they really need" - who are you to decide what the wealthy need? They decide, by how hard (or smart) they are willing to work.
No, our taxes are going to be a lot higher in the future because the government is too busy getting re-elected by redistributing taxes & allowing the printing of new money to be responsible with it's financial commitments. In the end, the powerless will be held responsible, and pay the price.
It's more about the view and wish for changing the system and organizing it more efficiently so that more people can benefit from it. Taxing hoarded money that cannot be spent in a reasonable way by a few individuals and using that money to enhance lagging sectors is something a good government should hopefully be able to do. Couple of people sending the government a few billion is not going to accomplish much in that direction.
"cannot be spent in a reasonable way by a few individuals" - again with the socialist claptrap - these people earned the money, they should decide what it's best possible use is.
I'm stopping by your place today to raid your refrigerator, and take those clothes you aren't wearing. That good with you? 'cause that's what you're saying.
They're not saying "income taxes should be raised" but "income taxes should be raised for people like us", that is, other people who also have enough income to last multiple lifetimes. I really don't see what your point is.
So you give this response whenever anyone advocates raising taxes? And in that way they are eventually ratcheted to zero, or nearly so? And did you truly literally parse 'believes he and Buffet should be taxed more', rather than realize it meant the more reasonable 'believes people at his and Buffet's wealth and income levels should be taxed more'?
I guess what I'm getting at is: are you really this pedantic, or just stupid?
the words 'put up or shutup' come to mind. There aren't that many people at Buffet & Gates level - they would affect the average if they donated what their conscience tells them to.
I'm with the parent on this one: if you think the govt should tax more, send in your 'extra' money. Don't tell me what I should do with mine, don't say that everyone should pay more taxes. I'm the one that decides what to 'reasonably' do with my money. Perhaps if people acted more as a community, local community charities to distribute money to people. Having the government take your money by force and distribute it to people without your consent does nothing to foster community or cooperation.
Cut the number of words by 2/3 and this sounds surprisingly like PG:
I think most people who’ve done well have sort of found something that they just are kind of nuts about doing. And then they figure out a system to hire their friends to do it with them. And if it’s an area of great impact, then sometimes you get financial independence.
Most people who do well find something they love. Then they convince their friends to do it with them. If it solves a big problem, they might even get rich in the process.
Strange that even he still thinks of money as nothing more than a means to buy things. Maybe that's because he really only ever ran the one company, and so never really became personally acquainted with its other uses. Certainly though among his fiscal peers though? So that's strange...
Wealth is inextricably tied to power. Everyone knows this, or has heard it, but I guess many often don't reason about what it means? Gates seems to be saying that there isn't a big difference between being worth 60 million and being worth 60 billion, because hamburgers taste the same, after all. That's all well and good if wealth is all about buying things, which it basically is for about 99,999 out of 100,000 people at least, but for that one person it definitely isn't. Someone worth 60 billion is at least 1000x more powerful and has 1000x greater impact in how he goes about wielding his power than the person worth 60 million. He is in many respects equivalent to 1000 people worth 60 million each, doing their thing, and perhaps more so since he can more easily strive toward a purpose or calling in a way that 1000 people couldn't, with committees and whatever else. So he's completely wrong about that (although he's the billionaire and I'm certainly not, so perhaps I should just defer to his judgment :-)
Which sort of brings up the other thing he said, which is that absolute poverty relative to historical values is decreasing, especially in the developing world at the moment, and that there are a few very rich and well-connected individuals isn't such a problem, to the extent that they don't corrupt the political system. But of course they do corrupt the political system. The entire problem with massively unequal distribution of wealth isn't that you get to live in a nice house on the water while for whatever reason someone else has to live in a one-room flat. It is decidedly not about jealousy and envy. This is what critics of the OWS movement do not seem to understand. We're trying to have a democracy, so have all the wealth that you want, but if your wealth begins to subvert that democracy, well then we have to do something about that.
I'm sure he gets this based on things he's said in other talks, and he's an honest enough guy I think (now, anyway), so maybe he just wanted to avoid making a complicated, and currently rather politically charged, point.
I'm not sure the kind of power you're referring to is the same kind of power that say, the Pope has. Gates with his billions has massive amounts of power in business and maybe local politics but he is nowhere near the level as say the Pope, who is by definition poor.
All the money (and power associated with it) cannot end world hunger. Ever. So I understand what Gates is saying when he's referring to the hamburger. He probably doesn't have the kind of power you are imagining he has and that 1000x doesn't really mean anything. All you can do with money is acquire more money in different forms. You're not changing the world with money.
I'm a bit loathe to give this response as I come here to get away from politics, but look at how Koch Industries and the like subverted the tea party movement, and the effect that that's had on congress. That's the kind of power money buys: the power to take a small, libertarian grass-roots organization and turn it into a nation-wide astroturfed phenomenon, getting dozens of congressmen elected in the process and having a huge impact on government policy. $60m doesn't buy you that kind of power, but $10b does.
This is what the parent was saying, and what Gates doesn't think about because he clearly never tried to use his money to exert that kind of power (the courts might have been nicer to him if he had). The tech industry in general seems reluctant to use its vast wealth to exert that kind of power. If they had spent half the money they did in the patent wars on lobbyists, we likely wouldn't have the e-parasite act and its similarly harmful brethren. That's just not how we think, however, and so much smaller industries end up exerting a huge amount of power.
The circumstances of Gates' birth prevented him from deploying his money in a manner similar to (for instance) Soros rather than blowing it on malaria lollipops.
24 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadMoreover it appears, that like Jobs thought, wealth, after certain point is redundant -and to them, it was a side effect of their pursuit of their interest. It seems despite Jobs' jabs at Gates, Gates is personally a quite normal guy, psychologically speaking -he's not the megalomaniac people kind of make him out to be sometimes.
The two of them can send their checks here:
I'm sick and tired of people who have already made enough income to last multiple lifetimes telling us that income taxes should now be raised. The government lets you tax yourself at 100% if you want. Ship them the money. They won't refuse it.Enough with this "I'm feeling guilty, therefore other people should also pay more" nonsense.
Maybe Gates is a hypocrite for not donating money to the government. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. This hypocrisy does not have anything to do with wether or not it is a good idea for the government to raise taxes on certain segments of the population.
I'm stopping by your place today to raid your refrigerator, and take those clothes you aren't wearing. That good with you? 'cause that's what you're saying.
I guess what I'm getting at is: are you really this pedantic, or just stupid?
I think most people who’ve done well have sort of found something that they just are kind of nuts about doing. And then they figure out a system to hire their friends to do it with them. And if it’s an area of great impact, then sometimes you get financial independence.
Edit: specifically the part about friends.
Most people who do well find something they love. Then they convince their friends to do it with them. If it solves a big problem, they might even get rich in the process.
Wealth is inextricably tied to power. Everyone knows this, or has heard it, but I guess many often don't reason about what it means? Gates seems to be saying that there isn't a big difference between being worth 60 million and being worth 60 billion, because hamburgers taste the same, after all. That's all well and good if wealth is all about buying things, which it basically is for about 99,999 out of 100,000 people at least, but for that one person it definitely isn't. Someone worth 60 billion is at least 1000x more powerful and has 1000x greater impact in how he goes about wielding his power than the person worth 60 million. He is in many respects equivalent to 1000 people worth 60 million each, doing their thing, and perhaps more so since he can more easily strive toward a purpose or calling in a way that 1000 people couldn't, with committees and whatever else. So he's completely wrong about that (although he's the billionaire and I'm certainly not, so perhaps I should just defer to his judgment :-)
Which sort of brings up the other thing he said, which is that absolute poverty relative to historical values is decreasing, especially in the developing world at the moment, and that there are a few very rich and well-connected individuals isn't such a problem, to the extent that they don't corrupt the political system. But of course they do corrupt the political system. The entire problem with massively unequal distribution of wealth isn't that you get to live in a nice house on the water while for whatever reason someone else has to live in a one-room flat. It is decidedly not about jealousy and envy. This is what critics of the OWS movement do not seem to understand. We're trying to have a democracy, so have all the wealth that you want, but if your wealth begins to subvert that democracy, well then we have to do something about that.
I'm sure he gets this based on things he's said in other talks, and he's an honest enough guy I think (now, anyway), so maybe he just wanted to avoid making a complicated, and currently rather politically charged, point.
All the money (and power associated with it) cannot end world hunger. Ever. So I understand what Gates is saying when he's referring to the hamburger. He probably doesn't have the kind of power you are imagining he has and that 1000x doesn't really mean anything. All you can do with money is acquire more money in different forms. You're not changing the world with money.
I never comment on here so be gentle please. :)
This is what the parent was saying, and what Gates doesn't think about because he clearly never tried to use his money to exert that kind of power (the courts might have been nicer to him if he had). The tech industry in general seems reluctant to use its vast wealth to exert that kind of power. If they had spent half the money they did in the patent wars on lobbyists, we likely wouldn't have the e-parasite act and its similarly harmful brethren. That's just not how we think, however, and so much smaller industries end up exerting a huge amount of power.
But I'll let that slide since he is giving away all his money to great causes and the medical research he has funded.