I would imagine it's difficult to stay deeply involved in something like that with one's ex.
People get divorced for many reasons but generally they don't want to be around each other any more and being co-chairs of a big foundation would make that pretty impossible. Business (or charitable) partnerships are like marriages in a lot of ways.
I've heard (in the worst kind of hearsay way) from people that are only distantly in the Microsoft/Non-profit circle that Melinda could be largely credited for getting Bill to take philanthropy seriously.
If true, that in itself has done a lot of good for the world.
You're just judging him based on the terrible things he did in the open. There may have been a time in private where he petted a kitten or something. We'll never know.
> Given the lack of taxes, Americans have effectively subsidized this charity.
This is a common but bad take.
Firstly, there are a lot of taxes still involved. The Gates foundation still pays salary tax and sales tax and property tax and etc.
More importantly, had the funding remained parked in a savings account or stock portfolio without being realized, it would have been completely dead to the economy and untaxed. So there's probably a net positive to taxpayers to give people ways to unload their assets.
> we haven’t gotten anything particularly valuable out of the gates foundation
There could be an argument that the 501(c) tax code is too generous, but I don't think people are probably thinking through the implications of "qualifying" non-profits. If you made every non-profit prove that they were creating value, and also make them subject to taxation on all contributions, you would be effectively wiping out things like open-source software projects or Wikipedia, let alone your normal NGOs and community charities.
If (litteraly) everyone parked all their money in Microsoft stock and spent nothing in the real economy the system would collapse. Economically we all stand on the shoulders of consumption.
> Given the lack of taxes, Americans have effectively subsidized this charity.
Not to mention the artificial and historically recent notion of software copyright underlying the business which made Gates' fortune, representing - as all such legal enclosures do - a theft from the commons.
>Given the lack of taxes, Americans have effectively subsidized this charity. Have we gotten anything in return?
1) Opportunity costs are not real costs. Not taking something is different than giving something.
2) The US public and US government also spend money overseas. To that extent, this is a economic multiplier. Instead of collecting $1 in taxes, $5 is spent by private parties.
Doing good “overseas” does benefit Americans. America exists as a part of the world; Americans as part of humanity. Raising the bar for minimum levels of health care and quality of life is good for all of our souls. It also inevitably creates more avenues for economic and diplomatic cooperation.
29 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] threadPeople get divorced for many reasons but generally they don't want to be around each other any more and being co-chairs of a big foundation would make that pretty impossible. Business (or charitable) partnerships are like marriages in a lot of ways.
If true, that in itself has done a lot of good for the world.
> The organization’s name will change to the Gates Foundation, with Bill Gates, her ex-husband and Microsoft founder, becoming the sole chair.
19,364 grants serving "America", of ~40,000 grants.
This is a common but bad take.
Firstly, there are a lot of taxes still involved. The Gates foundation still pays salary tax and sales tax and property tax and etc.
More importantly, had the funding remained parked in a savings account or stock portfolio without being realized, it would have been completely dead to the economy and untaxed. So there's probably a net positive to taxpayers to give people ways to unload their assets.
> we haven’t gotten anything particularly valuable out of the gates foundation
There could be an argument that the 501(c) tax code is too generous, but I don't think people are probably thinking through the implications of "qualifying" non-profits. If you made every non-profit prove that they were creating value, and also make them subject to taxation on all contributions, you would be effectively wiping out things like open-source software projects or Wikipedia, let alone your normal NGOs and community charities.
And don't banks lend money out based on the size of their customers' savings accounts?
Anything short of money being stuffed in his mattress keeps it active in the economy.
Not to mention the artificial and historically recent notion of software copyright underlying the business which made Gates' fortune, representing - as all such legal enclosures do - a theft from the commons.
1) Opportunity costs are not real costs. Not taking something is different than giving something.
2) The US public and US government also spend money overseas. To that extent, this is a economic multiplier. Instead of collecting $1 in taxes, $5 is spent by private parties.