They left the most valuable gift to their children - great education from their parents, and they gave the most valuable present to some less priviledged children in the world - the chance to be educated with the help of Bill&Melinda foundation. Well done, Bills.
With the multitudes of ass kissers, I'm sure criticism means very little to those who screw over average citizens and still want to be thanked for it.. no, loved for it.
I know hating is easy, but this is a genuinely commendable thing that the Gates are doing, and they deserve praise for it.
If you want to call out Gates, you can criticize his attitude towards closed source software, IP, etc, but his charity contributions are awesome. Compare him and his family with the current generation Waltons, for example.
No, ass kissing is easy. Looking at the bigger picture and accounting for negative externalities is hard. And, it's much harder when one is surrounded by ass kissers who are willing to gloss over negatives in their rush to pucker up. It's about net sum gains for society. Bill Gates hasn't achieved that. He and his business practices have been a net loss for society overall.
It's the hero worship of a person like Bill Gates that I have a problem with.
His corrupt, monopolistic, unethical business practices with Microsoft hurt and/or destroyed countless small businesses and consumers. Small businesses and individuals that would have given far more to charity than King Gates will ever give. In case you didn’t know, small businesses and individuals give vastly more money to charity than large corporations and Bill Gates do combined.
Luckily for Bill Gates, there are plenty of suckers who can’t critically think their way out of wet paper bags and they end up celebrating this megalomaniacal idiot and forget all the damage he’s done because they only focus on his current charity.
So, of course, new megalomaniacs will follow in his footsteps and take far more than they give to society and be celebrated as “heros” in the future… and the sick megalomanic/twit cycle continues.
Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors. In its 2008 annual report, Microsoft stated:
(Here’s your homework: Calculate an estimate of all the harm to all these businesses above and get back with me)
Criticism of Microsoft has followed various aspects of its products and business practices. Issues with ease of use, robustness, and security of the company's software are common targets for critics. In the 2000s, a number of malware mishaps have targeted security flaws in Microsoft Windows and other programs. Microsoft is also accused of locking vendors and consumers into their products, and o...
In a way I'm happy he is not involved with Microsoft's day-to-day operations any more. So I can now cultivate some respect for Bill Gates the person while still vehemently opposing Microsoft and its dominance.
His public statements have been along the lines of deploying the money in the Gates Foundation before their deaths. Exactly because he doesn't think another big foundation existing forever will do much good.
What impresses me most about his epic win is that he's still #1 in the world for net worth (or occasionally #2 or #3) -- can you imagine if he was still actively trying to get even more personally wealthy?
What exactly is the tax benefit to giving away almost all of your wealth? Tax loopholes reduce your taxable income, which lowers your tax liability. I don't see how you can come out ahead giving away almost everything. Can you explain what you think he is exploiting and what the benefit could be?
The best actionable advice I've read to date regarding giving money to kids without spoiling them - For every dollar they earn, give them $N. That way they have to work, but they don't have to work a repulsive yuppie job to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.
I understand the logic behind it, but I disagree. If you are a very wealth person and your children decide to become volunteers for the red cross, you'll give them less money than if they decide to become bankers on Wall Street?
I think just setting up a baseline income for life would be sufficient. Say 100k/year. Enough that they can comfortably pursue whatever makes them happy, without being rich.
I know someone with that kind of plan, and it isn’t such a good idea: her, and her family pretty much fight over money a lot (and how to work around the situations unexpected by the trust fund rulings); they work soul-crushing yuppy jobs because they were raised to think 100k is nothing, and you can't live without 250, but they all have short-term gratification issues, meaning holding anything that makes 150k/y is near impossible. Most female members of that family can be described as gold-diggers that use the 100 as seed for that endeavour: you'd never suspect how expensive is the re-starter kit for that profession.
If two different families are doing this, then it's exploitable: Alice earns 1 dollar, receives 5 dollars from her parents, gives them to Bob, Bob tells his parents he earned them, receives 25 dollars, gives them back to Alice, Alice tells her parents she earned them, receives 125 dollars... Or even in one family, the child could "reinvest" part of the $N received this month to get more money next month. The obvious workaround is for the parents to check the child's salary slips, but if the child's employer is in on the scheme, that won't help.
In my family I could imagine this being pretty ruinous. Being in the software field, it's a lot easier for me to get a job, and one that pays more, than my sisters. I can tell there is already resentment towards this, but if it also meant that I was being given even more by my dad, than I don't want to think what that would do to our relationships.
They aren't alone. There's a movement called "The Giving Pledge" started by the Gates' and Warren Buffet that very wealthy people (read: billionaires) are signing up to that promises they will give away at least half of their fortune. Over 100 have signed up so far.
Yes, but the exact URLs are oxfam.co.uk, redcross.org and telethon.org
Organisations focused on the people in need, but operated by people with money have been too much under the spotlight, allowing many to give hardly anything yet enough to set up a photo op. The point of the Giving Pledge is to focus on how much someone can give without harming a reasonable lifestyle.
Let's not get carried away with this - it's pretty disingenuous. Most people are motivated to work, at least in part, because they will starve and be homeless if they don't. I doubt that these kids will ever face the threat of such a fate, regardless of how much they mess up or how lazy they are.
Further, regardless of how much money they are actually left, those children will live billionaire lifestyles for the rest of their lives. Out of security concerns, Bill has likely arranged for bodyguards and ensured that they will be able to travel via private jet for the rest of their lives. The Gates family owns multiple homes, one in Washington being over 50,000 square feet, that will likely stay in the family and where the children would presumably be allowed to stay should they choose.
Hopefully his kids choose to be productive. But the idea behind this - that he is leaving them enough to "do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing" - simply isn't true. They could do nothing and be just fine.
How is it disingenuous. You have presented a bunch of opinions of what you think is going to happen and say that therefore, the statement is false.
The Gates' have billions of dollars. I have seen it stated that each kid will be inheriting something like a million dollars, which yes, is a lot of money, but nowhere near enough money to do nothing for the rest of your life, and a drop in the bucket compared to the family fortune.
Just because you "presume" the family estates, etc., will not be sold for charity despite all of their statements otherwise doesn't make it true.
It has been 5 years since gates formed the giving pledge. In that time, he lost and regained the position as the world's richest man.
This is not supportive of a claim that this is genuine. I'm a little tired of the wealthy bragging about how they are like, totally generous and stuff.
> IIt has been 5 years since gates formed the giving pledge. In that time, he lost and regained the position as the world's richest man. This is not supportive of a claim that this is genuine.*
Huh?
Bill Gates has most of his wealth in US equities. Thus US stock market returned over 30% last year.
Warren Buffett has almost all of his wealth in Berkshire Hathaway. BRK underperformed the stock market last year.
Carlos Slim has almost all of his wealth in Mexican companies. The Mexican stock market returned -10% last year.
It's not hard to see how Bill Gates increased his wealth relative to his competitors, despite giving away billions of dollars every year.
What's more, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given away $30 billion since it was established. Where do you think the money came from? Warren Buffett's contributions have thus far been in the single-digit billions.
If you stop believing in conspiracy theories and try looking at the data, you'll understand the world a lot better.
He has continuously increased his wealth, while trying to convince young entrepreneurs to start planning to give away half of their wealth before they are even 30. He started late and he has a pile of money that compounds away at a rate that it has become absurd. He has the audacity to claim that now that he is retired, he is just giving it away.
It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
> Please don't lecture me about conspiracy theories or data. Ask yourself why you are being an apologist for this douche.
It's pretty clear that you're not interested in reaching conclusions by interpreting the data. Rather, you just want to call Bill Gates names, and prefer to cherry-pick the data to do it with.
For example:
> It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
First, he started giving away his money a lot more than five years ago. Second, he did not plan to give away half his wealth -- he planned to give away all of it. Third, very few people who've taken the Giving Pledge have seen their wealth decrease. The market has simply performed well recently.
Imagine if Bill Gates followed a strict policy of ending each year with less money as you suggest. Thus, he would give $20 billion in a year in which the markets one go up 30%, and $0 in a year in which the markets fall. This is a terrible way to give out money. Charities would be unable to undertake any long-term projects with that kind of fluctuation.
That is why your criticism of Bull Gates is not only highly misleading, but highly illogical. Philanthropists should hold onto the money in good times, so that they can continue giving in bad times -- precisely when it is most needed.
It's not disingenuous. The Gates family could instead choose to direct their fortune to dynastic wealth. Only an imbecile would believe that the children of Bill Gates would face any of the challenges that a poor child in East Saint Louis would. Gates himself said that his children would have the freedom to do "whatever they want" - that's an enormous gift. One his grandchildren might not have, unless his children work for it.
> Out of security concerns, Bill has likely arranged for bodyguards and ensured that they will be able to travel via private jet for the rest of their lives.
Body guards are no-one’s idea of luxury (I’ve dated someone who had an escort). As for private jets, I’m fairly certain that is part of the things that they won’t get unless they work for it.
> Most people are motivated to work, at least in part, because they will starve and be homeless if they don't.
Interesting take worldwide, but I don’t think this is true for anyone close to Gates' family.
> Hopefully his kids choose to be productive.
The point of the article is precisely to say: they won’t have a choice. He took legally binding steps to make sure that he won't be able to help if they end up in an unacceptable position by their own actions.
The Gates Foundation does not have a Board. It has Trustees, three of them -- Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. All three positions are unpaid.
As for Berkshire Hathaway, Directors only get paid $3,800 a year.
Sounds remarkably sensible. I'd do the same in their place: leave your kids well-educated and pretty well-off, but not filthy rich. Let them make their own life, rather than living off daddy's riches.
Our plan is to not let the kids know how much money we have. It obviously doesn't work if you are a billionare, but you can hide the first few million dollars living in a decent house in the Carolinas as long as you don't feel the need to drive a Porsche.
I don't understand why anyone would want to raise an entitled brat.
It is easy to tell how much money someone spends, but much harder to tell how much they make. Maybe it depends on the job. My parents' salaries are public record, but that isn't the case for most people.
I had no idea that my parents were (moderately) wealthy until I had to fill out the financial aide application for colleges. They never talked about how much they made and gave us little money. I was the last to have a Gameboy among my friends and had the smallest allowance.
It may also have helped that I had no interest in cars, so I didn't realize that driving BMW/Mercedes had any significance, and we had never stayed at a hotel that wasn't 5-stars so I just assumed all of them were like that.
> I don't understand why anyone would want to raise an entitled brat.
Short term satisfaction is seemingly more gratifying, especially in someone visibly fragile, potentially loud and that you instinctively care deeply about.
Wouldn't it be more effective to not conceal your income if you want kids that aren't entitled brats? Trying to conceal your income seems to acknowledge entitlement and conceal the resources subject to it rather than rejecting entitlement.
Hopefully they will leave something in case one or more of the kids "fall down" later in life. I think Bill and Melinda might be discounting the luck factor that they have had in their own fortune. While I'm not saying that they didn't work their butts off to get where they are, there was a lot of luck involved as well.
Imagine how they would feel if, after they were gone (and I realize they can't feel anything at that point...), one of their kids was in their 50's and lost everything because of bad luck - cancer or other disease for example. Then the "kid" had to live his/her life out in poverty. How sad would that be that he/she had the richest parents in the world (due to good luck) but lived in poverty because of bad luck.
I think giving them a million dollars to start and teaching them to work gives them a better-than-average chance to avoid "bad luck." Doing nothing at all with the money except living on the interest would give them a middle class salary.
Even if their kids aren't left with much money, they will definitely leverage their parents' influence across so many areas and be able to do anything they want.
Their name/lineage and connections to community (ie, forms of wealth that can't be quantified nor taken away) will be enough to live a life most of us only dream of. Of course I still think it's nice that the Gateses are doing this.
76 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadIf you want to call out Gates, you can criticize his attitude towards closed source software, IP, etc, but his charity contributions are awesome. Compare him and his family with the current generation Waltons, for example.
No, ass kissing is easy. Looking at the bigger picture and accounting for negative externalities is hard. And, it's much harder when one is surrounded by ass kissers who are willing to gloss over negatives in their rush to pucker up. It's about net sum gains for society. Bill Gates hasn't achieved that. He and his business practices have been a net loss for society overall.
His corrupt, monopolistic, unethical business practices with Microsoft hurt and/or destroyed countless small businesses and consumers. Small businesses and individuals that would have given far more to charity than King Gates will ever give. In case you didn’t know, small businesses and individuals give vastly more money to charity than large corporations and Bill Gates do combined.
Luckily for Bill Gates, there are plenty of suckers who can’t critically think their way out of wet paper bags and they end up celebrating this megalomaniacal idiot and forget all the damage he’s done because they only focus on his current charity.
So, of course, new megalomaniacs will follow in his footsteps and take far more than they give to society and be celebrated as “heros” in the future… and the sick megalomanic/twit cycle continues.
More…
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/...
http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...?
Still don’t get it? Even more…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
Microsoft litigation
Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors. In its 2008 annual report, Microsoft stated:
(Here’s your homework: Calculate an estimate of all the harm to all these businesses above and get back with me)
http://lists.essential.org/1998/info-policy-notes/msg00047.h... (It goes way back, buddy)
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html (It keeps going)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304701 (download the PDF there)
Observe the countless examples here:
http://thismatter.com/articles/microsoft.htm#tq1
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=241988 (download the PDF there)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=502822 (download the PDF there)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0907/6205050a.html (That “liberal” rag.. FORBES mag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...
Criticism of Microsoft
Criticism of Microsoft has followed various aspects of its products and business practices. Issues with ease of use, robustness, and security of the company's software are common targets for critics. In the 2000s, a number of malware mishaps have targeted security flaws in Microsoft Windows and other programs. Microsoft is also accused of locking vendors and consumers into their products, and o...
Not just educated, but nourished and relatively healthy. BMF has done a lot to make the world better.
Or maybe not. Up to him/them. But that's what I'd do.
http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/
You can read about them all here: http://givingpledge.org/
Organisations focused on the people in need, but operated by people with money have been too much under the spotlight, allowing many to give hardly anything yet enough to set up a photo op. The point of the Giving Pledge is to focus on how much someone can give without harming a reasonable lifestyle.
http://cca.com/
Gates is STILL the richest man in the world. He didnt get that way by participating in the http://givingpledge.org/, which is years old now.
This is just a laughable straw man. And you bothered to create a new account just to repeat it?
He got that way despite participating in the Giving Plesge. If he hadn't been giving away his money, he'd have more than $100 billion by now.
Gates is a eugenist IMO like his dad. If he wanted to give away his money right now. Not make a fake .org site for good will.
Further, regardless of how much money they are actually left, those children will live billionaire lifestyles for the rest of their lives. Out of security concerns, Bill has likely arranged for bodyguards and ensured that they will be able to travel via private jet for the rest of their lives. The Gates family owns multiple homes, one in Washington being over 50,000 square feet, that will likely stay in the family and where the children would presumably be allowed to stay should they choose.
Hopefully his kids choose to be productive. But the idea behind this - that he is leaving them enough to "do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing" - simply isn't true. They could do nothing and be just fine.
The Gates' have billions of dollars. I have seen it stated that each kid will be inheriting something like a million dollars, which yes, is a lot of money, but nowhere near enough money to do nothing for the rest of your life, and a drop in the bucket compared to the family fortune.
Just because you "presume" the family estates, etc., will not be sold for charity despite all of their statements otherwise doesn't make it true.
This is not supportive of a claim that this is genuine. I'm a little tired of the wealthy bragging about how they are like, totally generous and stuff.
Huh?
Bill Gates has most of his wealth in US equities. Thus US stock market returned over 30% last year.
Warren Buffett has almost all of his wealth in Berkshire Hathaway. BRK underperformed the stock market last year.
Carlos Slim has almost all of his wealth in Mexican companies. The Mexican stock market returned -10% last year.
It's not hard to see how Bill Gates increased his wealth relative to his competitors, despite giving away billions of dollars every year.
What's more, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given away $30 billion since it was established. Where do you think the money came from? Warren Buffett's contributions have thus far been in the single-digit billions.
If you stop believing in conspiracy theories and try looking at the data, you'll understand the world a lot better.
Here is some raw data for you:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/03/06/bill_...
He has continuously increased his wealth, while trying to convince young entrepreneurs to start planning to give away half of their wealth before they are even 30. He started late and he has a pile of money that compounds away at a rate that it has become absurd. He has the audacity to claim that now that he is retired, he is just giving it away.
It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
It's pretty clear that you're not interested in reaching conclusions by interpreting the data. Rather, you just want to call Bill Gates names, and prefer to cherry-pick the data to do it with.
For example:
> It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
First, he started giving away his money a lot more than five years ago. Second, he did not plan to give away half his wealth -- he planned to give away all of it. Third, very few people who've taken the Giving Pledge have seen their wealth decrease. The market has simply performed well recently.
Imagine if Bill Gates followed a strict policy of ending each year with less money as you suggest. Thus, he would give $20 billion in a year in which the markets one go up 30%, and $0 in a year in which the markets fall. This is a terrible way to give out money. Charities would be unable to undertake any long-term projects with that kind of fluctuation.
That is why your criticism of Bull Gates is not only highly misleading, but highly illogical. Philanthropists should hold onto the money in good times, so that they can continue giving in bad times -- precisely when it is most needed.
Body guards are no-one’s idea of luxury (I’ve dated someone who had an escort). As for private jets, I’m fairly certain that is part of the things that they won’t get unless they work for it.
> Most people are motivated to work, at least in part, because they will starve and be homeless if they don't.
Interesting take worldwide, but I don’t think this is true for anyone close to Gates' family.
> Hopefully his kids choose to be productive.
The point of the article is precisely to say: they won’t have a choice. He took legally binding steps to make sure that he won't be able to help if they end up in an unacceptable position by their own actions.
Buffet's son is on the board of Berkshire.
As for Berkshire Hathaway, Directors only get paid $3,800 a year.
I don't understand why anyone would want to raise an entitled brat.
It may also have helped that I had no interest in cars, so I didn't realize that driving BMW/Mercedes had any significance, and we had never stayed at a hotel that wasn't 5-stars so I just assumed all of them were like that.
No one wants to raise an entitled brat for the sake of it, it's just that raising an entitles brat is so much easier and less time consuming.
Short term satisfaction is seemingly more gratifying, especially in someone visibly fragile, potentially loud and that you instinctively care deeply about.
For that matter I don't care much if anybody "has to work for a living". Anything else would be jealousy.
It's an approach to be lauded, but one thing their children will always have is that they started out privileged which is itself a huge inheritance.
Imagine how they would feel if, after they were gone (and I realize they can't feel anything at that point...), one of their kids was in their 50's and lost everything because of bad luck - cancer or other disease for example. Then the "kid" had to live his/her life out in poverty. How sad would that be that he/she had the richest parents in the world (due to good luck) but lived in poverty because of bad luck.
http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx...