Topic: Should billionaires exist?

[Dench57]

Socialist RAWK there, with a 50/50 split on "should billionaires exist" 

[Linudden]

Hard to say really. I'm fine with someone owning one billion, in particular if they've actually made it themselves rather than inherited it, but when you get to Bezos and Gates, then they clearly have way too much. If there's an inheritence tax, which we don't have in Sweden, I think it should only apply to the assets of billionares. That being said, I'm a centrist economically and do have an inherent distrust in how the government uses the public funds it receives. I think the state's primary role is as a regulator to ensure fair employment conditions and wages, not necessarily a redistributor. When there's a VAT on spinach and candy simultaneously, rather than giving an exemption to healthy food, it's going to make more people unhealthy, resulting in increased costs for the health services. Simple things like that can be done to save money without making cuts.

[Cpt_Reina]

A good chunk of his fortune is in investments (so not cash) - which is why his net worth continues to increase as the value of those investments increases.

It’s how he was able to give away something like $35bn last year but still not have a drop in his net worth.

So yes?

This billionaire philanthropist who's getting so many pats on the back for 'giving away all his wealth' isnt actually giving it back at all, he's actually *accruing* more of it.

Not a bad grift.

The charity is a fucking scam, at his level it always has been, its a front.

[CraigDS]

A lot of billionaires are not cash billionaires, they will often have set up a business which has a multi-billion valuation.

So what do you do then? Take their business off them?

[CraigDS]

So yes?

This billionaire philanthropist who's getting so many pats on the back for 'giving away all his wealth' isnt actually giving it back at all, he's actually *accruing* more of it.

Not a bad grift.

The charity is a fucking scam, at his level it always has been, its a front.

I think you misunderstand his intention.

He is making money whilst he is alive, using his vast wealth, and giving the proceeds of that away. Once he dies he intends to leave the vast majority of his wealth to charity rather than all of it to his family.

It means he could give £30bn+ away every year for the next 20+ years, then pretty much the entirety of his fortune on top. That’s a lot more than giving away £100bn now.

[Cpt_Reina]

A lot of billionaires are not cash billionaires, they will often have set up a business which has a multi-billion valuation.

So what do you do then? Take their business off them?

I'm no expert in the seizure of assets.

I do however know when a multi billionaire is telling me he's going to give away the vast majority of his fortune and then decades later he's actually worth more money he might not actually be that honorable or trustworthy - like all billionaires.

[Cpt_Reina]

I think you misunderstand his intention.

He is making money whilst he is alive, using his vast wealth, and giving the proceeds of that away. Once he dies he intends to leave the vast majority of his wealth to charity rather than all of it to his family.

It means he could give £30bn+ away every year for the next 20+ years, then pretty much the entirety of his fortune on top. That’s a lot more than giving away £100bn now.

Will he leave it to charity outside of his family's influence?

Or will he leave it to his own foundation? Which is almost certainly going to end up not being fit for purpose like the vast majority of foundations set up by hugely rich and powerful individuals.

The bolded part makes his current outlook sound much more like a business than it does a grand charitable enterprise.

Outwardly people like yourself get to see him as being some massively generous do gooder, all the time he gets to maintain his huge fortune - sorry not maintain increase, and then when he dies he gets to hand it all over to his family in the form of a charitable foundation.

He's definitely not just handing his children or whoever his billions though, no sir, its the foundation he's giving it to. The foundation which will probably be run by his family? Which is definitely not a front or a guise for holding the wealth or lobbying governments.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

What I do find disgusting is that countries in Africa still don't have basic sanitation, medicines etc while there is so much money floating around the planet.

the Africa issue is more down to the ridiculous levels of corruption at the top of those countries as they’ve gotten trillions over the years yet the people there haven’t got the value for it due to the arseholes at the top so giving more money isn’t going to help anywhere near as much as it should

[BarryCrocker]

I'm no expert in the seizure of assets.

I do however know when a multi billionaire is telling me he's going to give away the vast majority of his fortune and then decades later he's actually worth more money he might not actually be that honorable or trustworthy - like all billionaires.

Gates has donated $45.5b to date. Obviously when his business investments are growing at a faster rate then his donations his wealth will continue to grow. To put it simply he'd be either at least $45.5b richer than he is today and charity and research would be $45.5b poorer if he did nothing.

Let's judge him when he's gone. He's doing more than most.

[lobsterboy]

Gates has donated $45.5b to date. Obviously when his business investments are growing at a faster rate then his donations his wealth will continue to grow. To put it simply he'd be either at least $45.5b richer than he is today and charity and research would be $45.5b poorer if he did nothing.

Let's judge him when he's gone. He's doing more than most.

I'd take him over that shitehawk Branson any day.

[CraigDS]

Will he leave it to charity outside of his family's influence?

Genuinely no idea.

Or will he leave it to his own foundation? Which is almost certainly going to end up not being fit for purpose like the vast majority of foundations set up by hugely rich and powerful individuals.

How could you possibly make that call?

The bolded part makes his current outlook sound much more like a business than it does a grand charitable enterprise.

It's both I guess. He obviously realises he can use his vast wealth in a business like way to invest and then give those returns back to charity. It means he'll ultimately give a hell of a lot more than if he just donated nearly the entirety of his fortune to charity today.

Outwardly people like yourself get to see him as being some massively generous do gooder, all the time he gets to maintain his huge fortune - sorry not maintain increase, and then when he dies he gets to hand it all over to his family in the form of a charitable foundation.

Keeping hold of £100bn or £1-2bn really makes no difference to his life. So I doubt he benefits personally much at all by holding on to his fortune currently. It does allow him to give £35bn+ to charity each year though.

Again, what are you basing all this about giving it to his family? The charity has said it would spend the entirity of the resources it's given by 20 years after the deaths of Gates and his wife. Similarly Buffett has said his will be used within 10 years of his death.

He's definitely not just handing his children or whoever his billions though, no sir, its the foundation he's giving it to. The foundation which will probably be run by his family? Which is definitely not a front or a guise for holding the wealth or lobbying governments.

His family are getting enough to be set for life. For generations to come. He's not hidden that he'll do that.

[Cpt_Reina]

Gates has donated $45.5b to date. Obviously when his business investments are growing at a faster rate then his donations his wealth will continue to grow. To put it simply he'd be either at least $45.5b richer than he is today and charity and research would be $45.5b poorer if he did nothing.

Let's judge him when he's gone. He's doing more than most.

Like I say its not a bad grift is it?

If you told me I could earn more than I gave away and still be seen to be such an untouchable person doing so much good for the world and being so charitable 'giving all my money to those less fortunate' whilst all the time only getting richer then I'd probably be very keen to go ahead an push that narrative too.

[Cpt_Reina]

Again, what are you basing all this about giving it to his family? The charity has said it would spend the entirity of the resources it's given by 20 years after the deaths of Gates and his wife. Similarly Buffett has said his will be used within 10 years of his death.

I've absolutely no reason not to believe these billionaires.

I'm 100% sure this will happen they seem like trustworthy people. They must be, they're mega rich.

[CraigDS]

Like I say its not a bad grift is it?

If you told me I could earn more than I gave away and still be seen to be such an untouchable person doing so much good for the world and being so charitable 'giving all my money to those less fortunate' whilst all the time only getting richer then I'd probably be very keen to go ahead an push that narrative too.

So would you rather he gave away the £100bn now, rather than £35bn a year for the next 25 years (£875bn) and then the £100bn on top? Assuming zero growth in net worth or changes in various rates for sake of ease.

[Cpt_Reina]

So would you rather he gave away the £100bn now, rather than £35bn a year for the next 25 years (£875bn) and then the £100bn on top? Assuming zero growth in net worth or changes in various rates for sake of ease.

I'd sooner the $100b be taken out of his hands tomorrow and not be spent according to his own whims, but according to elected officials through a democratic process.

Whilst im here, Bill Gates' foundation and his investments...they wouldnt by any chance possibly be contributing to any off the issues he's outwardly looking to resolve are they? Or profiteering from his own donations on the flipside?

All of his investments are highly ethical and fit for purpose, I'm assuming?

Wouldn't be like a billionaire to be invested in unsustainable or untoward practices would it, this stuff is all made public and highly visible right?

[CraigDS]

I'd sooner the $100b be taken out of his hands tomorrow and not be spent according to his own whims, but according to elected officials through a democratic process.

Yeah, I'm sure it would build a lovely wall.

Whilst im here, Bill Gates' foundation and his investments...they wouldnt by any chance possibly be contributing to any off the issues he's outwardly looking to resolve are they? Or profiteering from his own donations on the flipside?

All of his investments are highly ethical and fit for purpose, I'm assuming?

Wouldn't be like a billionaire to be invested in unsustainable or untoward practices would it, this stuff is all made public and highly visible right?

Given you've had a fairly critical opinion on his charity above I'd assume you've already done all this research?

[Fortneef]

If Gates gave 100b to a charity theyd have to invest it too. 

[Cpt_Reina]

Yeah, I'm sure it would build a lovely wall.

Given you've had a fairly critical opinion on his charity above I'd assume you've already done all this research?

You wouldn't be arguing against a government being able to reappropriate wealth here would you? Sounds like a fairly right wing stand point but ok.

The $100b could be spent towards giving Americans a fit for purpose health service, or clean drinking water, or a working welfare system or even pay for some educational supplies so that teachers don't have to fund their own classrooms.

You know, the stuff governments should be able to do if such huge swathes of capital and assets weren't being accrued by individuals such as Gates and Buffet to then decide how they wish to distribute without any accountability. Like say an election every 4 years.

[BarryCrocker]

I'd sooner the $100b be taken out of his hands tomorrow and not be spent according to his own whims, but according to elected officials through a democratic process.

Why even allow him to earn it in the first place.

As for allowing him to spend it how he deems fit. How would feel if elected officials told you how to spend your money?

[CraigDS]

You wouldn't be arguing against a government being able to reappropriate wealth here would you? Sounds like a fairly right wing stand point but ok.

The $100b could be spent towards giving Americans a fit for purpose health service, or clean drinking water, or a working welfare system or even pay for some educational supplies so that teachers don't have to fund their own classrooms.

You know, the stuff governments should be able to do if such huge swathes of capital and assets weren't being accrued by individuals such as Gates and Buffet to then decide how they wish to distribute without any accountability. Like say an election every 4 years.

Pretty big leap. I was quite clearly pointing out that given the current political situation in the US I'd not trust them to distribute the money any better than Gates.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Craig has been incredibly patient, like.

Have you found Buddhism Craig? 

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Why even allow him to earn it in the first place.

because he literally did earn it and made a hell of a lot of people rich along the way?

[kloppismydad]

Classic RAWK.

Hating on Bill Gates because he has too much money despite him being a self-made billionaire.

"But but he should eradicate all evil in the world!!!! By doing x, y, z etc." all while sitting in-front of their computers and lecturing others on how to be good social servants.

Yeah, and left-wing governments across the globe are absolute saints who only work for improvement of peoples' lives and are not involved in corruption at all. 

[Cpt_Reina]

Why even allow him to earn it in the first place.

As for allowing him to spend it how he deems fit. How would feel if elected officials told you how to spend your money?

1. Why indeed.
 
2. They do?

[Elmo!]

Might as well change the thread title to 'Should Bill Gates Exist' 

There are more than just the one billionaire in the world.

[CraigDS]

Craig has been incredibly patient, like.

Have you found Buddhism Craig? 

Found a few billion down the sofa this morning.

[Cpt_Reina]

Pretty big leap. I was quite clearly pointing out that given the current political situation in the US I'd not trust them to distribute the money any better than Gates.

You wouldnt trust spending which needs to go through various stages of litigation, through various houses, through elected officials on both sides of those houses and has processes for cheques and balances spanning decades if not centuries?

You'd sooner trust a man who is ultimately accountable to nobody but was good with code?

[Elmo!]

You wouldnt trust spending which needs to go through various stages of litigation, through various houses, through elected officials on both sides of those houses and has processes for cheques and balances spanning decades if not centuries?

You'd sooner trust a man who is ultimately accountable to nobody but was good with code?

In this particular example, yes I would trust Bill Gates over the current government but I agree with your general point when you remove the extreme examples.

[Cpt_Reina]

Might as well change the thread title to 'Should Bill Gates Exist' 

There are more than just the one billionaire in the world.

The Gates discussion applies to them all.

They would all like us to believe they can redistribute their wealth more effectively, that they earned it through being smarter or harder working rather than taking it out of the hands of their workers.

Charity to billionaires is a PR exercise not a route to affecting real change that pulls people up to their standard of living.

[Cpt_Reina]

In this particular example, yes I would trust Bill Gates over the current government but I agree with your general point when you remove the extreme examples.

Mental

[CraigDS]

You wouldnt trust spending which needs to go through various stages of litigation, through various houses, through elected officials on both sides of those houses and has processes for cheques and balances spanning decades if not centuries?

You'd sooner trust a man who is ultimately accountable to nobody but was good with code?

I assume in that case you also think all charities should give their money to the government too then?

[Elmo!]

Mental

You do know who is currently the president and who is running the Senate?

[BarryCrocker]

You wouldnt trust spending which needs to go through various stages of litigation, through various houses, through elected officials on both sides of those houses and has processes for cheques and balances spanning decades if not centuries?

You'd sooner trust a man who is ultimately accountable to nobody but was good with code?

U.S. President Donald Trump, declaring a national emergency because of tensions with Iran, swept aside objections from Congress on Friday to complete the sale of over $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.

The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.

Yeah, I'd trust an member of the public spending $1b on a treatment of malaria over elected officials.

[Cpt_Reina]

I assume in that case you also think all charities should give their money to the government too then?

Answering my question with another.

Time to leave you to it.

[CraigDS]

Answering my question with another.

Time to leave you to it.

Well I made my answer to your first question very clear in a prior post. To make it clear...I'd not trust the current US Govt. to spend it correct. I'd also guess any spending which you suggest would be wrapped up in so much red tape by those in Govt. who don't want such spending to happen that it would be delayed for years, if it ever happened at all. At least with charitable foundations like this the red tape is vastly reduced and spending can happen immediately.

As for the second question, charities are regulated and (if they choose to be) their donations are publicised as part of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). Gates' foundation has voluntarily signed up to that.

Again - given all charities have the issues you raised as a fault with the Gates' Foundation - do you think they should all hand over their donations to the Govt. so they can spend it how they see fit?

[Cpt_Reina]

Well I made my answer to your first question very clear in a prior post. To make it clear...I'd not trust the current US Govt. to spend it correct. I'd also guess any spending which you suggest would be wrapped up in so much red tape by those in Govt. who don't want such spending to happen that it would be delayed for years, if it ever happened at all. At least with charitable foundations like this the red tape is vastly reduced and spending can happen immediately.

Honestly mate, reading this I dont think there's any point in continuing this discussion.

[kloppismydad]

You'd sooner trust a man who is ultimately accountable to nobody but was good with code?

Why don't you become good at something, amass a considerable wealth and give it all away? It all seems piss easy!

And Cpt_Reina would sooner have the likes of Trump and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson dictate where and how to spend $100bn than Bill Gates. That just shows the sense behind his argument.

[Mutton Geoff]

I'd sooner the $100b be taken out of his hands tomorrow and not be spent according to his own whims, but according to elected officials through a democratic process.

Whilst im here, Bill Gates' foundation and his investments...they wouldnt by any chance possibly be contributing to any off the issues he's outwardly looking to resolve are they? Or profiteering from his own donations on the flipside?

All of his investments are highly ethical and fit for purpose, I'm assuming?

Wouldn't be like a billionaire to be invested in unsustainable or untoward practices would it, this stuff is all made public and highly visible right?

Just to take one point how much wealth has been misspent on vanity projects by elected officials ( Johnson's vanity bridge for one) i am far happier to trust somebody like Bill Gates than politicians throughout this globe, political leaders are not financial wizkids or even good businessmen in general but a lot of these throughout the last few decades have been good at diverting money given to them for good causes into their own pockets.

[The Gulleysucker]

...but a lot of these throughout the last few decades have been good at diverting money given to them for good causes into their own pockets.

I'm thinking of someone whose surname is like that of a long running BBC radio drama...

[Snail]

Socialist RAWK there, with a 50/50 split on "should billionaires exist" 

Depressing isn’t it.