Philanthropy as a paradox for the uber-rich

[paxmao]

Recently I read about the divorce of Bill Gates and how the Melinda & Bill Gates foundation will continue with business as usual despite Melinda´s spin-off (off the marriage). This foundation manages 49 billion in assets, mostly from donations from the uber-rich.

While Microsoft does not have a particular fame for mistreating employees, most of the large companies, to some extent, are benefiting from market monopolies, questionable tax exemptions and in some cases questionable Human Resources practices. Does it make sense to you to first "take" from society by paying little tax and then doing philanthropy to "give back"? Sound to me quite cynic.

[1715324281]

1715324281

[1715324281]

1715324281

[1715324281]

1715324281

[DrBeer]

Recently I read about the divorce of Bill Gates and how the Melinda & Bill Gates foundation will continue with business as usual despite Melinda´s spin-off (off the marriage). This foundation manages 49 billion in assets, mostly from donations from the uber-rich.

While Microsoft does not have a particular fame for mistreating employees, most of the large companies, to some extent, are benefiting from market monopolies, questionable tax exemptions and in some cases questionable Human Resources practices. Does it make sense to you to first "take" from society by paying little tax and then doing philanthropy to "give back"? Sound to me quite cynic.

Just add one thought - such funds are NEVER aimed at "buying and feeding", for example, the starving residents of a certain country. THIS IS SILLY. Such funds are aimed at systemic changes - for example, bring agricultural technologies, train those who wish, perhaps even become "with investors of a new agricultural", and give not a fish, but a fishing rod, as the Bible said
This is one of the options for the fund's work. As a rule, such funds are invested in solving fundamental problems - disease, lack of water, insufficient production, etc. People like Bill Gates have a different level of thinking ..

[Hydrogen]

There are many studies published on charities. Some claim less than 5% of capital collected by individual charities are devoted towards legitimate charitable causes, with the rest being spent on luxury homes, automobiles, jewelry, expensive clothes, lavish parties and other indulgences. Charities have also been used as shell corporations to fund various political and social movements.

Corporations and charities are 100% identical in many respects. In terms of them being separate legal entities which can be used to defer blame and conceal illicit practices.

The traditional definition of charity may be an organization devoted towards helping the poor. In the modern day there are girls on onlyfans who found a charity for the sole purpose of donating less than 5% of funds collected to the poor. With the rest of the funds collected ending up in their back pocket.

[just_Alice]

It’s hard to tell really. On one hand, yes, there is something cynical in it, why pretend to be generous when you simply make huge money and don’t even bother with taxes? On the other hand, some companies don’t do even that, no kind of charity and still avoid taxes. So, on the contrary, these actions don’t seem to be that bad.

In addition, Microsoft creates numerous working spaces and opportunities for people, helps with career development (I should hope so), improving the life quality of many people. Taxes just go to the government and they know that, while foundations are aimed to help real people in need. So I personally don’t blame them.

[Lucius]

What is called charity today is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to heal the conscience of ultra-rich individuals or families who have so much wealth that it is hard for the average person to imagine. @Hydrogen gave a good description of what is happening behind the scenes of all these charitable funds and organizations where money is spent on the luxury of those who should help others and then only crumbs reach those in need.

If Bill Gates and his ex-wife want to help the world, let them do something in their backyard first - it takes about $25 billion to feed hungry people in the US - but I doubt they care about that, as well as their government investing $700 + billions only in the military budget, while millions are starving.

Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, has calculated the cost of ending hunger in the US at $25 billion. Hunger in the United States isn’t a direct result of war, or crop failures, or massive inflation. Americans who are hungry simply don’t have enough money to buy food. Berg says “a combination of increased wages and improved safety net programs” would be needed.

[Obito]

I don't get how philanthropy is a paradox for the uber rich or the elite, I mean they love donating especially when their interests align with their donations like getting favors, tax write offs and influence. What they're scared of is the taxation and giving enough power to the working class becausse if they do so, the working class will be able to choose the jobs that they want because they know that the opportunity and reward is the same for any other companies.

[stompix]

Does it make sense to you to first "take" from society by paying little tax and then doing philanthropy to "give back"? Sound to me quite cynic.

How is this cynic?
They took what from society? Society paid for whatever service they wanted, be it windows licenses, be it toys from amazon, or cars from tesla.
There is no "take", the take is only when some feel the need to take in taxes from others and redistribute to the ones that have more voting power.
I always love the contradiction, especially on this forum, richer people should be taxed more while fees in bitcoin don't care about the amount but the size. The whole bitcoin thing is about being your own bank and keeping your money safe and without anyone knowing how much you have yet day after day after everyone is preoccupied with how much money others have.  

If Bill Gates and his ex-wife want to help the world, let them do something in their backyard first - it takes about $25 billion to feed hungry people in the US - but I doubt they care about that, as well as their government investing $700 + billions only in the military budget, while millions are starving.

It takes even less. Actually zero!

Drop all the shitty taxes you have imposed because of the eco-movement, drop all stupid regulation about having to chant 12 sutras before you send a pig to the slaughterhouse and you could lower food prices and utilities easily. Rather than going about some rich money how about we stop wasting money on crap? California spent 5 billion on helping people to buy electric cars, help to build solar farms, taxing the shit out of other producers, and here we go, the most expensive energy in the US with rolling black-outs every month and people that can pay even that. Let's put limits on how much people can shower while other countries desalinate water 3 times cheaper and managed to turn a desert into agricultural land.

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

We've been sending food to Africa for ages, has this cured famine? No. Will the 25 billion spent on foods stamps cure anything? No, they will just raise prices as there is not enough cheap food, and when the money is going there is more expensive food and more people that can't afford it.

Following the link you've posted:

The Solution
The only thing that is going to make that happen is building a social movement to make it happen.
If we aren’t focusing on public policy, how can we end hunger? How can we reduce poverty without social policy and without public policy improvements? That is like asking me how we can end drought without water. You can’t do it

Zimbabwe 2.0, the war on the Kulaks.

[Ucy]

Guess you trying to say they are not sacrificing much considering the privileges from government in form of monopolies, tax cut etc
 Poor people who earn their living without such privileges and still give more than 10% of their income to the needy actually sacrifice more than the privileged rich people who give less than 10%.   So, I believe the real personal sacrifice is more important. I guess we should pay more attention to that

[mu_enrico]

Nobody can understand what's the actual motivation behind such philanthropic action. Maybe they really care and want to "make world a better place," but one sure effect is for a good image and less hate from the society (even though technically they own nothing to the society). Although they are rich, they still need other people for protection and stuff. They can be rich because stable society, so giving a little portion of their wealth is a wonderful investment for such stability.

[oHnK]

Not only for the rich, I have found philanthropic institutions several times as a place to just carry out their duties, but in which there is a practice of individual profit.  In my country, philanthropic institutions are used as a place to distribute CSR but each company creates its own philanthropic institution so that their CSR is still managed by them.  It's like a manipulation business in the name of charity work for the poor.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Does it make sense to you to first "take" from society by paying little tax and then doing philanthropy to "give back"? Sound to me quite cynic.

Sure.  I think philanthropic charities can make much better use of their money than the government can if it were paid in taxes.  And I don't think people like Gates, Bezos, or all the other (mostly) men who've founded gigantic companies from nothing have "taken" more than is fair from society in general.  It's goddamn tough to grow a business the size of Amazon or Microsoft without trying to save money, whether it's through low wages, lower taxes, or what have you.

I don't begrudge any of these people their wealth, and I sure as hell won't criticize their philanthropic endeavors.  At least they're doing something noble with their riches instead of just leaving it to their children, who'd no doubt squander it.

[aysg76]

Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have donated more than $50 billion in charity for all the noble causes and it is good and supportive move on their part.The most of major companies have social causes include in the management working and business strategies also because of some reasons like it improves the image of company and tax rebates are given by the government.But there is nothing wrong in this case because the government funds flow in different directions for charity and donations and the problem is with corruption at root levels and people don't get full aid and utilities of funds allocated but if some philanthropist is dedicated to such cause there are no chances of any corruption.They have setup Giving Pledge organization for charity cause along with warren Buffett which now has 223 pledgers donating for different noble causes coming from 27 countries and donating to all the poor people and lending them a helping hand.

They are businessman and setup MNC's from scratch and build their empire and network over all those years and we are utilising their services and we can't say they are exploiting any natural resources for personal cause but they are working towards betterment of the company and caters to the need of employees and their families as whole and we pay for what we use as said by stompix so there is nothing wrong with it.

Bill gates donations

Bill gates 12 major donations

I found them completely reliable and if you are having your name on fortune 500 or Forbes rich list then giving it out to charity and betterment of humanity requires some kind hearted feeling and gut feelings for help because there are many who have made enough but still prefer to Store them for coming generations.You can't evade poverty or end up problems of mankind but can be reason or contribute to reduce them at some levels.

[Kittygalore]

Not only for the rich, I have found philanthropic institutions several times as a place to just carry out their duties, but in which there is a practice of individual profit.  In my country, philanthropic institutions are used as a place to distribute CSR but each company creates its own philanthropic institution so that their CSR is still managed by them.  It's like a manipulation business in the name of charity work for the poor.

It's rare to find a philanthropic institution that's truly altruist, I haven't seen any selfless one so I don't really buy these people, most of the time, these people just wants their ego stroked. And I doubt that a rich man would help a poor man without any condition.

[Gyfts]

A fundamental attribute of a socialist ideology is that in a capitalistic society, voluntary commerce does not exist, and that every business is operated on slave wagers by taking advantage of the employees. Bill Gates didn't take anything from anyone, he created something valuable and engaged in voluntary commerce with consumers.

Everyone "under" him, aka the employees of Microsoft, are paid a salary and can leave if they wanted to. In fact, if they feel like they're being stolen from, they can go and create their own business! That's the beauty of capitalism.

[paxmao]

Does it make sense to you to first "take" from society by paying little tax and then doing philanthropy to "give back"? Sound to me quite cynic.

How is this cynic?
They took what from society? Society paid for whatever service they wanted, be it windows licenses, be it toys from amazon, or cars from tesla.
There is no "take", the take is only when some feel the need to take in taxes from others and redistribute to the ones that have more voting power.
I always love the contradiction, especially on this forum, richer people should be taxed more while fees in bitcoin don't care about the amount but the size. The whole bitcoin thing is about being your own bank and keeping your money safe and without anyone knowing how much you have yet day after day after everyone is preoccupied with how much money others have.  

If Bill Gates and his ex-wife want to help the world, let them do something in their backyard first - it takes about $25 billion to feed hungry people in the US - but I doubt they care about that, as well as their government investing $700 + billions only in the military budget, while millions are starving.

It takes even less. Actually zero!

Drop all the shitty taxes you have imposed because of the eco-movement, drop all stupid regulation about having to chant 12 sutras before you send a pig to the slaughterhouse and you could lower food prices and utilities easily. Rather than going about some rich money how about we stop wasting money on crap? California spent 5 billion on helping people to buy electric cars, help to build solar farms, taxing the shit out of other producers, and here we go, the most expensive energy in the US with rolling black-outs every month and people that can pay even that. Let's put limits on how much people can shower while other countries desalinate water 3 times cheaper and managed to turn a desert into agricultural land.

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

We've been sending food to Africa for ages, has this cured famine? No. Will the 25 billion spent on foods stamps cure anything? No, they will just raise prices as there is not enough cheap food, and when the money is going there is more expensive food and more people that can't afford it.

Following the link you've posted:

The Solution
The only thing that is going to make that happen is building a social movement to make it happen.
If we aren’t focusing on public policy, how can we end hunger? How can we reduce poverty without social policy and without public policy improvements? That is like asking me how we can end drought without water. You can’t do it

Zimbabwe 2.0, the war on the Kulaks.

Most of the facts you state are simply not true. Some of them are just pure propaganda (chanting sutras makes food more expensive or the black outs are somehow related clean power).

I do not know where you live, but I really hope for the day in which excreting NOx, CO, CO2 right in the same place where I breath is simply forbidden. It has already shortened my life by many years, but I hope that it stops before it does the same to the young.

Let me put it in the clearest way possible: You do not have "the natural right" to be richer than others, that is a privilege that is being granted to you by a state that protects you. You do have to pay more because you do have more privileges than others, and, sorry to inform you, but all modern states of a certain size have taxes because they have costs. You want to have a "movement" to change that, go for it, it is called politics and yes, sorry, it is based on the number of people that you can convince of your views, not on how much money they own (at least in theory), because a country is owned by them in equal parts, not only by the richest (again, in theory).

It is very clear that large companies take a lot from society, the problem is that it is taken for granted: right to property is not given by nature, safety is not given by nature, having an army to defend your country and police to defend your privileges does not happen naturally either. Infrastructure, legal systems, patent protection,... none of that exists without taxes. So yes, if you have built a large company and are not paying the right taxes or are using the wrong labour practices you are "taking".

I am not worried about how much others have. I am very interested in understanding if I am going to be paying to support their privileges while they do not contribute as they should to the common expenses.
Lastly, charity is needed only when a society does not have the right processes to make it unnecessary.

[hatshepsut93]

The idea that companies are not paying enough taxes comes from twitter/reddit communists who think that companies should be taxed by 99% of their revenue so that the government could provide them with free healthcare and education.

In reality companies are paying exactly as much taxes as they are required by law, tax evasion is pretty rare among the largest companies, they would lose too much if they would get caught, and committing it on a large scale is much harder.

Many countries have tried to implement bigger and bigger taxes, the result is always the same - business flees the country, the country gets even less tax revenue, economy starts to struggle.

[defi-Dany]

Excluding tax avoidance, following religious beliefs, gaining prestige and happiness, what is the purpose of real money for charity? To answer this question, we still have to return to the nature of wealth. The essence of wealth is human time, and the pursuit of wealth is to control more people's time. How can we buy more people's time? The premise is that more people's time is available for sale.

In other words, when physical capital corresponds to human time, the more human time each physical capital can correspond to, the higher the value of physical capital. When the super-rich retain their wealth, they are not thinking about maximizing the material but maximizing the human time that the material they hold can be exchanged for.

[paxmao]

..
In reality companies are paying exactly as much taxes as they are required by law, tax evasion is pretty rare among the largest companies, they would lose too much if they would get caught, and committing it on a large scale is much harder.
...

Aside from propaganda and talking about free healthcare as something that should be be avoided (I really never got why a modern country has to let people die when there is a cure available)...

I get your point, they are paying as much as the law tells them to, and laws are made so that it is nearly zero or that there are 1000 loopholes to avoid, only for them. That is held by strong lobbying around the legislative bodies.  However, even under that premise, there still people, mid-large fortunes that were in the Panama Papers, and all that was off-shore and illegal. In any case, even if a government were interested in finding out, it would probably be nearly impossible to audit one of the top 20 companies in the world and get something conclusive.

[verita1]

I was thinking that if Microsoft had to pay more taxes, the revenue would stay with the governments that receive those taxes.
Taxes can solve many problems such as infrastructure, improvements in technology that in turn create jobs and reduce unemployment and therefore reduce poverty rates.
On the other hand, philanthropy only benefits sectors at some specific points, it would be necessary to do a study and see the disadvantage.
I would incline that wealth should be better distributed to alleviate the problems of society and the planet.

[stompix]

Most of the facts you state are simply not true. Some of them are just pure propaganda (chanting sutras makes food more expensive or the black outs are somehow related clean power).

Oh really?
Scroll down to Cognitive enrichment

Let's me ask you this, do you have a farm or anything that is related to food production in the EU?
Do you know even half of the stupid regulations we have to comply with nowadays? Call me when you and your family have done this for at least 30 years and then tell me it's an exaggeration, go through all those regulations when you're complaining why food prices soar then remember where 75% of the fucking costs come from.

Let me give you an example
By law we have to put straws or sawdust in every pigpen, no problem, that's what we have done for years.
But, new laws, now farms are getting tax reductions if they transform both the sawdust and straws into pellets and they are penalized if they don't. So in order for us to buy those now, we have to pay extra to compensate for both the credit costs and the subsidies. But do you think it stops here? No, the madness goes on. Now when we're disposing of the waste the straws are also counted in because they're saying straws emit gases when they decompose, so we're charged not only for the manure but for the quantity of straw we use in the process, while somebody who outright burns them it's not. How do you like this?

But no, still not stop here, in order to qualify and pass inspections every time we have to provide pigs under 1 year with straw or mushroom compost or peat or ropes in order to keep pigs welfare high, no problem, let's ignore that the ropes we use for that have been to certified 100% to be natural, but all this compost when it needs to be replaced goes to counting as waste, and again we're getting charged for it, we need to keep wast under limits even though you're forcing us to make waste.

Back to the power problem:
Let's see what countries have spent more on green energy in the EU per capita..
Germany and Denmark
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics
Germany 30 cents per kWh, Denmark and the windmills 28.
Poland, not giving a f* word, 15 cents per kWh.

But let's look at the other pioneer in renewables, the one state that wants to shut down even its last nuclear reactor and go full green while facing blackouts every damn year.



So, you're free to try and debunk every single one of those numbers and graphs, but do it with data, not just pointing fingers.
Btw, how are electricity prices in Spain nowadays? I'm sure you're loving paying those carbon credits, right?

I do not know where you live, but I really hope for the day in which excreting NOx, CO, CO2 right in the same place where I breath is simply forbidden.

So we should cut all trees also because you know what happens when trees and leaves die? If you don't, then search for the carbon cycle in nature, you might find out some amazing facts there.

Let me put it in the clearest way possible: You do not have "the natural right" to be richer than others, that is a privilege that is being granted to you by a state that protects you. You do have to pay more because you do have more privileges than others, and, sorry to inform you, but all modern states of a certain size have taxes because they have costs. You want to have a "movement" to change that, go for it, it is called politics and yes, sorry, it is based on the number of people that you can convince of your views, not on how much money they own (at least in theory), because a country is owned by them in equal parts, not only by the richest (again, in theory).

Let me put it in the clearest way possible. My money, my decision. My keys, my bitcoins.
Can't wait when all the no coiners will come with a new law that all the privileged who have bought coins at 100-1000$ must now relinquish ownership over them. I'm sure you're going to applaud this initiative, no? It's against the "privileged"!