New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

billionaire philanthropy

fairsheet

Senator
that's a lot of money!
Back "in the day", the rich were inclined to giving away their money willy-nilly, just so they could say they did. I like so see that at least of late, philanthropy is tending more towards sustainability. Gates and Buffet did something to amass those fortunes. I like that they're trying to pass on a little more than just money.

If there's a signature difference between guys like them and the Walton heirs, is that Gates and Buffet have some idea of where all that dough came from. That's a good argument for a robust inheritance tax. If the tax is well designed, it would encourage the likes of the Waltons to put their money to positive use.
 
The vast majority of the money both Gates and Buffett "donate" goes to their own "charitable" foundations which, as everyone knows, is a great tax shelter.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
there's something "special" about the Waltons. they're so cheap that we the taxpayers have to supplement their employees' wages via social programs. WalMart stores conduct holiday food drives for their OWN employees, fergawdsake.
 

fairsheet

Senator
The vast majority of the money both Gates and Buffett "donate" goes to their own "charitable" foundations which, as everyone knows, is a great tax shelter.

That it's a great tax shelter is the way it's supposed to be. We give them a break and they pay us back in spades. And frankly, considering the skill sets of the likes of Buffet and Gates, I think I'd prefer that they retain at least some control over these pots of dough, rather then just simply dumping them into a pool to be squandered by others.
 
That it's a great tax shelter is the way it's supposed to be. We give them a break and they pay us back in spades. And frankly, considering the skill sets of the likes of Buffet and Gates, I think I'd prefer that they retain at least some control over these pots of dough, rather then just simply dumping them into a pool to be squandered by others.
They retain ALL control over the money. That's the reason they set up the foundations in the first place. Lower tax burden for them, and they get to keep and control all the money. It's a sweet setup if you're ultra-wealthy and want to shelter your money but still have the ability to spend it as you please...

And let me note that I'm totally ok with that. I respect these guys for finding ways to keep what's theirs and not have the incompetent, greedy, corrupt assclowns in the government confiscate it and give it away to political cronies and welfare junkies...
 

fairsheet

Senator
They retain ALL control over the money. That's the reason they set up the foundations in the first place. Lower tax burden for them, and they get to keep and control all the money. It's a sweet setup if you're ultra-wealthy and want to shelter your money but still have the ability to spend it as you please...

And let me note that I'm totally ok with that. I respect these guys for finding ways to keep what's theirs and not have the incompetent, greedy, corrupt assclowns in the government confiscate it and give it away to political cronies and welfare junkies...

I'm not surprised at the tone of your second paragraph, but at least in principle, I don't disagree. But then, how do we fold the likes of the Walton family into all this? You've rationalized what Gates and Buffet have done, noted how clever it is, and even allowed that it's not so bad.

So, why aren't the Waltons doing the same? I think I have an idea why. For what it's worth, Wal*Mart is doing some pretty good things around pharma for elders, "greening" their operations, and so forth. But, there's a certain set of rich people that really resists the idea of their appearing to be forced by the rabble, into doing good things. They want to do good things, but they need for it to appear to be entirely on their own terms.
 
I'm not surprised at the tone of your second paragraph, but at least in principle, I don't disagree. But then, how do we fold the likes of the Walton family into all this? You've rationalized what Gates and Buffet have done, noted how clever it is, and even allowed that it's not so bad.

So, why aren't the Waltons doing the same? I think I have an idea why. For what it's worth, Wal*Mart is doing some pretty good things around pharma for elders, "greening" their operations, and so forth. But, there's a certain set of rich people that really resists the idea of their appearing to be forced by the rabble, into doing good things. They want to do good things, but they need for it to appear to be entirely on their own terms.
I really don't know much about how the Waltons spend their money, and I think that's the way they want it. Gates is so high profile, he has an obligation (deserved or not) to make a bit of a show about his philanthropy, hence the existence of his foundation and his various proclamations about giving all his money away, etc. Buffett has a bit of a "look at me" tendency around what he does as well, also likely due to his celebrity. It seems the Walton family have very few people to answer to, unlike Gates and Buffett, who have a much larger group of shareholders who want to know how the companies in which they invest are being run.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
there's something "special" about the Waltons. they're so cheap that we the taxpayers have to supplement their employees' wages via social programs. WalMart stores conduct holiday food drives for their OWN employees, fergawdsake.
I really don't know much about how the Waltons spend their money, and I think that's the way they want it. Gates is so high profile, he has an obligation (deserved or not) to make a bit of a show about his philanthropy, hence the existence of his foundation and his various proclamations about giving all his money away, etc. Buffett has a bit of a "look at me" tendency around what he does as well, also likely due to his celebrity. It seems the Walton family have very few people to answer to, unlike Gates and Buffett, who have a much larger group of shareholders who want to know how the companies in which they invest are being run.
Microsoft, Walmart...Even Apple, which i imagine Buffet has holdings in...strive very hard on the cheap labor front. Say, why dont nobody ever complain about the cheap labor/sweatshop cities used to build oh, i dunno...computers, ipads, xboxes... Foxconn, a major supplier of these services to the above...pays some 260 bucks a month... yikes. talk about cheap.
 

fairsheet

Senator
I really don't know much about how the Waltons spend their money, and I think that's the way they want it. Gates is so high profile, he has an obligation (deserved or not) to make a bit of a show about his philanthropy, hence the existence of his foundation and his various proclamations about giving all his money away, etc. Buffett has a bit of a "look at me" tendency around what he does as well, also likely due to his celebrity. It seems the Walton family have very few people to answer to, unlike Gates and Buffett, who have a much larger group of shareholders who want to know how the companies in which they invest are being run.

I get what you're saying but...a coupla a things. First of all, Gates and Buffet are pretty much doing exactly as fiscal conservatives have always said the filthy rich would do. That should be considered a good thing, even as some may take issue with what they perceive as Gates's and Buffet's messaging.

And as to Wal*Mart and their market? As big as Microsoft's market may be. Wal*Mart's is a helluva bigger and broader. And Buffet's? Hell, he appeals to the investor class, more than anyone. C'mon, when we see a Boeing commercial on the teevee, do we really think they're trying to sell US a jet?
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Microsoft, Walmart...Even Apple, which i imagine Buffet has holdings in...strive very hard on the cheap labor front. Say, why dont nobody ever complain about the cheap labor/sweatshop cities used to build oh, i dunno...computers, ipads, xboxes... Foxconn, a major supplier of these services to the above...pays some 260 bucks a month... yikes. talk about cheap.
taxpayers don't have to supplement the wages of Microsoft or Apple employees, but we're on the hook supplementing the wages of WalMart employees.....SNAP, Medicaid, housing, etc. because the Waltons are too cheap to pay a decent wage or work them full-time.
 

Lukey

Senator
They retain ALL control over the money. That's the reason they set up the foundations in the first place. Lower tax burden for them, and they get to keep and control all the money. It's a sweet setup if you're ultra-wealthy and want to shelter your money but still have the ability to spend it as you please...

And let me note that I'm totally ok with that. I respect these guys for finding ways to keep what's theirs and not have the incompetent, greedy, corrupt assclowns in the government confiscate it and give it away to political cronies and welfare junkies...
They cannot "spend it as they please." At least 95% must be given to qualifying non-profits.
 
Top