Bill Gates: billionaire philanthropist (page 3)

ballistic

You bet I would

That was Microsoft 1978 I believe.

I do have one thought though, just imagine if most copies of Microsoft Windows were not pirated, this guy would be even richer, hard to imagine, I know.

RR

I understand Prince is studying with Bill Gates! Start the rumours yall

onacruse

Simon:

Craig, with respect, I doubt that yo uhave even as a percentage. I know I haven't.

That's part of the "catch"; you don't really know what we've given, nor do we know what you've given; nor do any of us know what tax advantages we've obtained by what we've given, to offset the "giving." Gates doesn't have 1,000 lawyers and accountants working for him for no purpose.

A personal example: Several years ago, my now ex-wife and I decided to tear down our old house and rebuild. We were told that we could, instead, have the fire department use it as a training exercise: they burned it down; we paid no demolition costs, and instead got a $55,000 "charitable" write-off on our taxable income, carried over for 3 years: as a result, paid no income taxes. Now, I could strut like a peacock and say "Oh, what a wonderfully charitable thing we did for the fire department!" But, it was all about write-offs.

If he keeps $1bn and gives $1bn away then that is 50% ...

Sure, in any given timeline, the percentages change. As one of the world's top-5 richest men, taking all the "donations" Bill has made over the course of his career...compared to the merely "average" middle-class worker...percentage-wise it's the "average" Joe-blow that (to my knowledge, based on recent IRS stats) has the greatest impact.

funkyD:

Mostly by producing products that people are willing to pay for.

I don't think so! As an explorative question to proof-in-point, I'd ask: do you have any boot-legged software on your computer? It's not a "willing-to-pay-for" as much as "damn, I-have-to-pay-for."

SNG:

Geez, Craig, you make it sound like being successful at business is a bad thing.

My remarks were not intended as a slam against capitalism. The choice of capitalism (for all it's worth, and not worth) is simply the choice of a group of people for a particular economic style. "Bad" or "good" has nothing to do with it.

In a capitalist context, companies that produce good products get rewarded. There is no sin in that. If Bill sees fit to donate large chunks of the spoils to humanitarian purposes, why should he be derided for it?

Again, I'm not asserting that there is a "sin" here: just an incongruity, or perhaps, an oxymoron. What reading I've done about the Rothchild's, Rockefellers, Carnegie's, the land barons, the oil barons, the railroad barons, the stock-market barons (etc. etc.), many of whom have become, to some extent or other, commonly supposed to be the "benefactors of mankind" because of their "charitable" works...built their financial empires on the broken backs and broken lives of their employees and competitors. There are local examples, just over this last 3 years, that demonstrate the same point (Andrew Weiderhorn, for one: played a capitalistic game, sentenced to prison for 18 months, rewarded by the board of directors with $2M [to pay the court fine], on full salary for the duration of his sentence...in the meantime, several thousand folks have been ripped off for $360M; hard-working folks, in their late 50s, who now have to start over). Oh, and he's been a philanthropic "pillar" of the community.

It's in that respect that I say "billionaire" and "philanthropist" are, at least, mutually exclusive terms: just think--what does "phil-anthropy" mean??

frenchbabyface

Yeah,

some people do give more with their little wallet than Bill Gates in regarding his potentiel ... but he does give (what he could have hold for himself) I wish he would give more as far as he can

Simon

Well, he's given more than anyone else has so on whatever scale you want to judge him, I think he comes out as 'generous'.

I don't think so! As an explorative question to proof-in-point, I'd ask: do you have any boot-legged software on your computer? It's not a "willing-to-pay-for" as much as "damn, I-have-to-pay-for."

Do you get regular raids by the Microsoft Gestapo forcing you to buy their stuff? No, of course not. Are there other vendors selling everything that MS do? Yes. So if you buy MS software then you have chosen to do so.

It's like complaining that Ford made you buy their car ??!

onacruse

Simon, I "got" Windows 95, by default, when I bought my first computer. I now have W98, as a gift (CD and A-code in hand) from an old employer. I've never paid one nickel to Bill.

But, to the point of my remonstration: Define "generous" and "philanthropy."

funkyderek

It's not a "willing-to-pay-for" as much as "damn, I-have-to-pay-for."

No it's not. You only have to pay for it if you want it, and even then, as you pointed out, it's quite easy to steal it.

I "got" Windows 95, by default, when I bought my first computer. I now have W98, as a gift (CD and A-code in hand) from an old employer. I've never paid one nickel to Bill.

A percentage of the cost of that first computer went to Bill, I'm sure you'll be glad to know.

But, to the point of my remonstration: Define "generous" and "philanthropy."

generous: Liberal in giving or sharing.

philanthropy: The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations

Bill Gates certainly seems to fit these definitions. And even if he doesn't; even if he's somehow doing it all for evil purposes or to enhance his own reputation, the effect is still that $3 billion dollars will go to improve the lives of people in need. Screw the "widow's mite", it's the numbers that really matter.

Simon

it's the numbers that really matter.

Exactly. He's given away more than many countries and by all accounts takes a very active interest in making sure the money goes to where it's needed and where it will do some good.

SixofNine

Screw the "widow's mite", it's the numbers that really matter.

Very, very well said.

Also, as Craig and I have discussed, the widow might not be generous at all, perhaps she was just another dutiful slave to the church? It was in fact irresponsible for her to give away her last moneys, and for Jesus to praise her for it.

onacruse

funkyD: Hmmm...well, if it's just "the numbers" that really matter, then I better send a letter of thanks to Rome, for all that the Catholic church has to "help" people over the centuries (including an operation I got at a Catholic-owned hospital; cost about $15,000, but I was uninsured at the time, and they wrote it off.)

More about "charitable, humanitarian, and philanthropic" tonight, when I get home from work.

Sixer, ya old bastard : as always, it was good chattin' with ya the other night. The widow's mite does indeed raise questions regarding what "donations" say about "motivations."

Craig (of the "I'm cranky 'cause it's too dang hot here in Portland" class )

Bill Gates: billionaire philanthropist

Share this