Asks U.S. billionaires give away at least half of the wealth.

reply to post by eriathwen


Personally I don't think they ever gave away any of their money. I mean you'd think giving several billion dollars to a charity, that charities activities would suddenly explode -- but the charities Gates and Buffet gave to have not increased activity at all?

It would be a massive increase in wealth and thus operations.... you'd think it'd be noticeable..

All smoke and mirrors if you ask me.. just my opinion, I've never seen any evidence, and even after supposedly giving away all this money, both warren and bill are listed as one of the two richest people in the World.

Rich people dont get rich buy giving away thier money

Every rich person ive know were penney pinchers

All smoke and mirrors if you ask me.. just my opinion, I've never seen any evidence, and...

I tend to agree with you, BUT, changes take times...this is the first (as far as i know) time such BIG initiative has taken by the really rich people to (maybe) distribute their insane amount of money to the poor (mean us, me anyway...)

maybe this will fail this time or like you said just PR, but who know ? maybe they are serious, they made it public...so even if the cash flow is not that great they have no choice to give something, for me its better than nothing.

And maybe ( i know i like to dream...) this will give the rich people some heart, morale and care for humanity. More and more can join the movement and we can get great results.

I dont know why but today i wanna think positive ! with BP s**t and everything else people like us ( i mean people with a fonctionnal brain not burned by wal-mart publicity or shows like big brother ) can feel very depressed, anxious or ( put your knowledge illness here )

P.S : Hi space Brothers, if you monitor the internet ( you surely do...no?) and read this post, i think this IS the time to show up and give us a hand, this is a respectfull and humble request : can you fix the BP hell hole and save us from our own stupidity ? pleassssseeeee

*** sorry for my text english is not my primary i am a french canadian ( i dont give a s**t about giving details about my location...the NSA have already traced my IP anyway - Hi guys how your illegal private life intrusion going today ? - )***

[edit on 17/6/2010 by B3lz3buth]

[edit on 17/6/2010 by B3lz3buth]

reply to post by B3lz3buth


No it's not the first by anymeans, maybe the first time he's called for "all" billionaires to do this, but a few years ago to a media circus Bill and Warren proclaimed to have donated a large portion of their wealth to key charities. They even did a segment regarding Warren Buffets children getting screwed out of inheritance. And yet according to Forbes, several years later their net worth hasn't declined, and no charity seems to have been mobilized by the influx of billions of dollars.

money.cnn.com...

2006, Warren Buffet declares hes giving away most of his money.

Instead, last year, he bought a railroad company for several billion dollars.. there is no evidence to suggest he gave the majority portion of his fortune away, like he claimed when standing besides Bill Gates. Likewise, theres no evidence Bill gave anything either except to his own foundation, which very well could be an obvious tax ploy.

In fact through the financial crisis Buffet has been head over heels trying to recoup money lost from the downturn, and has since increased his wealth back to the #2 spot.

!@$ these arse hat bastards.. they are scum, declaring themselves saints when they are nothing but greedy sinners.

reply to post by Rockpuck


This is why i love ATS, intelligents comment, links ,facts !

thanks alot Rockpuck i will read furthermore on that

Let me get a few things off my chest!

1: When it comes to money, and the already very wealthy, I don't care how "positive" it may seem...my sphincter muscles tense when I read things like this. Nothing, and I mean nothing, done by the wealthy isn't done with an agenda...that benefits them.

2: These people rub coats with the evilist of them(Rockefeller, Rothschilds, etc)...and those other families, do not keep people who seek the best interests of others, but themsevles around!

3: Most of these charities, are charities that they have started. Correct me if I'm wrong. And, if that's the case...it's a nice little hole to hide money, and keep certain things very private.

4: I have lost a lot of hope in humanity. Regardless of which charity the money goes to, I am pretty darn certain that only 40% of it(if so much), is actually seen. If you want to help the world, do NOT give away money! Give time, tools resources. The children need clothing? Buy them clothing! They need laptops? Instead of giving the charity to purchase laptops...buy them laptops. The people need water? Oversee the construction and spendings! THAT is how you help the world! Money does the worst to people...many people; not all people, but many people.

And lastly, if indeed, they really are genuine about this, and nothing is going on behind the scenes...it is safe for me to conclude, that they know something big is about to go down that is going to affect everyone on this planet...and now see the need to give away money that they would no longer have the need for, when the event that they know about comes knocking at my and everyone else's door!

First off to all of those QQ MOARing about how unfortunate they are with no food, money, medical attention, etc answer me this: where did the money come from to purchase your computer and who pays the bills for you electricity and Internet connection? You have a serious problem if your priorites are so messed up that you pay in to these so called "evil corporations" to partake in ATS but you can't (or should I say won't) get public assistance or take the time to find ANY kind of employment in order to pay for basic needs such as medical care or food.

I worked minimum wage for the longest time. Worked my arse off, put in my 40 every week and made sure to save at least half of my income every payday. Now I'm in a higher position, make more money, have more in the bank, live in a great house and have money to spend on myself. Sure it's fast food but I LOVE my job and the people I work with and wouldn't trade it for anything unless I found something more suited for myself.

I went without the Internet for the past year and a half unless I was at a friend's or used the library's. I only bought what I needed and even though I wanted a new electronic doodad I turned it down and put more in the bank.

If you claim to be in such an impoverished state GTFO of ATS and get your life in order. Every single one of these very fortunate people worked their butts off for years to get where they are. Isn't that part of the American dream? Everyone just wants to get rich quick and put no effort in. That's pure laziness. Isn't also the American dream to do with your money what you want? If Bill Gates (who no longer works for MS just so you know and is only on the BoD) wants to donate 50% of his net worth to charity that he worked for, then you also have a right to blow your money on whatever it is. Internet connection, McDonald's, whatever. But you have no right to criticize ANYONE if you aren't willing to put in the same amount of effort.

Utter stupidity. They'd be better off investing their resources in technology that makes people more efficient. Cheap biodiesel synthesis, failsafe nuclear reactors, new propulsion technology, whatever .. this is one step above just burning the cash in a bonfire.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm for this as long as it is voluntary.

When it becomes mandatory, it is an abomination.

Buffett and Gates earned their money and they should do with it what they want, whether it is to spend it all on themselves, leave it to their children, or to give it to charitable causes...

See... that's the strange thing about right-wing ideology, it ends up making people like you and I (underclass, I assume, at least when compared to the world's rich) defend the "rights" of the uber-rich and giant corporations, as if they're a weak and/or oppressed minority. However, the very fact that they are wildly rich/powerful/influential in such an unregulated country/world as ours exempts them from being an oppressed minority. Even in a heavily regulated/taxed world/country they'd still be kings.

Beyond that point, I want you to think of exactly what you're saying and really analyze it for absolute truth. First you must set aside the unrelated factors such as how these super-rich achieved their wealth within the market and also the philanthropy they engage in with their wealth, you MUST ask yourself- did they really EARN it?

Of course in a direct/physical sense they did, it happened, therefore it's true. However, in a more philosophical sense we can't be sure that they legitimately EARNED that amount of money. I've heard many excuses in my debates with people when they defend the disproportionate wealth of others, for instance- they worked really hard for it, they earned it lawfully, they donate to good causes, they provide desirable jobs/products/services, they created the idea and/or pioneered it effectively, etc. etc. And these sound all good and well if you simply accept them as that. However, the way I think doesn't allow me NOT to question this logic very deeply.

So, let's start with my favorite excuse for the hoarding of great wealth-

1) They worked really hard for it

First of all, this is an assumption, both on its face and in a relative sense. Most of the people who use this line of logic don't actually KNOW whether or not a specific wealthy person or certain groups of wealthy people actually worked very hard for their wealth. This ignorance of the very value of their claim inherently corrupts the strength of it. However, let's just say that the majority of wealthy people worked very hard for their money. Now we have to ask ourselves, relative to whom? Did the wealthy CEO work harder than the janitor or floor workers of his company? Did he/she expend more effort/energy? Does he work harder than ANY poorer person? And if so, HOW MUCH harder did he work? If this CEO is making 400 times the salary of an average worker in his company yet he's not working any harder or even just 10 times harder than his average employee, how is that proportionate and legitimate? The math simply doesn't add up, nor could it ever add up until the top salaries were decreased/redistributed (unless the CEO was actually Superman). It's a fundamental and exponential increase of wealth up the economic ladder that does not coincide with an EQUALLY exponential rise in effort/energy or even necessarily the IMPORTANCE of their tasks/responsibilities. What about the impoverished mother/father working multiple jobs for most of their free time to support a family only to remain living in poverty, paycheck to paycheck, never quite able to rise above it? What about the legions of workers underneath a CEO who are the gears that actually make an idea come to life in the real world? Is their position seriously 400 times less important than the head honcho who runs things?

2) They earned it lawfully

Once again, there is an inherent ignorance in this argument that destabilizes it. How do we know FOR SURE that the wealthy have always walked the straight and narrow, following the law at every turn to earn their wealth? Most of us don't or can't, even. If we take the hypothetical wealthy person who earned their money 100% lawfully, then we must ask ourselves- did they still earn it morally/ethically? Anybody with a political/philosophical mind realizes that the laws we enact are not always moral/ethical, nor do proper morals/ethics always follow from laws/authority. Laws are many times BASED on morals/ethics but NOT vise versa. We must also realize that our system of laws is quite imperfect, including unnecessary or counter-productive parts, loopholes, bureaucratic messes, corruption, authoritarianism, holes/inconsistencies/weaknesses, etc. This is why a company like Wal-Mart or Exxon can get away with terrible things in a lawful manner, they have a massive amount of legal defense at their side to push the boundaries of lawfulness beyond morals/ethics. We must also use systems-thinking to analyze morals/ethics within the context of our systems from afar. That is to say- a business/venture may be legitimate WITHIN our systems of laws, markets, supply/demand, or culture, but that does not necessarily mean that they are legitimate in a scientific, holistic, or ultimate sense. For instance, as a culture/system we accept the role that Wal-Mart or Exxon plays providing their products/services/jobs to society. Many of us shop at Wal-Mart consuming the products within, most of us use petroleum, its byproducts, fuels, plastics, etc. that in large part is provided by Exxon and companies like it. But there is a hidden cost to this consumption- environmental damage comes first, damage to local communities/cultures, corruption of politics/government, mistreatment of customers/workers, ill-effects to health, oppressive policies foisted upon customers/employees/communities/partners/etc., exploitation of non-renewable resources, false advertising/lies, pollutive commercialism/consumerism, unfair/unstable monopolies, and so on and so forth. When assessing the legitimacy of these economic entities, whether they're people or organizations, we MUST take into account a holistic view of what kinds of benefits they provide us stacked against the damage/suffering they cause. There is also the larger issue of overall sustainability (primarily environmental).

...Continued...

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

...Continued

3) They donate to good causes

Philanthropy is a great moral/ethical policy when in possession of great wealth. It is commendable and capable of doing great things. However, regardless of the usefulness of philanthropy, it is still unrelated to HOW that wealth was earned. Even a rich mob-boss who gains money from killing/stealing can still donate to charities, but this does not make the earnings legitimate. To tie this back to a more 'lawful' source of wealth, even a corrupt CEO or an un-corrupt CEO of a destructive company can donate to charity, but this again has nothing to do with where that money came from and how much the CEO actually deserves it. Furthermore, most wealthy people do not donate a very significant percentage of their wealth to charity. When compared to the average civilian's charitable contributions, they are far greater as an amount, but in relation to their own profits the amount can be pretty insignificant. The difference between the wealth of a rich person versus the wealth of an average person is that the average person NEEDS most of their money to survive/thrive, whereas a very wealthy person could donate 90% of their money to charity and STILL be far richer than the average person. Of course every philanthropist is different, every charity is different, and every lone good deed done with wealth is different. This is still something to be encouraged. When pondering the whole nature of philanthropy, though, I once envisioned a fitting analogy to our society- Bill Gates or some other philanthropist is posing for a camera crew, smiling and giving thumbs up, while behind him rages a hellish forest fire, he is throwing buckets of water on some burning grasses showing that he's doing his part to fight the fires, later it is found out that the forest fire had multiple complex causes, one small part of which was actually Bill Gates' fault. In relation to our society, Bill Gates, of course, represents the philanthropist, the forest fire represents the world's problems, the buckets of water represent his money/efforts at solving world problems, the photo-op/posing represents the publicity and praise he receives for his firefighting efforts, and his part in starting the forest fire represents his part in actually CAUSING some problems in the world via the gigantic and at times destructive/oppressive footprint of his company and the effects/demands it has upon the world. So, what follows such an analogy are a couple more refined questions- first, how much does such philanthropy really help to solve world problems? Secondly, how much do their charitable contributions actually OFFSET their part in causing/furthering some of the world's problems? From what I've learned/seen, Bill Gates does seem to actually care about the issues he donates to, but I'm still left wondering- in the grand scheme of things, are his charitable contributions just a drop in the bucket and serve more as an a**-saving mechanism than a considerable force for progress/improvement?

4) They provide desirable jobs/products/services

This is a more complex issue that I'm sure is ultimately quite subjective to people, but still I will offer my views on it. First of all, I'm of the opinion that most jobs, products, and services are not as desirable as they're made to be. Whether it means that most jobs are toilsome/uninspiring busywork in the attainment of the almighty dollar which is required to survive (essentially a false choice), or that many products/services are more excessive, shoddy, destructive, oppressive, and/or wasteful than they seem. Though many people are fortunate to have a job and they MUST work to survive, it still seems a kind of tragic slave-mentality for people to thank the wealthy for sh*t jobs at relatively low pay, almost akin to thanking the police who have locked you in jail for providing you meals... there's just something off about it to me. As for products and services... let's not BS ourselves into idealizing our market, there is a lot of crap out there that we just plain dont need, no matter how cool it'd be to have, there's also something to be said about the evils of consumerism and mindless accumulation of material possessions, we all should know by now that life's about much much more than what we can buy. There's also the suppression of more advanced technologies, designs, materials, qualities... planned obsolescence, insane price markups, ripoffs, infomercials, and the endlessly self-perpetuating nature of advertising and supply/demand. Not to mention the wastefulness of so many products we use and the damage, once again, they do to the environment not only during/after we consume/toss them but during their extraction, production, distribution, etc.

5) They created the idea and/or pioneered it effectively

That's all good and well, and many times we can pat visionary/genius/ingenious/clever/productive entrepreneurs/inventors/business-men on the back for accomplishments. However, once again this does not necessarily legitimize the AMOUNT of money gained or how it was gained. Personally, I'd absolutely want to reap the benefits of an invention or successful entrepreneurial effort, everyone wants to reap the fruits of their labors and be able to live happily/abundantly off it. The problem though, lies in a game of luck/chance where many people may make the same honest effort, while only a minority will succeed. The problem with that is that it's probably not ALWAYS a fair/deserving victory. Very few of us filter through to become truly rich, and those of us who do can attribute it to a lot of luck and timing, along with ingenuity/hard work/perseverance/vision. Once again, there is much to be said about somebody who pinoeers an idea and turns it into a successful venture, but they'd all be NOWHERE without the help/labors they receive from others.


To conclude- the system we live in cannot sustain most of the population living richly; an underclass is a necessary byproduct, not a defect, to civilization. So the whole game is essentially rigged with fluctuations over time in the details but overall the same patterns/rules remain. The utmost question- do the rich deserve THAT MUCH wealth over/above the rest of us?? No.

Oh no! What a heinous conspiracy of the first magnitude! The world's wealthiest people are colluding to give their money away. Ahhhhh, run for the hills before it is too late!!!

Snap, back to reality...Yes philanthropic endeavors are often kind to the patron in terms of tax breaks, etc. but it is myopic to think that the inherent benefit of such an act must be exclusive to either the giver or receiver. In reality both benefit. And while those that relentlessly rail against the "NWO" will not be persuaded by my logic it can be said with almost as much certainty that those railing against the "NWO" are not mired in a life of poverty and famine: and those are the people who are really targeted by the super rich. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and all those NWO nasties aren't trying to help you or I get that first mortgage on that cute tudor down the street; but I think that they genuinely want to help those whose lives are lived in abject poverty, pestilence, famine and war!

reply to post by NoHierarchy


How dare you bring rational thought into this!
Sir, or m'am, I am shocked and offended, and will NOT abide the insinuation that excessive wealth should be reigned in.

How dare you! Do you have no empathy for those who build mansions and villas? What about the poor workers at Aston Martin? How will they be able to feed their families if there is no one demanding 83 room estates, or fleets of high performance sports cars!?

How will they be able to ensure their children get into the best Universities if they cannot afford to provide that school with something as simple and humble as a new wing?

Have you ever had to make due on a mere 7 figure salary? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to be seen driving a 2007 BMW? that's THREE years old!

No, my friend, we should thank our betters for providing us with the gift of the 60 hour work week. After all, the only people that want both a decent living wage AND time with their family and friends are dirty commie-nazi-socialists, and that's just un-American.
remember, slavery = freedom.

And to get back on topic: Let them donate money and make a big show of it. It may do some good, even if that's purely unintentional. Also, I'm not sure being wealthy enough to give away more money than 99% of the world would ever see in a lifetime (many, many times over) AND still remain filthy rich is going to earn many high-fives from the masses.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Ah, but you've just refuted everything you just said.. can't you see? .. By attacking the rich as you do, you do in fact make them a repressed minority.. just because they have money, does not mean they should be treated any differently.. everyone should have the same tax rate, and everyone should be treated the same. You wish to target certain individuals because they have more money than you..

Personally, I find it pathetic, to gravel and wallow in jealousy at the rich. And to try to punish them for having money, you become the monster you claim they are. believe me, I have no sympathy for the rich, nor for their lies like warren and bill pretending to give their money away.. but I have even less respect for people like you because "rich" is not defined as a billionaire ..... it's defined as someone who "has more then most".

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Ah, but you've just refuted everything you just said.. can't you see? .. By attacking the rich as you do, you do in fact make them a repressed minority.. just because they have money, does not mean they should be treated any differently.. everyone should have the same tax rate, and everyone should be treated the same. You wish to target certain individuals because they have more money than you..

Personally, I find it pathetic, to gravel and wallow in jealousy at the rich. And to try to punish them for having money, you become the monster you claim they are. believe me, I have no sympathy for the rich, nor for their lies like warren and bill pretending to give their money away.. but I have even less respect for people like you because "rich" is not defined as a billionaire ..... it's defined as someone who "has more then most".

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You appear to have entirely missed my points. Please read my entire response, it has nothing to do with attacking, jealousy, graveling, or wallowing, I'm just bringing up the plain, sober fact that most of the world is in poverty while a minority of people get to enjoy immense riches. There is NO WAY you can justify such a system unless you're stupid or pathological.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


So we should take from the rich ... and disperse it amongst the poor.. because it's ok for some people to work for the benefit of those who don't?

Sounds a lot like jealous theft to me. I don't like the rich, but I don't want their money either.

If you want money so bad, go out and get some.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Sorry, hard work doesn't equate success, and you along with others should stop equating the two. Success as in money of course.

A genius could event the product of the future with relatively no work and become a billionaire.

It is not about how much you work, but how much you change the world around you. We have had "janitors" for the entire existence of this world, while we have very few people who have created new electronic systems that become an epidemic world wide.

That janitor may work harder than every damn person in this world, but he is doing on inefficient job of improving the lives of everyone else.

So to everyone who thinks they are such a hard worker at your fast food joint (I work at a "fast food" place FYI- but it tastes delicious!) and that you deserve so much more in life - you need a reality check. You are doing a job many others can do that benefits very few people.

These billionaires would be better off sending kids to engineering programs for half of their lives so that one day they can make the technology of the world.

To many people try to steal or rebuild someone else's dreams for themselves. What they fail to see is that those who succeed mentally have built their own dreams from nothing but their imagination.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


so because they were smart and 'earned' their billions, its okay for children in africa to starve?

total bs.

reply to post by Rockpuck


its not about money. its about giving everyone thier entitlement and respect they deserve for the varied jobs they do in society.

nurses and cleaners are some of the most underpaid and under respected people around. everyone respects billionaires - look how great they are, how much they have, how clever they were, and how they earned their wealth etc etc. lets all worship them.

dont look after your nurses and cleaners and dont value their contribution to society and you get to live in a dirty crapheap and no one will look after you when you're old and dribbling.

lots of people contribute to society and deserve equal worth and value.

billionaires are not any more special than a nurse or office cleaner. as without them - who is going to do the unpleasant stuff that keeps society running and is so essential?

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


There's one major problem with what you're saying.
You're making the assumption that the people who run these companies are, in fact, the people responsible for the innovation. In some cases, yes, they initially were, but in a lot of cases the executives are no more than glorified accountants.
Just about every major company in the world has an R&D department. It is the people who work in these departments that are responsible for the innovations that allow a company to be successful. However, their salaries are a fraction of what the executives make. So, really, it's not very often that the innovators are the ones who become wealthy.

And, considering that thanks to nepotism and cronyism their kids would already be in line to be groomed as future executives, I doubt they would worry whether or not they became engineers to create the 'next big innovation'. Leave that to the people with the ideas that are naive enough to believe creativity and know-how will lead to wealth and influence. They would probably be telling Jr. to go into economics or law.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am glad the rich are willing NOW to share their wealth.

But it is much misplaced.

Giving to charities is indeed no deny a GOOD deed, because there are indeed needies in our world. Giving them handouts will ensure they will at least survive the next winter.

But if such funds were to place in creating jobs within the nation, it will lead to an even bigger exponential growth to charity. Once everyone has jobs that ensures each work to live and not live to work, they will have excesses that can be contributed back to charity EVEN MORE.

Failure or success will depend on the acumen of the business entreprenuers, so long as they keep their greed within reasonable bounds, and on manufacturing of hi tech products that can elevate the lives of humanity.

Nevertheless, it is a noble effort AS A START, and may it be a dominoe theory to the rest of the world, to share their wealth as well. There is only so much a person needs in this world and is senseless to hoard in up and not share it.

May more, rich and poor, realise the significance of this start to the possible beginning of a better world, if not for us, at least for our precious next generations, whom should be spared of the sufferings we had to go through,

We this generation will grow old and depend on their help. They truly are the innocent ones. Single or married, no person is born out of a rock and compassion to children is universal for those whom are gifted with love and life...

[edit on 4-8-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]