Warren Buffett gives away his fortune

[Apeman81]

Quote by: |Chris| My favorite quote from him: "There's no reason why future generations of little Buffets should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where is the justice in that?" You have people like Paris Hilton who has had everything handed to her from birth. She doesn't even know the value of money or the pride in spending what you have earned. Good on him.

Not that his future generations are going to grow up concerned about where the next dollar will come from.

Part of the reason one whould work so hard to amass wealth is precisely to ensure that ones future generations can live in comfort.

But not spoiled like Paris. No one should be like Paris. And no one should have to see her everywhere one looks.

[Marilyn Monroe]

From what I've read here and there Buffett hasn't always been a philanthropist.

Personally, I don't trust big giveaways like this. I worked for the richest woman in our state, and she and her kids gave huge money to a University/hospital here. A lot of it was for show. If they truly wanted to be generous they could do it anonymously, but somehow it always makes the press. Tsk! Tsk!

Bill Gates is the same story. They believe in big government, but then they give the money to a private charity. Hypocracy if you ask me. Give it to the government, and let them spend it where it is needed. Plus, charity does begin at home, yet they send a lot of the money to other countries. I still say they want to look good, and that's the bottom line, but I believe it's a nice gesture. I just want to see what they write-off of their taxes, and how much of their businesses, and kids businesses run through these charities. If you ask Angelina Jolie to show how her private charity spends her money, she's gets very quiet. That limo she rides in gets charged to the charity is my guess.

I trust noone, and nice gestures are nice, but how much is fraudulant? That's the billion dollar question. I don't mean illegal, I mean pumped up to be more than it is.

[Boetie]

Is it just coincidence? During the same week that Buffet and Gates were doing their photo opt the Legislative Branch pulled a fast one. What happened was the inheritance tax wasn't repealed, so the lawmakers got clever and raised the bar. They raised the bar so high it practically eliminated the inheritance tax.

But just before they pulled a fast one on the inheritance tax, the same Legislative Branch cut food from hungry children in America.

Here is the logic, they cut food from hungry children because of the deficit, yet doing what they did with the inheritance tax raises the deificit through the roof. Along comes Buffet and Gates with their photo opt, how fucking convenient.

Now is time for a reality check. Buffet and Gates are still alive, there is nothing binding about what they claim they are going to do, in other words they can change their minds. The only thing that really counts is what is actually in their will and only they and their lawyer knows that.

I just find it suspect that this pr stunt was pulled at the same time the inheritance tax bill was passed through and the kids are hungry.

Did the hungry kids get the attention? No! just a couple of rich men and all the sucks ups going ooo and awww over their pr stunt.

What next? are we going to have Lords and Dukes to suck up to?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Boetie Now is time for a reality check. Buffet and Gates are still alive, there is nothing binding about what they claim they are going to do, in other words they can change their minds. The only thing that really counts is what is actually in their will and only they and their lawyer knows that. I just find it suspect that this pr stunt was pulled at the same time the inheritance tax bill was passed through and the kids are hungry. Did the hungry kids get the attention? No! just a couple of rich men and all the sucks ups going ooo and awww over their pr stunt. What next? are we going to have Lords and Dukes to suck up to?

Reality check? I think yours bounced, big time. Last year the Gates Foundation gave more than twice as much away as UNESCO to fight hunger and disease in the US and around the world. That was $1.3 billion dollars. Are you calling $1.3 billion a pr stunt?

Warren Buffett, who you feel so free to sneer at, didn't start a new foundation in his name, for his lasting glory or ego. He gave most of it to the Gates Foundation, which does a remarkably good job in actually helping people. And do know what Buffett pays himself to run his company which has a market cap almost ten times larger than GM? GM's chairman was paid $9 million in 2005. Buffet's pays himself $100,000 per year.

With Buffet's $34 billion, the Gates Foundation is expected to double its yearly giving to well over $2 billion per year. So I guess you call that a publicity stunt as well?

[bishop]

kind of amazing how even when these people donate billions to people in need, other people can only ridicule and criticize them for those decisions.. as if people like marylin are doing anything similar to help people in need with her massive fortune.. and she continues harping on how they're proponents for "big government" even though the gates foundation is PRIVATE.. as usual, she makes no sense, ever...

even if it IS a pr stunt (which i highly doubt), it still doesn't minimize the effect this money will have on people in need.. i don't think the people in malaria-infested villages could give a flying fuck about gates' and buffett's motivations..

and, i also wonder how many middle class people on this site ever donate to causes helping people in need... particularly those who've had nothing but criticism for buffett's decision to donate to a good cause..

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick The whole "only government can be trusted to give away other people's money for the common good" argument makes exactly as much sense as "the rabble cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders."

Jeez, I wonder who's peddling that argument. Not me anyway.

It's not only government, of course. As individuals, maybe I'd trust Dietrich Bonhoeffer, say, or Tommy Douglas. But why should I trust people who are, by definition, the biggest mothers in the jungle? Especially when you consider how they came by the stuff in the first place (talk about "forcible").

No, the best means of wealth distribution is by duly elected and accountable government.
I know that ain't ideologically correct in some circles, but life's a bitch, eh?

[bishop]

Quote by: nono No, the best means of wealth distribution is by duly elected and accountable government.

key word there is accountable.. our government definitely isn't accountable - look at how many billions were wasted (and continue to be wasted) on the recovery from hurricane katrina... scandals are frequently unearthed in the u.n.'s programs.. can you cite a government-run program that does more/better good work than the gates' foundation, with the same level of efficiency?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono No, the best means of wealth distribution is by duly elected and accountable government. I know that ain't ideologically correct in some circles, but life's a bitch, eh?

Sort of like the punchline of the old joke: the three biggest lies - the check is in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning and I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. You want to believe that "government knows best", well that is up to you. I'm not that gullible.

[Boetie]

I find the timing of their pr stunt suspect.

Just the other day, a very low keyed, out of the radar of the main stream media, the Republicans devised a plan to change the inheritance tax bill that will allow 40 trillion dollars to escape taxes. No one in the Legislative Branch is disputing the fact that this will put a burden on every American including the low man on the totem pole.

Every five years the same branch must review the food stamp program. Word is the plan is to cut the food stamp. I have seen in the papers that the reason for cutting the food is because of the deficit.

RickSP and bishop,

both of you are blasting me, because of what I have exposed. The burden on average Americans will be increased because of what the Legislative Branch intents to do with the inheritance tax and what they intend to do with respects to the food for the needy, children and elderly.

The Food for the needy will be cut because of the rational that we have a deficit. However you two want to look at it, it all comes down to the wealthy got a high five and the needy got the jackboot and the two of you are sucking up to a couple of clowns whose charity isn't going to do shit for the burden the low income members of our society will have to face.

Neither of you have addressed the obvious fact. The only concern the two of you have is that I don't bend my neck before the mighty Gates and Buffet, in other words I don't imitate the two of you.

[RickSp]

So it is another conspiracy. Yah right. Warren Buffett is giving away 85% of his fortune so the Bush administration can cut benefits. That may not be the most idiotic argument I've seen on these boards, but it has to rank in the top five.

[Boetie]

RickSp,

Because you live the life of a suck up, there isn't anything that can be done for your pathetic perception. Let's see if you can do the math first read this

Late Edition - Final, Section C, Page 3, Column 3, 716 words DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 716 WORDS -The House voted on Thursday to permanently abolish the estate tax on inherited wealth for all but a sliver of the nation's wealthiest families. The vote, 269 to 156, sets the stage for a decisive vote in the Senate next week. Senate Republicans, conceding that they cannot line up...

That's from the times, When you choke off that much money from getting into Uncle Sam's wallet, the result is high deficit, which means the burden on the average American increases.

Instead of blarring all over the waves about two rich guys giving away money that isn't going to do shit for the average american, how is it that a more important bit of news such as, "hey Americans you're going to get a heavier burden on your shoulder so that the elite can party hearty" doesn't even get on the radar?

I also pointed out a fact that food stamps will get cut and the rational for that will be the deficit.

Keep up with your ridicules and get yourself knee pads cause it looks like you drop to your knees when the lords clap. By the way do you like your lords in powdered wigs?

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick You want to believe that "government knows best", well that is up to you. I'm not that gullible.

Speaking of money, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen you say that if someone wants to believe (INSERT STRAWMAN PARODY HERE) "well that is up to you", I'd be doing nicely.

You, I assume, place your boundless faith in the hyenas. Well good luck.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop key word there is accountable.. our government definitely isn't accountable - look at how many billions were wasted (and continue to be wasted) on the recovery from hurricane katrina... scandals are frequently unearthed in the u.n.'s programs.. can you cite a government-run program that does more/better good work than the gates' foundation, with the same level of efficiency?

Am I a spokesman for the US federal government fercryinoutloud?
The state of the democratic process in the US is something I've often deplored on Volconvo, so no point going over that again.

In the grip of ideological fervour, libertarians poo-poo any and all government with no trace of discriminating judgement.

If that's what they choose to believe, well that is up to them. :rolleyes:

[Boetie]

Two rich guys get more air time and exposure than these two stories which is around the same time period

The one from the times is dated July 23, 2006

Late Edition - Final, Section C, Page 3, Column 3, 716 words DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 716 WORDS -The House voted on Thursday to permanently abolish the estate tax on inherited wealth for all but a sliver of the nation's wealthiest families. The vote, 269 to 156, sets the stage for a decisive vote in the Senate next week. Senate Republicans, conceding that they cannot line up...

The next item is dated July 27, 2006

Republican lawmakers hope to permanently reduce the estate tax this summer. The move could allow more of that $40 trillion to escape the tax. Those who stand to reap the big gains are billionaires, millionaires, and their heirs. But every taxpayer has a stake in the outcome. An estate-tax overhaul could affect the nation's social structure and the tax burden on ordinary Americans for years to come. Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island and George Voinovich (R) of Ohio are concerned about the growth of the federal deficit and the burden of national debt on future generations. Where estate-tax foes dub it the "death tax," Senator Voinovich points to the "birth tax" facing newborn citizens as a result of soaring federal deficits. "Every child born in this country has $28,000 of debt on his back," says Chris Paulitz, a spokesman for the Ohio lawmaker. "Until we're in the black and not the red, [Voinovich] thinks we should not be doing this type of tax cuts."

Full story at this link

Full Story

All I'm saying is how convenient that two rich guys can drown out the above news items rather than news that has a direct impact on all of us.

[bishop]

Quote by: Nono Am I a spokesman for the US federal government fercryinoutloud? The state of the democratic process in the US is something I've often deplored on Volconvo, so no point going over that again. In the grip of ideological fervour, libertarians poo-poo any and all government with no trace of discriminating judgement. If that's what they choose to believe, well that is up to them. :rolleyes:

i also mentioned the u.n. if you didn't already notice...

all i did was asset my opinion that public programs are rife with inefficiency and corruption - and i asked you to cite a public program that does as much good work as the gates foundation with the same level of efficiency. instead of answering my question, you posted this nonsense about libertarianism...

[RickSp]

Quote by: Boetie RickSp, Because you live the life of a suck up, there isn't anything that can be done for your pathetic perception. Let's see if you can do the math first read this Keep up with your ridicules and get yourself knee pads cause it looks like you drop to your knees when the lords clap. By the way do you like your lords in powdered wigs?

You know your insults add exactly nothing to the discussion. They aren't even particularly good insults.

[bishop]

Quote by: boetie RickSP and bishop, both of you are blasting me, because of what I have exposed. The burden on average Americans will be increased because of what the Legislative Branch intents to do with the inheritance tax and what they intend to do with respects to the food for the needy, children and elderly. The Food for the needy will be cut because of the rational that we have a deficit. However you two want to look at it, it all comes down to the wealthy got a high five and the needy got the jackboot and the two of you are sucking up to a couple of clowns whose charity isn't going to do shit for the burden the low income members of our society will have to face. Neither of you have addressed the obvious fact. The only concern the two of you have is that I don't bend my neck before the mighty Gates and Buffet, in other words I don't imitate the two of you.

huh?

that's some incredible logic you have right there, particularly the way you can go from a large donation to a good charitable organization, to theories about inheritance taxes, to the plight of the poor in our country.. and it's hilarious since buffett and gates are both supporters of both the estate and inheritance taxes - contrary to the contrived garbage you're posting here..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1170874.stm

so basically what you're saying is that buffett shouldn't have donated this money to help people, right?

and, your rants about the republican's move to continue issuing tax cuts financed by deficit spending are noted, and irrelevant to this topic.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop this nonsense about libertarianism

Ain't nonsense. It's my considered opinion.

Here's some nonsense (if you want to use such terms): "Public programs are rife with inefficiency and corruption." Not where I live they aren't. And not where I grew up, either.
I'm surprised that you of all people have to be reminded that the United States doesn't occupy the entire known universe.

I say again: Where there's a political will, there's a way. Inefficiency and corruption are prime human traits, in all realms of endeavour.

Some people are too much in the grip of neo-liberal tunnel vision.

[bishop]

i've never voted for a libertarian candidate if that means anything to you...

i'm not aware of the public programs that you've known, which is why i asked you for some examples... why is it so difficult to simply answer my question than posting these inane replies??

and, again, i also mentioned the u.n. besides the u.s... and many of the u.n.'s various agencies have documented cases of serious corruption and inefficiency. i see you have no comment as far as that's concerned.

and... my point about efficiency is that in efficient aid programs, the money has the biggest bang for its buck - meaning that it is the best at actually helping people.

plus, for the record, i haven't said that public programs should be abolished - private groups just do it a lot better, which is probably why governments frequently donate money to private charities.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop private groups just do it a lot better

To me, that's an article of quasi-religious faith, not hard fact.

Why haven't I cited examples? Because they would have seemed to needlessly narrow the scope of discussion. But OK, you gotta one you gotta have it: Here's a programme of great public use run by the Swiss federal government (sorry, no English-language link) to promote sources of renewable energy. Not only does it serve to cut CO2 emissions, it funds a variety of projects that create employment and thus help redistribute wealth throughout society and keep money in average people's pockets. It's publicly accountable, regularly reviewed by elected watchdogs in parliament and -- as far as anyone knows -- corruption free.
This is one lousy little example. Just one.

The UN? Look bishop, where there's muck there's money, and where there's money, there's muck. To whom is the UN accountable? To 190-odd governments. And just look at the regions of the world where it's principally active. Are you telling me that Gates could keep corruption to a lower level in the Congo, say, then the UN?
Pardon my skepticism.