Warren Buffett gives away his fortune

[Chris]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe 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!

Who was that and what city?

[RickSp]

Funny. A guy gives away most of his wealth - $33 Billion dollars and some posters here act like he has robbed a bank. This says more about them than him.

Mike Bloomberg, billionaire mayor of New York City, is considering becoming a full time philanthropist. No doubt the same folks will slander him as well.

[Mia]

Quote by: brien Nono; Forced redistribution of wealth in society saps initiative, economic drive, and individualism. Example. My son works for union wages in carton printing plant. He is forced to work overtime of which the majority of this overtime money get sucked up in taxes. He is loathe to be forced to work when the majority of this overtime money is confisgated by the government. Hence, his productivity is reduced, his attitude is negative, and his take home pay is less than it would be if he weren't so heavily taxed upon the "time and half" wages. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aside, the average worker in the US resents increased forced withholding when it reaches beyond their regular wages and digs into to their "extra efforts" in productivity known as "overtime". Time and time again, I hear workers say: "Why should I work overtime when most of the money goes to the government"? I believe they have a valid point. This type of redistribution of wealth is unfair to the worker whose pay is derived from a paycheck involved in withholding of taxes. Particularly when a worked is forced to work overtime when the majority of this remuneration is confisgated in taxes by the government.

I don't see how that could be the case. As you earn more, the % taken is raised, but it's not 'most' of the increase. For instance, if you get a 50% pay raise, and that moves you into a 10% higher tax range, you are still taking home signifigantly more money than you were.

[Mia]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready When you have a man/agent/government, standing with a gun pointed at another working man, to FORCE SOMEONE to give you a handout, isn't that MUCH MORE degrading, and also criminal by intent?

It depends on what kind-of hand out we're talking about. To me, I've paid into the system for 22 years. Were I to need and qualify for some government services, I would in no way feel I was accepting a hand-out. I would feel similar to making a claim on my car insurance. I pay in year after year whether I use it or not, and if I have a reason to use it it is my money I am getting paid.

Now if I had never worked? I don't know - that's hard to imagine!!!!

[bishop]

Quote by: Nono 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.

your example almost sounds like what bush's gifts to halliburton would seem like if our government was beholden to the public rather than corporations.. but i digress..

the only government-run programs that i'm aware of focused on aiding people in need have numerous instances of known corruption.. and even the massive ngo's like the red cross have had their bouts with corruption (i no longer donate to the red cross, although i have many times in the past)..

one definitely ought not minimize the good work that the gates foundation does, regardless of their preferance towards government-run programs.. as it currently stands, the gates foundation:

accounts for more than half of worldwide spending, about $159 million, on research and treatment for diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061501300.html

check out difference in scale between the u.n. and the gates foundation in helping aids victims:

In the last two years, the Gates Foundation has committed $350 million to fighting AIDS. The U.N. Foundation, created by a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner, targeted $45.9 million in the past three years to fight AIDS in adolescent girls, and the Rockefeller Foundation has also given millions.

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthen...ap_040701.html


i'll go back to your original comment:

Quote by: nono Admirable and far-sighted as they are, they can't replace -- or even serve as a bandaid for -- government policy that redistributes wealth throughout society.

the topic here was focused on a private charity whose work goes towards saving lives, not redistributing wealth in order to support a socialist-inspired system. as far as groups focused on saving lives is concerned, the swiss government (or any other government for that matter) does a poor job. in terms of support for aids victims, bush announced the biggest government program ever (amounting to $15 billion to be spent over the course of 5 years) - of course, his party never appropriated the money for this hollow program..

and to toss the u.n. a carrot, its global fund under UNAIDS where $8.3 billion was collected and allocated towards the global aids response (the u.s. supplied 1/3 of this amount). and in 2001, the gates foundation contributed almost as much as the governments of the u.k. and france, respectively.

http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/global_spending.pdf

etc.. etc... etc...

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: |Chris| Who was that and what city?

Martha Ingram. Nashville, Tennessee. Vanderbilt University/Hospital. Her husband Bronsan died from a brain tumor, so they now call the cancer center- TheVanderbilt/ Ingram Cancer Center.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Funny. A guy gives away most of his wealth - $33 Billion dollars and some posters here act like he has robbed a bank. This says more about them than him. Mike Bloomberg, billionaire mayor of New York City, is considering becoming a full time philanthropist. No doubt the same folks will slander him as well.

Most definitely.

[RickSp]

Nono's suggestion that a benevolent government knows best how to redistribute wealth is itself an act of faith, one which flies in the face of both common sense and experience. The front page of this morning's washington Post is a good example:

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards. The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare. The Post's nine-month investigation found farm subsidy programs that have become so all-encompassing and generous that they have taken much of the risk out of farming for the increasingly wealthy individuals who dominate it. The farm payments have also altered the landscape and culture of the Farm Belt, pushing up land prices and favoring large, wealthy operators. The system pays farmers a subsidy to protect against low prices even when they sell their crops at higher prices. It makes "emergency disaster payments" for crops that fail even as it provides subsidized insurance to protect against those failures.

So here is just another an example of the government subsiding the wealthy and the influential. It is the nature of the beast. Taxpayer dollars attract special interests and lobbyists like flies to honey. Funneling twice as much to rich farmers than to welfare recipients is typical. Guess who has the better lobbyists? Big Agricultural or poor folks?

Nono, you are the one with "boundless faith in the hyenas".

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Most definitely.

So Marilyn, do you consider all private philathropists to be evil? So far I haven't seen you post a single good thing about them.

[Boetie]

Where have I gone down this road before?

We have here RickSp whom cherrypicks sentences from my post, in order to run away from my point. He ridicules or cherrypicks, whatever he does he doesn't like the truth. Truth is the most vile thing to him.

Then we have bishop that takes another approach of burying his head in the sand and all the while bleating that my post is off topic. Good way to run away from the truth as well.

This thread reminded me of Mark Twain's "Banquet for a Senator" it was about a real Senator, whom was a rich man, that gave to charity. The purpose of the banquet was to honor the rich man for his generosity.

I'll get back to Twain in a second.

Our local paper wrote a piece on Warren Buffet. It quoted a very interesting comment from him, he stated, "I get calls from members of the Legislative Branch telling me for the right money they will change the flag to any color I want it." That was an interesting comment from Buffet, it also reminded me of this comment written by Twain:

William Penn bought the whole state of Pennsylvania from the Indians and paid for it like a man, paid $40 dollars worth of glass beads and a couple of second hand blankets. Bought the whole state for that. Why you can't buy its legislature for twice the money now.

Based on RickSP and bishop's post, I would say they would have to ridicule and put down Twain as well, because in the last paragraph of "Banquet for a Senator" Twain wrote:

This was the first time I had ever seen men get down in the gutter and frankly worship dollars and their possessors. Of course I was familiar with such things through our newspapers, but I had never before heard men worship the dollar with their mouth or seen them on their knees in the act.

The inheritance bill was to have been debated on earlier, but got rescheduled because of Katrina. The Legislative Branch thought it would be in bad taste to debate this at a time when everyone was watching our government. So it's best to hold off on this while no one is watching. You see the members of the Legislative Branch were concerned about the publics perception of them.

Men like Gates and Buffett, they too make use of Public Relation firms. These firms like any firm take pains to schedule annoucements at the right time and the right place. As a PR firm you may want to take a look at what's on Capitol Hill's schedule. After all it wouldn't look good to come out with an announcement at the same time Capitol Hill is doing something which may make your annoucement stink. People may get the wrong impression.

RickSp and bishop got really upset because I pointed out that Gates and Warren's, aka the dynamic duo, made their announcement at the same period that Capitol Hill is debating the inheritance tax. It's not like the Public Relations firm couldn't see this.

We all know that food stamps do have an impact on children living in Shitshack, Iowa and Crapsville, Oklahoma. Yet, these same children will see nothing of the dynamic duo's generosity. These same children will see a cut in their food intake because the Hill is saying the deficit needs to be controlled and yet at the same time the Hill is going to skyrocket the deficit when they cut the inheritance tax. This reminds me of another comment by Twain when he wrote in the New York Tribune back in 1873:

"To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low mean, premature Congressman."

How convenient that RickSP and bishop is rallying others to drop to their knees before the dynamic duo while at the same time the Hill is going to put an knife in the backs of the Children of America, and twist the knife too.

[bishop]

Quote by: boetie RickSp and bishop got really upset because I pointed out that Gates and Warren's, aka the dynamic duo, made their announcement at the same period that Capitol Hill is debating the inheritance tax. It's not like the Public Relations firm couldn't see this.

i didn't get really upset, and spare us your asshat antics about dropping to our knees.. the ignorance of your posts is what's upsetting.

as i posted earlier, your ramblings about this inheritance tax conspiracy theory amount to an exercise in idiocy.. i guess you were too lazy to read the link i posted.. here's another one that hopefully spells things out clear enough for you to understand, even though it's a virtual certainty that you'll continue pushing your meritless theory.

http://images.forbes.com/home/busine...27charity.html

The Buffet-Gates announcement also presents an additional side to another issue that has garnered a lot of attention lately, both in Congress and among the American people--the inheritance tax. Some people are opposed to the tax on philosophical grounds, believing that a person who spends a lifetime working to build wealth should be able to leave an estate as he sees fit. But with many estates taxed at a 55% rate over and above the first $2 million that's passed along, even the stingiest of wealthy individuals is naturally encouraged to leave more to charity. The alternative, after all, is the government. "You really don't have a choice," Huntsman says. During Monday's appearance at the New York Public Library, both Gates and Buffett affirmed their opposition to inherited wealth, with Gates reiterating his well-known support for maintaining an inheritance tax. He agrees that the tax encourages charitable giving, although that's not the biggest reason he supports it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop i didn't get really upset, and spare us your asshat antics about dropping to our knees.. the ignorance of your posts is what's upsetting.

That summarizes it nicely. The insults and ranting gets tiresome and more than a little boring.

[Jack]

both Gates and Buffett affirmed their opposition to inherited wealth

One has to wonder if their children feel the same, or will when they're adults. It's very hard to be noble in the face of a billion dollar trust fund.

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Nono's suggestion that a benevolent government knows best how to redistribute wealth is itself an act of faith, one which flies in the face of both common sense and experience.

I have to laugh at the way the bottom line is always what the US federal government does, or doesn't, manage to pull off. When your horizon is that claustrophobic, you cast your net pretty short.

Nono, you are the one with "boundless faith in the hyenas".

I don't put my faith in hyenas, nor do I need to. I think the problem is that your neighbourhood is so thickly populated by them.

[bishop]

when they held the recent press conference, buffett did say that he had a $1 billion trust for his kids.. of course, while it seems like a ton of money to us (and no doubt, it is), it's just a small fraction of his wealth. buffett also said that his children actively donate to charity. gates' children run their own charities.. and i believe both families' children are doing well for themselves and probably don't need any inheritance at all.

kind of hard to believe that there are wealthy people in this day in age who actually have social consciences - but these two powerful families are solid examples.

[bishop]

Quote by: nono I have to laugh at the way the bottom line is always what the US federal government does, or doesn't, manage to pull off. When your horizon is that claustrophobic, you cast your net pretty short.

of course, when you talk about what foreign governments donate in raw numerical terms to non-domestic causes, the amounts aren't particularly noteworthy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood One has to wonder if their children feel the same, or will when they're adults. It's very hard to be noble in the face of a billion dollar trust fund.

An interesting article about the Buffett "kids", who are 48, 51 and 52 respectively. They sound like they have their heads screwed on straight.

Buffett Children Emerge as a Force in Charity

The three middle-aged children of Warren E. Buffett watched along with the rest of the country last week as their father, the celebrated investor, told the world that he would pass the bulk of his $40 billion personal fortune to the charitable foundation of Bill Gates, a fellow billionaire, and his wife, Melinda. But Susie, Howard and Peter Buffett — who, like their self-effacing father seem little affected by money — spent the week focusing not on what they might have received. Instead, the siblings said in interviews, they were already at work trying to figure out how to manage a gift from their father valued at about $1 billion each that will go to their own charitable foundations.

[Boetie]

RickSp and bishop

Nowhere in any of your posts do either of you address this issue which is:

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."

I asked how does the dyanmic duo's generosity affect the children living in Shitshack, Iowa and Crapsville, Oklahoma?

You know the answer? the generosity of the dynamic duo doesn't do shit for those children.

Between the subject of food being cut from children and two rich guys, you two rather waste time singing to the two rich guys "for they're a jolly good fellow", Which means you two fit this description:

This was the first time I had ever seen men get down in the gutter and frankly worship dollars and their possessors. Of course I was familiar with such things through our newspapers, but I had never before heard men worship the dollar with their mouth or seen them on their knees in the act.

But the two of you are not alone. The media is playing on the dynamic duo story too. And the reality of:

An estate-tax overhaul could affect the nation's social structure and the tax burden on ordinary Americans for years to come.

is not getting any play in the media.

How convenient.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono I don't put my faith in hyenas, nor do I need to. I think the problem is that your neighbourhood is so thickly populated by them.

As you know nothing of my neighborhood I do find it odd that you make such bold and downright peculiar assertions.

[bishop]

boetie, you make no sense at all with your unrelated ranting about the deficit.. and repeating the same nonsense does little to further your argument - probably accomplishes nothing more than making you dizzy trying to save face.

i asked you before, but you conveniently chose not to answer me as you continued posting your garbage. now you are posting more garbage saying that they're taking food out of the mouths of children.. so, i'll ask it again:

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

from your ramblings, it can be inferred that your answer is "no"... and if that's the case, kindly tell us why it's wrong to donate money for the benefit of deeply impoverished people living the disease-ridden cesspools of the third world..

(perhaps you think they should give the money to the government instead, so that the corrupt incumbents can pass more pork spending bills on top of more tax cuts, etc..)

plus, links have been posted clearly showing that gates and buffett do not support cutting or eliminating either the inheritance or estate taxes.. on the contrary, it would seem that they think those taxes ought to be higher. and, as i said before, your comment about these taxes is completely without merit since both families agree with chafee/voinovich, who also oppose cutting or eliminating either tax..


that'll be my last post to you, unless you actually address the points i've repeatedly made. and please, don't continue to repost the same garbage that i've already proven to be nothing more than lies and slander.