Warren Buffett gives away his fortune

[Nono]

Jesus Murphy!

Quote by: bishop you aren't even attempting to support your argument

And what is my argument, in your opinion? I seriously wonder whether you have the slightest idea at this point.

thanks for the unnecessary insults

Now here's a real challenge, bishop: Cite one single example of an insult. Well, c'mon, I'm waiting.

[Nono]

Quote by: Ben Sikma via bishop Each year individual Americans donate around $35 billion overseas (...) which is more than three and a half times what the U.S. government contributes (...)

So the US government gives 10 billion, right?

As a snapshot, in 2000, the U.S. Agency for International Development reported $56 billion donated to developing countries, sixty percent coming from private giving.

Wait a sec, I thought he just said private giving amounted to three and a half times public giving.

Philanthropy Magazine reported a German study that found the average American contributing around seven times what the average German contributes.

I seriously find that hard to believe, though I know Americans to be generous individually. Even if it's true, I bet anything it's carefully cherry-picked, just the right country, just the right year, etc.

Here's a question: How much of that American private giving is in the form of "charities" being run in the Third World by wack-job churches recruiting converts?

The United States, before a thorough assessment of the catastrophe was possible, made an initial pledge of $15 million in aid to the victims, a sum hastily declared by Jan Egeland, the U.N.’s Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, to be “stingy.”

People were dying fast, in huge numbers. Boy George named, well, what fraction of his cabinet's private fortune?

Jan Egeland, who was "hasty" LOL, used to be foreign minister of Norway, a country that puts the US in the shade bigtime, in many many ways.

And by the way, notice how US aid concentrated on Indonesia, which just happens to be the world's largest Muslim country. Funny ol' coincidence that.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...jectid=9005466

Quote by: New Zealand Herald (...) America's humanitarian response to the tragedy, which has been ratcheted up rapidly after an early impression was created of superpower stinginess, was already being described as something much more, a mission to repair relations with the region severely strained since the invasion of Iraq and to demonstrate its willingness to use its military might as a force for good. (...)

[bishop]

this is your argument:

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.

and i've been citing examples to the contrary, showing that private charities do as good a job, if not better. i have, however, not merely focused on groups solely with domestic focus (society is a very broad term), since the thread began with the gates foundation (which is both internationally and domestically focused).

as for insults... i've taken your off-hand unnecessary comments equating these views (backed up by facts) to religious fanaticism, and the "high temple of market worship" to be insults, albeit clever enough to avoid being blatant insults... how would you choose to characterize your comments?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono What's noteworthy, and endlessly breathtaking, is the econo-religious dogma that private is somehow more efficient and effective than public.

LOL. "econo-religious dogma"? Droll. I give an example of mind boggling waste by the US governement and you dismiss it out of hand. And what is your model of excellence? Switzerland, that paean of perfection and repository of stolen gold.

Just as you claim that those of us who favor private over public engage in "econ-religous dogma" you clearly take the efficiency of Big Brother as a matter of unquestioned faith, excluding of course the example of the evil US. Rather amusing. You are at least as guilty of what you accuse other of.

[Nono]

how would you choose to characterize your comments?

As observations, b. We're bombarded daily by neo-liberal propaganda. Well, sorry, it largely contradicts my own direct experience, so I don't fall for it. It amounts to blind ideology, in my opinio, which -- once embraced -- requires an emotional investment such that the convert can't bear the emotional strain of objectively reviewing his beliefs.
Hell, religions work the same way.

Actually, as I see it my argument in 90% of this thread has been that the public sector (in a country with democratically accountable government) is every bit as efficient as the private sector and ultimately sees to the public good more effectively than the private sector (with its "value for shareholders") possibly could.

But I know this is heresy, and any suggestion that you're in the grip of ideological fervour is a grave personal insult. Right?

Anyway, bishop, you've absolutely failed to come up with any of the insults you were claiming I made. And, if you seriously review my posts, you also missed the main thrust of my argument.

So keep your shirt on. :)

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Switzerland, that paean of perfection and repository of stolen gold.

What a fucking letter-perfect example of Rickian strawmanism and reductio ad absurdum.
And this is the guy who is always whining that people are insulting him.

Now why on earth would I dismiss examples of mind-boggling waste by the US guvmint? Just don't make sense.

I say that the public sector (see criteria -- unmet by the US -- in previous post) is generally a better investment than the private sector. It's up to you and bishop to demonstrate that my claim is false. I'm waiting.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono What a fucking letter-perfect example of Rickian strawmanism and reductio ad absurdum. And this is the guy who is always whining that people are insulting him.

Nope nono. Here you go again with your strawman nonsense and it just doesn't fly. Why even bother? And your childish remarks are noted.

Quote by: Nono Now why on earth would I dismiss examples of mind-boggling waste by the US guvmint? Just don't make sense.

You tell me. I agree with you. Your dismissal of US government waste makes no sense. But that is exactly what you did when I offered an example of massive waste and fraud in agriculture supports - a classic redistribution program. Yet that is exactly what you did. Or do you deny posting the following:

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.

This is actually pretty funny when I see you using Switzerland as an example of efficiency.

Quote by: Nono I say that the public sector (see criteria -- unmet by the US -- in previous post) is generally a better investment than the private sector. It's up to you and bishop to demonstrate that my claim is false. I'm waiting.

No, nono, that is fool's game and not particularly on-topic. Your claim is so obviously false I see no need to waste my time further arguing what for you obviously a matter of faith.

[Mia]

Whether the public or private sector can re-distribute money better sounds like it's own topic.

[Nono]

Nono (quoted by Rick): "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." Rick: "This is actually pretty funny when I see you using Switzerland as an example of efficiency."

There you go again. The only example of government spending conceivably worth serious consideration would have to be in that done in the US. The rest of the world jes doan count.

Yer havin a mighty good ol' laugh over lack of efficiency in Switzerland. Soooo... Rick, dontcha think it's kinda time to cough up the supporting evidence?

Nono (quoted by Rick): "I say that the public sector (see criteria -- unmet by the US -- in previous post) is generally a better investment than the private sector. It's up to you and bishop to demonstrate that my claim is false. I'm waiting." Rick: "No, nono, that is fool's game and not particularly on-topic. Your claim is so obviously false I see no need to waste my time further arguing what for you obviously a matter of faith"

Let me translate that last statement: Yore done outa arguments.

[Matt W]

This has gone completely off-topic. Rick, Nono, Bishop - you want to take chunks out of each other on public vs private, take it to PM or make a new thread. You've all been here long enough to know better. :rolleyes:

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Do you have any evidence for your "suspicions"? Who is to decide where the funds are "most needed". Shouldn't they have the right to donate the money where they see fit? It is their money after all. Please explain how giving away 85% of his wealth is a huge tax break for Buffett in terms of money that he actually gets to keep.

Wouldn't he avoid the estate tax this way? A question, not an answer. It will make his estate much smaller. he'll deny this I'm sure, but it does seem logical, he is 70+ yrs. old, so he knows he's getting up there.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Wouldn't he avoid the estate tax this way? A question, not an answer. It will make his estate much smaller. he'll deny this I'm sure, but it does seem logical, he is 70+ yrs. old, so he knows he's getting up there.

First of all, Warren Buffet would never pay the estate tax. The tax is paid by those who inherit the estate. If Buffet had left all his money to his kids they would have had a large estate tax bill, but they would have still ended up with more money than if he gave it away to charity as he did.

Bottom line, paying the tax would have given the kids more cash than they will now have, so claiming that donating billions so that poor kids get vaccinations or a chance for a better education is some sort of tax dodge is simply wrong.

[Boetie]

The ruling elite of billionaires and multi-millionaires uses its grip on government to repudiate all policies aimed at ameliorating social deprivation and inequality through programs addressing poverty, health care, education, etc. All such measures are rejected as intolerable impediments to the unrestricted accumulation of personal wealth. Instead, those confronting socially created catastrophes are told to rely on the philanthropic largesse of billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

The above is taken from this link

Link

With Buffetts charity, we are now in utopia, hunger has ended for every child in America, everyone will have health care, heaven on earth thanks to Buffett's charity. Rap songs will come to an end because Buffett's charity will put an end to poverty, the ghetto will be a thing of the past, thanks to Buffett's charity. God is jealous, he couldn't create a better heaven than the charity of Buffett will. Roll over Mother Teresa Buffett is here.

All thanks to Buffetts charity, it rose tints my world.

[bishop]

what nonsense... you still make the donation sound as if it's a bad thing.. has anyone claimed that this donation suddenly made the world a utopia? no.

the point is that if there were more like gates and buffett though, things would undeniably be better. and if our government could actually show similar concern, that'd be nice as well..

you're extremely critical of buffett's choice charity here.. perhaps you think he should've done something different with his money? donate it to the federal government perhaps?

[Boetie]

bishop posts: you're extremely critical of buffett's choice charity here

Are you kidding? Compared to Christ and Moses, Buffett blows them out of the waters. I mean come on 5000 loafs of bread, that's pretty lame don't you think? One would think that a Son of a God could do better than that. It's embarrassing to think that a mere mortal topped a Son of God.

As for Moses, I'm not sure exactly what he's done. But, I heard that the golden calf was some kind of bug up his ass.

What do you think Christ and Moses would do if they came back and landed in some poverty stricken area? I'm sure they would feel bad. I don't mean bad for the poor, I mean feel bad that they got upstaged by Buffett.

Do you think it's about time we drop Christ and Moses? Seriously those two are loosers, compared to Buffett.

If Christ and Moses had any brains they would have spent all their time accumulating personal wealth and then gave it all away, Now that would be a class act. But nope I'm afraid Buffett unseated Christ and Moses and showed us all how to do it.

[Matt W]

Boetie - drop the sarcasm and debate. :rolleyes:

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.

[Mia]

Quote by: RickSp First of all, Warren Buffet would never pay the estate tax. The tax is paid by those who inherit the estate. If Buffet had left all his money to his kids they would have had a large estate tax bill, but they would have still ended up with more money than if he gave it away to charity as he did. Bottom line, paying the tax would have given the kids more cash than they will now have, so claiming that donating billions so that poor kids get vaccinations or a chance for a better education is some sort of tax dodge is simply wrong.

They are still getting a billion dollars, but I believe them giving to charity offsets the estate tax they will pay on that. Yes, it does lower the estate tax paid, but to an equal extent it lowers what his kids will get as well.

So his choices are 40 billion to charity or 20 billion to kids, 20 billion to government. I don't see it as a tax dodge. I'd rather spend the money as I saw fit and SEE it spent than leave it to the government and kids and never see the results for myself.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp First of all, Warren Buffet would never pay the estate tax. The tax is paid by those who inherit the estate. If Buffet had left all his money to his kids they would have had a large estate tax bill, but they would have still ended up with more money than if he gave it away to charity as he did. Bottom line, paying the tax would have given the kids more cash than they will now have, so claiming that donating billions so that poor kids get vaccinations or a chance for a better education is some sort of tax dodge is simply wrong.

That's my point. Buffett has been pro-the estate tax which in MHO hinders rich folks from reinvesting their wealth, and they do create jobs with their money. So.....by donating his wealth to charity he will avoid a big percentage of the estate tax which he claims to be for. He's helping his kids out tremendously if he lives three more years. They won't be losing the money to the government, and will have nice cushy jobs on the boards of these various charities.

Besides the major gift to the Gates Foundation, Buffett is dividing $6 billion among four other charities started by his family members. Those foundations support environmental causes, abortion rights, helping low-income children and human rights.

He has a right to do what he wants, but I find so many things these people do to be hypocritical. That talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the rich to pay lots of taxes, but they somehow don't want to. He is going to save his kids a lot of money, and they will still have the prestige of their wealth in tact. He's going to have his money doing what he would wants, not what the government would want.

In a nutshell if he believes in the estate tax then let his wealth go to his estate, and pay the taxes on it. The money would be distributed through the government.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe That's my point. Buffett has been pro-the estate tax which in MHO hinders rich folks from reinvesting their wealth, and they do create jobs with their money. So.....by donating his wealth to charity he will avoid a big percentage of the estate tax which he claims to be for. He's helping his kids out tremendously if he lives three more years. They won't be losing the money to the government, and will have nice cushy jobs on the boards of these various charities. He has a right to do what he wants, but I find so many things these people do to be hypocritical. That talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the rich to pay lots of taxes, but they somehow don't want to. He is going to save his kids a lot of money, and they will still have the prestige of their wealth in tact. He's going to have his money doing what he would wants, not what the government would want. In a nutshell if he believes in the estate tax then let his wealth go to his estate, and pay the taxes on it. The money would be distributed through the government.

First you say that Bufffet has the right to do what he wants with his money and then you say he should turn it over to the government? You obviously care more about your opposition the the Estate tax than you do all the kids whose Buffetts billions may help. Disturbing.

[bishop]

our government is focused on spending money to finance wars and pork barrel projects. socio-economic problems in our country have become worse under GW's great "leadership"...