No.
The page you link has the foundation’s leadership structure. He’s a cochair on the board with 8 total people. The board is a degree removed from day to day operations of the foundation. He’d have to convince the board to then convince the executives.
That transaction would then show up in their financial statements, which are audited and publicly posted on that website. Meaning using the foundation’s money for something like a private jet would likely become public knowledge within a couple years and would do irreparable harm to the foundation’s reputation. Maybe they could hide it but good luck convincing everyone involved it’s worth the risk without a shitload of additional corruption.
he does not get labeled as such in the news anymore
That’s because the philanthropy is working exactly as intended - to white wash his reputation, and make him out to be “the good billionaire”.
Moving down from no. 1 to no. 5, at that scale of wealth literally has no impact on him, but rather it’s money well spent to take the heat and attention off of him so he can continue exploiting an hoarding in peace.
I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so popular.
He spent a boatload of cash vaccinating kids which has undoubtedly saved 10s of millions of lives.
Fuck him right? What an asshole.
Yes he gets a tax deduction for money contributed to the foundation, but it’s still a net loss to him.
Yes the foundation probably pays for jets and flights but its audited regularly so it can’t be used as a personal slush fund for private purposes.
Yes I’m sure there were some unintended consequences and failed projects, but solving problems and helping people particularly in impoverished nations is hard.
Are other billionaires doing a better job of saving the world ?
Because we shouldn’t be, and don’t need to be, relying on the goodwill of Billionaires to solve social problems. Instead of giving tax breaks for billionaires to pick and choose which issues to fund, we should tax the billionaires out of existence and democratically decide what to do with our money.
Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires. We don’t need them.
Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires.
What a silly thing to say.
No one is saying “oh yes well we need billionaires because they donate all their money to worthy causes”.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist, but if we’re getting out the guillotine I don’t really understand why Gates should be first in line.
People absolutely say that, “philanthrocapitalism” is a nerdy word for it it, but that basic argument comes up in a lot of contexts … pay attention.
Only an idiot would make such a claim. Lots of idiots say lots of stupid things. It’s still not a reason for the hatred of gates.
🤷🏻♂️ Pay attention, look for it and you will see this argument come up a lot. Trickle-down economics is a similar idea, and that was a national talking point for years.
Dude. Pay attention. We’re here discussing why everyone hates BG. Your point is “yeah well idiots think we need billionaires to pay for vaccines”? Is that why we should hate the person who is actually spending their fortune on vaccines?
deleted by creator
My issue is that we allow people to amass these massive fortunes to then choose what problems they fix.
Not to dissuade from anything good BG has done, that doesn’t excuse all the terrible things he did to amass this fortune.
Sure. Microsoft was a scumbag company in the 90s with some pretty aggressive corporate practices, and gates was the beneficiary of that.
I also agree that billionaires just generally shouldn’t exist.
That said, I guarantee that 99% of commenters in this thread have pension funds holding investments in infinitely worse scumbag companies.
Also, Gates more or less just stopped. He still has a 1% holding in Microsoft or something, but he’s not grinding away burning baby dolphin oil for personal gain.
There’s plenty of hatred for terrible corporate practices to go around, but I don’t understand why Gates is targeted more than anyone else.
I mean not to go against the propaganda but shouldn’t we allow kids to have vaccines without a boatload of cash?
Just cause you save a million kids doesn’t mean you can harm 10 million more, though that could mean a 10x return on investment
Well of course kids should have vaccines for free.
Who gives out the free vaccines though? If governments don’t then who? If a wealthy person chooses to use their own money to do so, should we hate that person?
Also, I don’t really follow your claim around harming 10 million kids? Or return on investment? What harm and what investment? Can you elaborate?
Removed by mod
Certainly one of us is the victim of misinformation.
There is a lot of evidence from numerous independent parties that the foundation has saved many millions of lives through its vaccine programs. It’s indisputable.
Do you have any evidence of widespread exploitation of those people?
you guys are both right.
the foundation does good work.
the foundation is a smokescreen to make observers feel that he’s a “good billionaire”, and thus, making us feel we shouldn’t be mad that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money that could do even more. (In effect : we should still be mad)
The smokescreen thing just doesn’t make any sense though. Up to 2020 he had contributed ~$50b to philanthropic endeavours, and then a few years ago “pledged” to contribute another $110b.
This is the vast majority of his wealth and the very reason he’s moving down the list of wealthy people. Maybe he won’t make good on his pledge, but he appears to be doing exactly that.
The only evidence that this is a “smokescreen” is that these contributions make him look good.
There’s no evidence that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money in comparisson to the amounts he’s contributing. There’s plenty of other billionaires who aren’t doing anything at all.
My point is, if we’re looking around for billionaires to hate because they’re hoarding money and not helping why are we so fixated on the one who actually is contributing most of his money to these causes?
deleted by creator
I’d very much doubt he can just use it any way he pleases, or for personal use at all for that matter.
I don’t know about charity law in the US, but the point of a foundation, I think, is that you lose control of the money, and in return don’t have to pay tax on it anymore.
That’s not to say that shenanigans aren’t possible, or that he doesn’t still have a say, but I don’t think he could use it the way you’re describing.
If one of his companies got fined by a government entity, could he offer to make a charitable donation in lieu of the fine? And then make the donation using his foundation?
This one may sound far-fetched, but could he have a straw bidder buy a portrait of himself being sold at auction and then pay that straw bidder with money from his foundation? And then the straw bidder would transfer the portrait to him.
Neither of these are at all possible.
The foundation is audited each year by independent auditors to ensure that the money is being spent in accordance with the objectives of the foundation.
Hey, I did state it was far-fetched. I guess no one would try to pull this off.
can he spend that foundation money any way he wants
Yes and No. Yes, he can make the decisions. No, the purpose is somewhat limited.
But since he created this foundation and defined it’s purpose, it will always do what he wanted to do anyway.
instead of spending his personal money?
Above some certain level, your personal expenses simply don’t matter anymore. You can throw money around all day long, but you cannot become poor again.
https://youtu.be/69AtkAHkKEc?si=zCei4ckJEQd13snJ
A good idea of how billionaires use charitable donations.
I can’t be bothered watching an hour long youtube video.
Ok
It’s hilarious how you don’t realise how the only thing you did with that comment is prove your idiocy, ignorance and that you have the attention span of a teenager with bad peers. You can’t just concentrate everything into 5 minute videos, most things worth learning about require more information and learning than that.
Sorry chief.
Video is actually a really terrible medium with which to convey actual information, it’s only benefit is that it makes information more palettable to people not accustomed to learning things.
It genuinely concerns me that there are people like your good self who think that a youtube video is a good way to learn about a complex and nuanced topic like charities, non profits, and philanthropy.
To be clear, the “explainer” producing the linked video is in the business of selling views, not providing balanced, reliable information. These two objectives are incongruous.
Sadly, your comment says more about your own inability to absorb information than it does about mine. “Hilarious” indeed.
Think of it like he already spent that money. It belongs to the foundation now, not to him.
Even his own net worth is not money he can just spend. He doesn’t have 5 billion in his bank account. He owns assets in different levels of liquidity whose value fluctuates.
Bill Gates hasn’t technically been the richest person in the world for a long time.
deleted by creator
Answer is still no. The foundation money isn’t technically his personal money. Which is why it’s not counted as part of his personal wealth. The link to the foundation page you yourself linked to has this information, too… Something something reading comprehension.
deleted by creator
