30 American billionaires to give at least half their fortunes to charity

starbelgrade

Fighting Irish wrote: »

You are looking at the evolution of the world, not the evolution of man

Surely the two go hand in hand?

starbelgrade

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

So, "charity" is bad - i.e, anything that isn't a "government organisation" or "commercial organisation" is bad?

What?

Donkey Oaty

starbelgrade wrote: »

No.

The argument is that charities shouldn't have to exist & when they do, for the most they do more harm than good, in the guise of being a "good thing".

Another thought: how about if the rich guys have agreed with your first point but understood that they were living in the world as it is rather than the world as it ought to be, and decided to give money to the charities that did more good than harm - or, more likely, set up their own?

starbelgrade

MrStuffins wrote: »

No you haven't. It's easy for you to criticise those who give to those less fortunate than them, while you do nothing of the sort and blame those factor which you, conveniently, can't control.

What about the ones you can control?

I am not, nor have I criticised those who give to the less fortunate. My beef is with social policies & conditions that allow people to be less fortunate that they rely on donations for basics such as food, shelter, health care & education.

I don't believe in charity, so my slice of the pie is irrelevant.

starbelgrade

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Another thought: how about if the rich guys have agreed with your first point but understood that they were living in the world as it is rather than the world as it ought to be, and decided to give money to the charities that did more good than harm - or, more likely, set up their own?

By setting up their own charities, they would be simply maintaining the status quo. Quite frankly, I would be happier if they kept the money.

Donkey Oaty

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't believe in charity, so my slice of the pie is irrelevant.

Do you have a term for "not-for-profit organisations" that seek to improve the living conditions of others?

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't believe in charity, so my slice of the pie is irrelevant.

so what gives you the right to say things like..........

starbelgrade wrote: »

The bottle is usually more than half empty because some people have drank more than their fair share of it.

So your slice of the pie is irrelivant, but you think you are in a position to criticise other people's slices?

Fighting Irish

starbelgrade wrote: »

Surely the two go hand in hand?

:rolleyes:

starbelgrade

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Do you have a term for "not-for-profit organisations" that seek to improve the living conditions of others?

NPOs are a different ballgame altogether - they would include the likes of governments, trade unions & community building programmes.

gbee

Biggins wrote: »

30 American billionaires today pledged to give away at least half their fortunes to charity

That's feffin scary. Th end of the world must neigh.

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

Surely the two go hand in hand?

No.

starbelgrade

MrStuffins wrote: »

so what gives you the right to say things like..........



So your slice of the pie is irrelivant, but you think you are in a position to criticise other people's slices?

The second quote you posted was a throwaway comment, meant to be a "witty" retort to a post by Biggins. It may have failed on the witty scale though, as it seems to have been taken literally.

Dempsey

Fair play to them for doing this but I dont think they will improve the standard of living of those they wish to help at all.

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

The second quote you posted was a throwaway comment, meant to be a "witty" retort to a post by Biggins. It may have failed on the witty scale though, as it seems to have been taken literally.

Fine. So you don't believe in Charities or Charity itself.

Am i right in thinking that you are of the opinion that everyone should just fend for themselves? What exactly Is your view rather than being seemingly Anti-Capitalism?

gbee

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

So, have I got this right: some posters think that rich guys giving some (or actually a lot) of their money way to charidee is a bad thing?

Yes. It reminds me of the study of apes in a jungle clearing. Researchers dropped a few extra bananas and they all shared between themselves.

One day the researchers dropped a truck load of bananas and were shocked to see fighting and killing break out in the community of apes. Once sharing and caring, they now exhibited a greed and totally the opposite of what they had been, sadly that ape community never recovered and the few males guarding the pile died of hunger guarding rotten fruits.

starbelgrade

MrStuffins wrote: »

No.

Some would argue that human evolution has accelerated as a result of the development of agriculture and civilisation since some 50,000 years ago, and that there are consequently substantial genetic differences between different current human populations.

So in some ways human evolution & the evolution of the world do, sometimes, go hand in hand.

Funkfield

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah Jesus Christ.. This is brilliant. No need to put a sour twist on it.

areu4real? wrote: »

Was just about to say this. No matter what way you look at it, this act of generosity is great. Wether they want to alleviate the guilt, reduce a tax bill, get publicity, etc. it is still a load of funding going to people who need and deserve it.

Totally.

I don't care how or why this has happened. It cannot be bad. It is amazing.

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

Some would argue that human evolution has accelerated as a result of the development of agriculture and civilisation since some 50,000 years ago, and that there are consequently substantial genetic differences between different current human populations.

So in some ways human evolution & the evolution of the world do, sometimes, go hand in hand.

Development of agriculture and civilisation are Human Evolution, not evolution of the world.

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Development of agriculture and civilisation are Human Evolution, not evolution of the world.

Anyway, there is no such thing as "Human Elolution", we are all animals and have evolved just like every other animal.

site designer

Doyler92 wrote: »

I heard somewhere before that if the 10 richest people donated a certain % of their wealth, there would be no more poverty in the world.

I think it could be true but how would that work? Like where is the poor/not poor line?

Money does not directly equate to food and fuel, so no - it wouldn't matter, there's only so much resources to go round.

Oafley Jones

Fighting Irish wrote: »

We are ruining the evolution of the human race by helping the vulnerable, survival of the fittest, it might be cruel but in the long term it's the only way the world can work

"The only way the world can work" WTF kind of an ill thought out brain fart is that. What type of Übermensch ideal have you cooked up in your mind? Seriously bizarre reading on evolutionary theory Fighting Irish.

dapto1

Fair play to them. It's sad people are trying to put a negative spin on this.

Donkey Oaty

gbee wrote: »

Yes. It reminds me of the study of apes in a jungle clearing. Researchers dropped a few extra bananas and they all shared between themselves.

One day the researchers dropped a truck load of bananas and were shocked to see fighting and killing break out in the community of apes. Once sharing and caring, they now exhibited a greed and totally the opposite of what they had been, sadly that ape community never recovered and the few males guarding the pile died of hunger guarding rotten fruits.

What else do they teach you at Bible class?

MrStuffins

gbee wrote: »

Yes. It reminds me of the study of apes in a jungle clearing. Researchers dropped a few extra bananas and they all shared between themselves.

One day the researchers dropped a truck load of bananas and were shocked to see fighting and killing break out in the community of apes. Once sharing and caring, they now exhibited a greed and totally the opposite of what they had been, sadly that ape community never recovered and the few males guarding the pile died of hunger guarding rotten fruits.

What the hell are you on about?

Is Warren Buffett convincing George Lucas to buy bananas?

starbelgrade

MrStuffins wrote: »

Fine. So you don't believe in Charities or Charity itself.

Am i right in thinking that you are of the opinion that everyone should just fend for themselves? What exactly Is your view rather than being seemingly Anti-Capitalism?

I believe in a form of social democracy - so, no I would not just let people fend for themselves, neither am I completely against the idea of capitalism, but would like however, to see the excesses of it restrained greatly.

Oafley Jones

Fair play to Bill Gates though, he's already given a phenomenal amount of money to charity and it's good to see that he has persuaded other to do likewise. He's often said that seeing how his money is helping others is the most rewarding thing he has done. Much better to give it while alive than after you've gone. To quote Voltaire....

The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

I believe in a form of social democracy - so, no I would not just let people fend for themselves, neither am I completely against the idea of capitalism, but would like however, to see the excesses of it restrained greatly.

ah, but you see, we live in the real world with real people. and in the real world, not everybody is like minded.

this Social Democracy might be the ultimate solution in your mind and perhaps in theory, but it's not how the world works.

And considering this IS the real world, convincing people to give half of their wealth is no easy feat. And it should be looked upon with great admiration! Because, no matter what way you look at it, this money is going to do more good now than it would have sitting in bank accounts.

Donkey Oaty

starbelgrade wrote: »

I believe in a form of social democracy - so, no I would not just let people fend for themselves, neither am I completely against the idea of capitalism, but would like however, to see the excesses of it restrained greatly.

Does your scepticism about philanthropy stem from a belief that it reinforces the status quo?

starbelgrade

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Does your scepticism about philanthropy stem from a belief that it reinforces the status quo?

Yes.

MrStuffins wrote: »

ah, but you see, we live in the real world with real people. and in the real world, not everybody is like minded.

this Social Democracy might be the ultimate solution in your mind and perhaps in theory, but it's not how the world works.

It might sound strange to you, but I live in the real world too. I also believe in democracy too (which is where the 'democracy' in 'social democracy, comes from, funnily enough).

And I know that not everyone is like minded & it is condescending of you to suggest that somehow I do not know how "the world works" and naive of you to suggest that social change can & does happen.

Many of the policies espoused by social democrats in the first half of the 20th century have since been put into practice by social democratic governments throughout the industrialized world. Industries have been nationalized, public spending has seen a large long-term rise, and the role of the state in providing free-to-user or subsidized health care and education has increased greatly.

All of these have been 'real' changes, made by 'real people' in the 'real world'.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Because, no matter what way you look at it, this money is going to do more good now than it would have sitting in bank accounts.

And the long term solution to having people with so much money in their bank accounts, that they will never have time to spend it, is to tax them more & distribute the wealth on a fair basis, in a democratic way and not to causes that the uber-wealthy deem suitable.

ascanbe

It's no wonder many people are asking 'Where's the catch?', 'What do they stand to gain from this?', etc.
People like this didn't get where they are by giving things away; no harm in asking why they choose to do so now.
Giving what we've seen of how many people in business behave, over the last number of years, it's hard not to be cynical.
Perhaps they're going to hand over this 'wealth' by essentially handing over ownership of companies/shares etc, that financial 'experts' they've employed, swear are in rude health.
When this then turns out to be incorrect/lies and the companies/share price collapse, these businessmen will have escaped/passsed on debt that would have crippled them.
Or perhaps, it is all just as they claim; in which case, i applaud them.

MrStuffins

So what are you doing about all this Starbelgrade?

ScissorPaperRock

You'd need to have a seriously miserable attitude to complain about this.

****ing up evolution? Seriously? You think this is an argument? There is no basis for this whatsoever. Oh yeah evolution = letting the exploited (the poor) die.

Don't believe in charity? But some people have too much? Yet the people who have too much can't give some towards helping those who don't have enough?

What a joke.

This is going to improve people's lives, this is a good thing.

starbelgrade

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

You'd need to have a seriously miserable attitude to complain about this.

****ing up evolution? Seriously? You think this is an argument? There is no basis for this whatsoever. Oh yeah evolution = letting the exploited (the poor) die.

Don't believe in charity? But some people have too much? Yet the people who have too much can't give some towards helping those who don't have enough?

What a joke.

This is going to improve people's lives, this is a good thing.

Arguments against the benefits of charity are not a new thing;

"For every act of charity, applied to heal suffering arising from defective arrangements of society, serves to weaken the personal springs of social reform, alike by the 'miraculous' relief it brings to the individual 'case' that is relieved, and by the softening influence it exercises on the hearts and heads of those who witness it.

It substitutes the idea and the desire of individual reform for those of social reform, and so weakens the capacity for collective self-help in society."

J A Hobson, Work and Wealth, 1914

ScissorPaperRock

starbelgrade wrote: »

Arguments against the benefits of charity are not a new thing;

"For every act of charity, applied to heal suffering arising from defective arrangements of society, serves to weaken the personal springs of social reform, alike by the 'miraculous' relief it brings to the individual 'case' that is relieved, and by the softening influence it exercises on the hearts and heads of those who witness it.

It substitutes the idea and the desire of individual reform for those of social reform, and so weakens the capacity for collective self-help in society."

J A Hobson, Work and Wealth, 1914

Yes, that's a source. Doesn't mean it's correct. In fact it sounds like a sweeping generalisation. I'd imagine that these donations are not been given to address the symptoms (i.e. individual cases or surface problems) but rather the causes. Such as the cancer research donation being made by one of them.

areu4real?

As long as it goes to the people who really need it

http://i10.tinypic.com/6d2bekj.png

starbelgrade

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Yes, that's a source. Doesn't mean it's correct. In fact it sounds like a sweeping generalisation. I'd imagine that these donations are not been given to address the symptoms (i.e. individual cases or surface problems) but rather the causes. Such as the cancer research donation one of them is making.

If you go back a century or two, you'll discover that many of the essential services we now expect governments to provide were provided by charities or not at all. As the role of government increased, charities took on the role of supplementing the government spend, rather than provide the basic service.

To that end, you could argue - quite validly - that finding a cure for cancer should not be left to funding from the crumbs off the table of the well-off.

areu4real?

starbelgrade wrote: »

To that end, you could argue - quite validly - that finding a cure for cancer should not be left to funding from the crumbs off the table of the well-off.

That's the real issue. Don't want to go on a mad rant but the but global military spending is estimated at $1600bn <-:eek:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
Couldn't find estimates for healthcare but if the America set any kind of benchmark then its a massive gap.

$1600bn, on war....

starbelgrade

areu4real? wrote: »

That's the real issue. Don't want to go on a mad rant but the but global military spending is estimated at $1600bn <-:eek:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
Couldn't find estimates for healthcare but if the America set any kind of benchmark then its a massive gap.

$1600bn, on war....

And "ironically", how many millionaires have made their millions from the war industries?

Quite a few, I would imagine.

ScissorPaperRock

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you go back a century or two, you'll discover that many of the essential services we now expect governments to provide were provided by charities or not at all. As the role of government increased, charities took on the role of supplementing the government spend, rather than provide the basic service.

To that end, you could argue - quite validly - that finding a cure for cancer should not be left to funding from the crumbs off the table of the well-off.

It definitely should not be. But realistically, this is money going to areas that are in need of more resources, that's a good thing. Whether or not there should be more coming from other sources is not really the issue here.

Also, the fact that the role of charity organisations in providing basic services decreased over the last two centuries doesn't really suggest that they shouldn't do so when it's possible. Just because that trend happened, it doesn't mean it's the best way for things to be.

MrStuffins

areu4real? wrote: »

That's the real issue. Don't want to go on a mad rant but the but global military spending is estimated at $1600bn <-:eek:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
Couldn't find estimates for healthcare but if the America set any kind of benchmark then its a massive gap.

$1600bn, on war....

Do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett personally fund Military?

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

And "ironically", how many millionaires have made their millions from the war industries?

Quite a few, I would imagine.

Yes absolutely! And military spending is a bit ridiculous.

But, again, in this world, Military is an unfortunate necessity!

Fighting Irish

Oafley Jones wrote: »

"The only way the world can work" WTF kind of an ill thought out brain fart is that. What type of Übermensch ideal have you cooked up in your mind? Seriously bizarre reading on evolutionary theory Fighting Irish.

It's not nice but it's true

YFlyer

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A total of 40 U.S. billionaires have pledged to give away at least 50 percent of their wealth as part of a campaign by investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

Gates and Buffett launched 'The Giving Pledge' in June to convince hundreds of U.S. billionaires to give away most of their fortune during their lifetimes or after their deaths and to publicly state their intention with a letter of explanation.

Here are some excerpts from letters written by billionaires taking the pledge:

* Laura and John Arnold, hedge fund manager: 'We view our wealth in this light—not as an end in itself, but as an instrument to effect positive and transformative change.'

* New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: 'If you want to do something for your children and show how much you love them, the single best thing—by far—is to support organizations that will create a better world for them and their children. And by giving, we inspire others to give of themselves, whether their money or their time.'

* Philanthropist Eli and Edythe Broad: 'Those who have been blessed with extraordinary wealth have an opportunity, some would say a responsibility—we consider it a privilege—to give back to their communities, be they local, national or global.'

* Investor Warren Buffett: 'Were we to use more than one percent of my claim checks (Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates) on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99 percent can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others.'

* Microsoft founder Bill and Melinda Gates: 'We have been blessed with good fortune beyond our wildest expectations, and we are profoundly grateful. But just as these gifts are great, so we feel a great responsibility to use them well. That is why we are so pleased to join in making an explicit commitment to the Giving Pledge.'

* Hotel magnate Barron Hilton: 'It is my hope that others are inspired by my father's story, and by our family's steadfast adherence to his charitable philosophy.'

* Corporate executive Jon and Karen Huntsman: 'It has been clear to me since my earliest childhood memories that my reason for being was to help others.'

* Banker George Kaiser: 'I had the advantage of both genetics (winning the 'ovarian lottery') and upbringing. As I looked around at those who did not have these advantages, it became clear to me that I had a moral obligation to direct my resources to help right that balance.'

* Media entrepreneur Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest: 'The ultimate achievement in life is how you feel about yourself. And giving your wealth away to have an impact for good does help with that feeling.'

* Business Wire founder Lorry Lokey: 'There's an old saying about farmers putting back in to the ground via fertilizer what they take out. So it is with money. The larger the estate, the more important it is to revitalize the soil.'

* Moviemaker George Lucas: 'My pledge is to the process; as long as I have the resources at my disposal, I will seek to raise the bar for future generations of students of all ages. I am dedicating the majority of my wealth to improving education.'

* Tashia and John Morgridge, former Cisco CEO: 'The more personally involved we have become with the causes we support the more effective we seem to be.'

* Peter Peterson, founder of Blackstone Group equity firm: 'As I watched and learned from my father's example, I noticed how much pleasure his giving to others gave him. Indeed, today, I get much more pleasure giving money to what I consider worthwhile causes than making the money in the first place.'

* David Rockefeller, patriarch of the Rockefeller family: 'Our family continues to be united in the belief that those who have benefited the most from our nation's economic system have a special responsibility to give back to our society in meaningful ways.'

* Jeff Skoll, former eBay executive: 'The world is a vast and complicated place and it needs each of us doing all we can to ensure a brighter tomorrow for future generations.'

* Asset manager Tom Steyer and Kat Taylor: 'Surely the pleasure we derive from St. Francis' active verbs of consoling, understanding, loving, giving and pardoning far outweigh any selfish and passive pleasures of owning, having, or possessing.'

* Media magnate Ted Turner: 'I'm particularly thankful for my father's advice to set goals so high that they can't possibly be achieved during a lifetime and to give help where help is needed most. That inspiration keeps me energized and eager to keep working hard every day on giving back and making the world a better place for generations to come.'

* Former Citigroup executive Sanford and Joan Weill: 'Our Pledge is this: We will continue to give away all of the wealth we have been so fortunate to make except for a very small percentage allocated to our children and grandchildren between now and the time we pass because we are firm believers that shrouds don't have pockets.'

Source: www.givingpledge.org

areu4real?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett personally fund Military?

Didn't say that. That's my point, money is in the wrong places. Bill Gates does a lot of unpublished charity stuff. My point was about the money wasted on pointless things, everywhere

MrStuffins

areu4real? wrote: »

Didn't say that. That's my point, money is in the wrong places. Bill Gates does a lot of unpublished charity stuff. My point was about the money wasted on pointless things, everywhere

I wouldn't call military pointless!

areu4real?

MrStuffins wrote: »

I wouldn't call military pointless!

Well, I would. Defense is ok. Should stop there

MrStuffins

areu4real? wrote: »

Well, I would. Defense is ok. Should stop there

And how do you defend without Military?

areu4real?

MrStuffins wrote: »

And how do you defend without Military?

Military should be for defense only. Most of that money is being spent on wars that I think are unjust

MrStuffins

areu4real? wrote: »

Military should be for defense only. Most of that money is being spent on wars that I think are unjust

I agree, but you still need Military.

areu4real?

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree, but you still need Military.

This is a pointless argument, all I'm saying is that too much money is wasted. I used military as an example because it involves such large sums of money.
Do you not agree that too much money is spent on fighting?
All this talk of economic crisis and there are men sitting on fortunes that they will never spend. These few are setting a great example of everyone getting a fair share of the wealth. Really, nobody should ever need to have a BILLION euro. Why would anyone need that amount of money?