- He thought nuclear weapons, bioterrorism, and climate change were the biggest threats to humanity.
- He thought paying $10B in capital gains taxes was not enough and he should have paid more.
Maybe those are platitudes but it's real enough for me.
There was some book (The Cuckoo's Egg?) where a computer scientist and a biologist talk about the biggest threats to humanity. The computer scientist thought that biological viruses were the biggest threat, and the biologist thought that computer viruses were the biggest threat.
I've asked a few people about this, over the years, and the results are remarkably consistent. Everybody is much more scared of the other field where they're not an expert.
"Worlds richest person" should actually be read "Worlds richest [publicly wealthy] person" I suppose.
From the exact same answer.
There are a lot of very wealthy philanthropists, and I think that's because people seek meaning in their life once they no longer get benefit from earning more.
Conversely I could name on famous multimillionaire frequently in the news these days, that has a track record of treating charitable foundations as tax dodging piggy banks. So there are all sorts.
Big-G tells me that "platitude" means: a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.
He was asked: What do you think the greatest threat to humanity is at this moment?
And responded:
There are some things that aren't likely but we should worry about - nuclear bombs and bioterrorism (from nation states or terrorism), or a big pandemic. This is the 100th anniversary of the Spanish flu and if it came back the amount of travel would make it spread faster than it did last time.
Once you get past those threats then the biggest question is global cooperation to avoid climate change and reduce the risk of war. It is disconcerting to see a rise of countries turning inwards and not investing in alliances which have helped us avoid big wars since World War 2.
Climate change is a real test of how we can work together globally since it is a complex problem where major changes need to be done well in advance of the big harms.
With a link to: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_25... (a 431-word expansion on his thoughts on climate change)
I don't think any of his responses have fit the definition of "platitude".
I think an example of a "platitude" would have been the response: "War, we need to give peace a chance!"
I'm always annoyed when rich people say things like this. I had one say almost this exact thing to me in an elevator once.
There's nothing stopping him from paying more. He just writes a check to "Department of the Treasury" and sends it off to D.C. Problem solved.
But then he doesn't get to passive-aggressively whine about all of his piles of money that the government won't take from him.
Why? Surely it's better than the alternative of them not supporting progressive taxation?
I interpret "I should have paid more" as I should be compelled to pay more, not "I wish I could pay more". The distinction being they'd rather not pay additional tax, but they probably should have to. I think the language is just somewhat ambiguous (specifically the word 'should').
Either he has a much higher opinion of his personal judgement in allocating his money (which is likely) than other people who he also thinks should be paying more tax or he should turn over the BMGF to the government.
well Bill Gates personally does which is why he is giving almost all of his wealth away. (The giving pledge exists for this reason, and I would assume that most billionaires who agree to higher taxation also are significant personal givers).
This criticism fails on two fronts. People who are in favour of increased tax redistribution generally also support voluntary giving. (Most of the effective altruist people I think would fall into this group), and even if they didn't it would be nothing more than a cheap personal attack, because one can hold positions in favour of tax redistribution and against charity at the same time.
It's not as if they personally manage every penny— and they tend to optimize for the highest return as a default.
Seems like he's saying the default should change. Makes sense to me.
My accountant says otherwise. She was the one who told me all that rich people have to do is break out their checkbooks to put their money where their mouths are.
The money is required to go toward paying down public debt, but I'd say that's worthwhile.
If you doubled the amount of taxes Bill has personally paid over his lifetime, it would amount to a few tenths of a percent of a SINGLE YEAR of US government tax revenue.
I suspect Bill is saying that he-- and other very top earners-- should have paid more.
Bill Gates is willing to pay more taxes if other billionaires pay more taxes. If they don't, he isn't.
Just like I think my taxes should be higher, but I'm not going to voluntarily pay higher taxes, unless others in my tax bracket also pay them.
Even chimpanzees would probably understand and disagree with you [1].
I think it's important to stress the practical side of the argument too, rather than just appealing to intuitions of fairness.
Bill Gates probably believes (and is probably correct) that for any sum of money he is willing to part with, he could do more good by directing it toward carefully selected philanthropic causes than by donating it to the government. So when acting alone, there's no reason for him to unilaterally pay extra tax, unless he believes it will have very good indirect effects and/or is just seeking a PR boost.
He also believes that if people in his class (including him) paid much more in taxes than they currently do, the world would be a better place than it is now.
These two beliefs are entirely consistent, for at least two reasons:
* For a lot of people in his class, the likely alternatives are not philanthropy vs. taxes, but non-altruistic spending vs. taxes.
* There are, at least arguably, some things that government is better suited to doing than private charities are. Perhaps these tend to be the kind of large-scale projects that could be funded by higher taxes on all super-rich people, rather than anything that would result from a donation to the government by a single billionaire.
Even if your opinion of government is very low and you disagree with the second point, the first should be enough to show that his position is perfectly consistent, and would be even for someone unrealistically altruistic and willing to be on the wrong end of an unfair situation.
And then some pr*ck in the Senate decides that 3 times as much as Bill Gates paid goes to a pork barrel project to create 25 jobs in his district? The best use of his money?
Bill Gates and all with the Bill Gates' mindset should pay the minimum required and invest the rest to better the world privately.
So he's saying, his class of wealth should pay more. If it's just him who does it, it doesn't solve the government's problems, and he's better off spending the money himself directly on the things he cares about. But if everyone at his scale paid more, that _would_ help.
Suppose you are right that he is being passive agressive. I strongly disagree with this assessment but let’s for the sake of argument agree that he is being passive aggressive. Why is his right to be passive-aggressive diminished? Is he not allowed to be passive-aggressive or hypocritical or any other negative view you have about him?
The correctness of his view that people like him ought to be taxed at a higher rate is not dependent upon his character flaws or lack thereof. The belief ought to be judged on its own merits and not analyzed based on whether or not his character passes muster.
As a philanthropist, I'm sure he personally feels that he's able to direct his money to more useful causes than the government does, just as many rich people who give nothing also make the empty claim that the government would just 'waste' their money. The difference is, in his case, he might well be right. But that still doesn't mean that a structure that taxes him and others like him at a higher rate wouldn't have a net social benefit.
If the problem were "if only we had $2B more we could solve so many system problems." Of course, it's not, so no, no problems were solved even hypothetically.
What an awful way to look at the world.
We've had to ask you repeatedly not to violate the site guidelines with uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments. Continuing to post them will eventually get you banned, and I don't want to ban you, so could you please fix this?