Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
$10b of his own personal fortune? That won't results in tax breaks / deduction because can be considered a donation? Or does that include money Amazon-the-company is spending on "climate change" efforts, such as buying electric delivery trucks instead of gas ones? Investments in "green datacenters"? Is any of this new investment that's needed anyway for Amazon-the-company to operate, but now it's green so it gets added up to the $10b?
Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and lots of goodwill?
In any case, this is a giant amount of money by philanthropic standards. I doubt more than 4-5 people have ever given as much for all of the things they support.
Feel free to complain about "tax loss" as in the government getting less money than they would otherwise, but it's definitely not a "tax dodge" - tax dodging only makes sense if you actually end up with more money than you would otherwise - i.e. you "earn" $100m but then you "dodge tax" to pay only $10m tax instead of $20m, and end up with $90m after-tax income rather than $80m. Multiple ways of doing that - the obvious one is moving your tax residence to a 0% tax haven, the less obvious one is to artificially inflate the value of an asset (e.g. a work of art) and then "donate it" and write off that from tax (e.g. buy it for $10k, donate it when it's "worth" $10m, write that off as a "loss" and pay only $10m tax instead of $20m).
If he truly is pledging $10B, it can only be a win for society and the future of humanity. It shouldn't really matter if he gets a tax break or not.
This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?
Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government.
I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it.
Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects.
So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.
First of all, I searched and couldn't find he's actually giving $10b. What I mean is that I don't know if the $10b accounts for any Amazon investments / costs.
Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned. I know, still a lot of money! But he's not loosing $10b from his fortune.
Third, in this case you happen to think it's a win for society and the future of humanity. Other billionaires give money for causes they believe, like The Koch family for "advancing liberty and freedom", or Bloomberg advocating for a third term as mayor. The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern. We praise when they give to causes we believe, but the system that allows them to do this has nefarious byproducts. It's like we're watching billionaires shape our society and our culture and think that's alright.
The thing is, a lot of us like that what people do with their own money is not accountable to the government.
I think it's essential that not all of society is under control by a single central power.
EDIT: As someone said on Twitter - "Say what you want about billionaires, I doubt any of them would have decided to give farmers $10 billion to not grow crops."
On the other side, 600 billionaires. Which because they figured out how to earn and keep a lot of money somehow makes them capable of fixing women's issues, racial conflicts, climate change, mass incarceration, homelessness, education, hunger, and healthcare problems. Somehow, they will do all that without influencing public policy, in a sustainable, ethical, morally justifiable and rightful way, so as long as we let them keep getting richer.
I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.
> I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.
I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.
The War on Drugs is a shame, and harder to blame on rich people, probably with the exception of private prisons, which is a relative recent development. Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem? Spending money to change policies so drugs get treated as a public health problem? Fighting against police brutality and racism? Curbing sales of opioids?
And inversely, are any billionaires fighting for the police state? Militarizing the police? Putting more and more opioids on the streets? Privatizing prisons? Selling junk food? Cigarettes? Animal factory farming? Massive student debt? Destroying elections? Fighting against unionization? Any of them against climate change?
Is all that we have left the hope that Bezos has more money than someone who owns a coal mining company so we get the climate change efforts we want? Are we betting the future of the planet on a hope that the richest people alive will be on our side?
> I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.
I don't know how you can square that view with the one where the voting public controls the government. Is the voters or the industrial-military complex in charge? Can't be both.
The human ability to hold completely opposite views at the same time truly is something!
> Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem?
Well, the Koch brothers certainly do/did. A few quickly Google links:
https://www.axios.com/koch-network-opposes-sessions-restart-... https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/25/koch-network-trump-adm... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-...
No. It's $10 billion. 10 billion that he won't pay tax on. But he gives $10 billion and the cause receives $10 billion. The $2.4 billion is money that the government won't get in taxes.
But 'pledge' could mean any number of things, like selling stock slowly over time.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/17/jeff-bezos-announced-a-10-...
From what I understand of tax deductions, a donation of $X basically means that the donor can skip paying taxes on $X of income. This results in a savings of tax% * $X, which is always < $X. Since tax% is always < 100%, it seems that the donation is always negative-sum for the donor.
The tax deduction also seems like a boon for the beneficiary, since they receive $X instead of (1 - tax%) * $X.
Can you help me understand the cynicism? How does the donor benefit here (aside from PR etc)? It seems like they do not come out ahead financially, and the tax breaks benefit the recipient of the donation.
One way of looking at it is that the government is "matching" part of your donation with tax money.
But you never make money that way.
As far as I know it's simply never been touched since 1917.
Some folks just object to that policy.
> the government added the charitable deduction during the 1917 WWI revenue act
The distinction I was trying to draw was that prior to 1917, charitable giving could not be deducted at all, and what changed was that the legislature of the time decided to make it so. It's 100 years ago, but really not that long compared to the history of this country.
If you want to say the IRS represents the will of society, I think I would mildly disagree. They're not elected. That said, they are largely governed by rules set forth by the legislature, who are at least elected, if not always representative.
Are you sure? What about something like this:
1. Buy art for $1M
2. Get your friends to bid up the price of the art by selling other works from the artist to each other at inflated valuations
3. Donate art to art gallery with a valuation of $10M
4. Deduct $10M donation from your taxes
B) you still need $10 million of income to deduct
C) this isn't making money. You can't directly deduct a collectible or security you donate. You can give it away without realizing any capital gains however.
(B) Replace $10 mill with any figure up to 30% of your actual income. The figures are illustrative, not binding.
(C) Consider not doing the fraud vs the fraud. If you and your buddy both do the fraud, you only expend the purchase price but deduct the higher price. As a result you have generated a deduction from thin air. As long as the higher price multiplied by your marginal tax rate is greater than the lower purchase price, you've made money. So at, say, a hypothetical 50% bracket, you need to inflate it by 100% to break even. At a 25% bracket, you'd need to inflate it by 300% to break even.
It's a profit, but it's definitely fraud and seems pretty obvious. It's essentially a pump and dump scheme, but instead of selling the inflated asset, you donate it while it's still inflated and deduct the difference against income.
There's also this cynical idea that these donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good. But that's intangible and unquantifiable.
I dont understand this sentiment(not saying you agree with it). Let's express this as a contract: in exchange for 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause, $WEALTHY_PERSON agrees to donate $LARGE_AMOUNT to a charitable cause. Let's also assume that $WEALTHY_PERSON is proficient in business, and wont continue to contract with parties who do not honor their end of the bargain.
Assuming you want these charitable contributions to continue, would it not be prudent to give them their 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause??
Not that I am saying all wealthy people donate for no other reason than for pr. Just that if you think that, you might not want to go out of your way to tell them that they are not getting what they wanted.
As you've pointed out, any logical analysis would conclude that, even in the most extreme cases, there's still a sizable positive benefit to society.
People have a problem with "undeserved" good will as if good will is some scarce resource that's limited in supply. I think the reality is they're envious.
Its just a constant reminder that we live at the mercy of these elites, that our tax dollars don't appear to have any effect in bringing about the change that we want because these scumbags have rewritten the laws in their favour so that the money only concentrates towards them.
What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing, but I'm sure as hell not going to pander to their 'benevolence'
I'm perpetually baffled at how one person having this much wealth is somehow considered okay. Sure, we can argue about where it goes instead, but jesus christ is this an unfathomable amount of wealth that really shouldn't be in one person's control.
Bezos earned all of his wealth honestly. He offered products and services for prices that people were willing to pay. He did not steal. He did not force anyone into anything. If he is stupid rich, it is because he was able to provide things people wanted more effectively than anyone else.
How can you possibly justify punishing success? What right do we have to give him money for doing what we want, and then turning around and taking it away. What sort of message does that send to other people?
"Work hard and be successful, but not TOO successful..."
But really, mostly it's that Bezos is a giant piece of shit. His company has a long history of controversy and anything good he does doesn't erase that. That has nothing to do with all the upstanding people in the world who are trying to be 'successful'.
That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The article doesn't exactly make this clear.
Yep, more along these lines. Lots of people are latching on the "tax break" but I thought I made a larger point about where the $10b figure is coming from. That's part of my cynicism: Bezos gets to write a great headlines with big rounding number like $10b, but I wonder what kind of creative accounting will be applied here.
If he sold the shares first, he could claim up to the higher 50% limit. But he'd owe capital gains taxes on the sales, which is almost certainly more than the additional deduction.
You previously stated, "Bezos can avoid that limit," with "that" referring to either OP's or my statement about AGI deductibility limits, which is incorrect.
I think you might now be trying to make a statement about being able to claim capital gains as an AGI deduction without paying taxes on those capital gains? Which is true enough, but not responsive; it's just a fact that was never in dispute.
These charities are a way to bypass the democratic method of funding public goods. I don't believe the US military budget should be as big as it is. Yet I pay taxes that fund it whether I agree to it or not. If I was a millionaire I could fund a religious school that taught white Jesus as the one true religion instead of funding secular state schools.
The bigger problem is the people who have created many of these problems now want to be in control of the solutions.
We're being duped on headlines such as "Bezos commits to $10b" when his net worth won't be affected by that much.
The cynicism comes from the PR, sure, but also from a preservation perspective. I doubt any of the grants Bezos is giving will result in research that shows in any way what Amazon is doing is bad for the environment. It won't propose an increase in taxes on gas based engines like lawn mowers, shipping plastic from overseas, selling meat based products, or if Amazon moved Prime to 5 days shipping instead of 1, it could bundle deliveries and reduce trucks on the street and the gas it uses.
And for sure, it won't be a critical view of the American consumerism (which is fueled and promoted and enhanced by retailers like Amazon) and how if the world had even 1/10th of the standard of living of the US the planet would be in flames right now.
It will probably be something like investment in renewable energy, electric trucks, drone delivery. All new stuff, investment opportunities, things that coincidentally help Amazon while helping the world. Don't get me wrong, it's all stuff we need, but the cynicism comes from Bezos being committed to fighting climate change as long as it doesn't take his money, and actually, it should probably make him money in the process.
If this is the way it works out, isn't that actually pretty great? I mean, I personally find Amazon to be quite useful, so it if could continue being an economically viable business while also fighting climate change, I'd be very happy.
I'm not poking fun either. That's really what you seem to be saying. Does this still work if he puts this money towards a cause you're not keen of?
This sort of knee-jerk antagonism against billionaires spending their money on philanthropic causes is so common these days. I think Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a very good piece on this [1].
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
I gave $100 to the Girl Guides last week without any expectation of a 100% tax rebate. Who am I to decide that tax payer revenue should 100% go towards the Girl Guides? Maybe other tax payers would prefer it went towards something else?
As far as $10 billion being basically nothing... we wouldn't be talking about it if it was $100, but my opinion wouldn't change.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-the-governm...
So personally I'm not impressed with our government's ability to allocate funds towards useful causes.
If another billionaire spends their money on a cause I don't care about so much, fine, at least they didn't spend my money on it. And they'd go to prison if they did anything near so offensive as some of the things the government has been up to lately.
Don’t buy into that. Otherwise we’ll soon have a dictator who gets things “done”. Part of the problem with democratic governments not working well is that the system gets manipulated by rich guys pushing their personal agenda.
Between CEOs and governments, which has a historically higher body count? Who's jailed more people for not agreeing with them?
You say the problem with democratic governments not working well is that it gets manipulated by rich guys.
What happens when big business and government are the same thing? That makes for even easier corruption.
I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting putting more power into the hands of the government. How about we let the billionaires spend money on the causes they want and just stay out of it (NO tax breaks). That's actually less government.
This also applies in reverse. Here's an interesting article on some of this stuff if you're looking for another opinion - specifically #4 and on: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
I think this is too much and that there are areas with much better ROI where this money could be spent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
For example, if you divided the appropriated 750 billion for the war in Afghanistan by the 40k civilians killed,you would get around 50 million per civilian. This neglects the time value of money, so in that respect, it would be an underestimate.
However, this is all besides the point I stated in my last post. It seems you have on opinion on the subject, and if you would like to discuss it, I suggest you state it plainly.
All it means is that his taxable income will be whatever his income is minus that $10B. He's not getting a net benefit from doing this.
To make the math easier, consider someone making $100k and paying a 30% tax rate. If they donate $10k to charity, rather than pay 30k in taxes, they're paying 27k in taxes. They saved 3k in taxes, but they still donated $10k, so they're out 7k.
If his entire objective was to pay less in taxes, stashing it in the Cayman Islands would make way more sense than donating it.
The perhaps more interesting complaint is that the fund is still ultimately controlled by Bezos; he can only spend it on some vaguely charitable things, but ultimately he can hire and pay cronies, choose to fund his choice of projects, etc, etc. It's both not his and still his money.
If ($10B to address climate change) is true, then why should anyone care if Bezos' $130b today becomes $120b tomorrow, or $200b tomorrow?
I care about whether the $10B will be spent effectively and efficiently to combat climate change, and that's it. Full stop.
I would think so with this sort of investment. It depends on what you mean by tomorrow. I like the 18 year cycle because that is how long it takes to produce a crop of tax paying voters. Years 0-5 atmosphere and nutrition quality carry more weight during that physical development term.
If he wants a "trillion human Solar system with a thousand Mozart and Einstein minds", then citizen factory Earth is a good first step?
The amount of conflict in the remarks is because both parties are right. It's very wonderful for Jeff Bezos to donate $10B dollars. But also it's right about private jets, which generate much carbon pollution.
It's fair to say that everyone has to do their part against climate problems. I for one make personal sacrifices yes. Less meat, less consuming, trying for local purchases as often as possible so the cheese I eat is not from France, driving a lot less, and also I fly much less. This year only one trip home instead of two.
For us to lift out of poverty many more people, it's worrying about the carbon costs of this. But now we have to behave smarter and people for whom sacrifices are easiest should make them first.
So yeah, limiting long distance travel is the way to go. I just found it surprising because I think a lot of people might choose to drive instead of fly, thinking it's better for the environment - usually not unless you're carpooling.
FAA Office of Environment and Energy
January 2015
Aviation stands out among transportation modes, however, in terms of improving fuel efficiency over the past decade. As shown in Figure 1: Comparison of Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, in 2004, automobiles and airlines operating in the U.S. had very similar energy intensities, with automobiles at 3,496 BTU/passenger mile versus airlines at 3,505 BTU/passenger mile. Between 2004 and 2012, auto energy intensity fell to 3,193 BTU/passenger mile, for an 8.8% improvement. For the same period, aviation energy intensity fell to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile, a 24.3% improvement and is now significantly lower than automobiles.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/env...
In addition to being more efficient flying is wildly safer. You have a 750x better chance of surviving a commercial flight than a car trip the same distance. (2000-2010)
Co2PerMile = 53 (for a plane)
AirTravelMiles = 991
PeopleOnAirplane = 189 (average passengers per plane)
AirTravelCo2PerPerson = Co2PerMile * AirTravelMiles / PeopleOnAirplane => 277.8995
VehicleGramsPerMile = 411 (average gas car)
DriveMiles = 1177
GramsPerPound = 453.592
Co2PoundsTrip = VehicleGramsPerMile * DriveMiles / GramsPerPound => 1066.4804
1066 is roughly 4x 277.
Or, very roughly, a plane is about 50 lbs/mile, and a car is 1 lb/mile, so it depends on number of passengers in each.
As for an electric car, they say an electric car is currently equivalent in emissions to an 80 mpg car, and the average gas car is 22mpg, so... about 4x.
So again very roughly, for that distance, air travel is better than car travel (in terms of CO2) unless you have a 4-person carpool for gas cars. If it's a one-person electric car, it's roughly equivalent.
Anyway still, the takeaway is that it's the travel distance that has the CO2 impact. Car vs Plane isn't really the point.
(Lemme know if you see a 10x error.)
https://www.wnpr.org/post/five-ways-reduce-your-carbon-footp...
It would be nice to have more details about the goals or objectives.
The Gates Foundation has ~$45-$50 billion in assets currently and has given away more than $50 billion thus far (~$23 billion of that giving is from Warren Buffett's contributions; Buffett's donations have to be used rapidly after they're given to the foundation (within the year or such if I recall), that money isn't allowed to pile up). The foundation as it's known today - The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - got started with $16 billion in 1999/2000.
Gates + Buffett = $210 billion currently. Due to the Buffett money pouring in, they basically can't give it all away as fast as Bill & Melinda had originally planned, so they're likely going to miss their timeline for giving the Gates fortune away (in their lifetimes was the first goal; that shifted to now being within 20 years after their passing).
On another, shipping cheap plastic junk from China all over the world, to finish up in landfill a few years later, is the very definition of environmental vandalism and is Amazon's core business model.
The systemic fix for this is to tax the externalities (carbon, cheap plastic, whatever) so that prices better reflect the costs to the environment.
We need a World War 2 industrial movement (“you will no longer be building cars, you will only build tanks and aircraft for the war effort”) to fix climate change, and only nation states have the ability to mandate the effort required from industry. Market forces alone will not be sufficient.
Someone's got to be buying the cheap plastic junk, my friend. You need a buyer for the middleman to profit.
Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:
> Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions by 2030.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_reporting#Gre...
If Amazon reported their emissions, we can corroborate their Scope 1 emissions with other companies' Scope 3 emissions and get an indication of just how much Amazon is directly responsible for.
Amazon, however, discloses nothing. This is the kind of thing that regulations are for. In other countries, disclosure is mandatory, and I would say for our survival as a species, absolutely essential. We need data before we can know what direction to take.
When we do our GHG assessment at the company where I work, we estimate our Scope 3 emissions based on what has been leaked about the location of Amazon's data centres and what we know about the electricity grid in those locations. We look at our CPU usage on the AWS console and estimate the energy required with some assumptions of the hardware.
It introduces a lot of uncertainty and we could do better if Amazon disclosed their emissions.
For Amazon I really feel like I have no idea about it. With warehouses instead of big box stores you've got a lot less volume being lighted and heated plus a lot of individual cars driving to a central place are replaced by a few large delivery fans then that's the same sort of win you get from people switching to driving the bus. But two-day shipping for rare items that involves flying them across the country is terrible for the environment. So I don't think that I have any clue what the net environmental impact of Amazon has been.
to wit, let's imagine there's an incumbent company that serves out the demand in an incredibly efficient but environmentally harmful manner. further suppose this is a large national player that's willing to eat some losses in order to crowd out the whole "efficient allocation of resources" type new businesses that may spring up and serve that demand in an environmentally friendly manner.
according to "the curves", there's no room to displace that incumbent because they're stuck in a local maximum when it comes exclusively to satisfying demand. but it's pretty clear that there are externalities that, when considered, make it an attractive target for change by different players.
No, the CDP routinely gives Amazon an F grade because they don't disclose anything:
https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/658?queries%255Bname%255D%3...
The purpose of the CDP is precisely for this kind of public shaming or praising, for keeping track of which companies are reporting what. Amazon is really bad for not disclosing anything.
Compare with Google:
https://www.cdp.net/en/responses?utf8=%E2%9C%93&queries%5Bna...
You can even read Google's reports here (I ignore most of the fluff and go straight to the appendix that has the actual numbers):
https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_2019-enviro...
Is there more to this than an IG post? Is there anything legally binding, anything that actually moves the money outside of his control? Did his networth just drop 10B?
(To cynicism and idealism, I say: know when to take a win.)
1. Startup costs for a coal company are high (I assume they are, but it depends on the region)
2. The company has exclusive right to their coal, and it's hard to find other sources of coal that aren't claimed by other companies (not sure on this one, but it also depends on the region)
(these first 2 conditions are in place to make sure that no one starts another coal company after the buyout)
3. The marginal cost of buying a coal company for that purpose is lower than the marginal cost of starting a company which has the same net amount of positive climate change externalities.
In 2016, Australia was the world's biggest net coal exporter[1] with 32% of global exports and the fourth highest producer. As far as I know, all coal mining in Australia is undertaken by private companies who hold a mining lease.
The $10billion could be used to buy controlling interests in some of the 10 biggest listed coal mining companies in Australia[2] and stop mining.
What I don't know is if the Australian Government can withdraw a coal mining lease if it's not being used (then just reduce production to miniscule levels) or what the impact would be when the lease expires. Still, I'd suggest such a move would have a crippling near term impact on the coal mining industry, which might be enough to kick renewables along further to fill the gap.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Production,_...
[2] https://top10companiesinaustralia.com/top-10-listed-coal-com...
I would rather they focus on drowning out coal on the supply side, or furthering carbon capture technology.
Lots of ways to skin a cat. Find the linchpin and apply as much force necessary with as little cash possible. One can be efficient and expedient simultaneously. I agree you have to do the math to pick the opportunities that allow for offsetting/retiring as much CO2 per dollar spent as possible.
I’ve put together notes along these lines if someone with deep pockets is interested. Economic warfare is the most exciting exertion of force imho.
In front of the right audience, there is an appetite.
I agree with you these people need to be taken care of (subsidizing energy efficiency programs, such as insulating their homes and installing heat pumps to get them off of coal or oil for thermal needs), but that’s the responsibility of their government (at the moment; I would of course like to see non government efforts if the resources can be mustered).
To argue that businesses should shutdown current solutions without creating new ones lacks a huge amount of responsibility and will lead to mass chaos. New solutions to be discussed and in place before or immediately after dissolution that could put thousands on the street, in poverty or medical care.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/spain-to...
surprisingly not /that/ expensive considering the early retirement and training for newer miners
Arby’s has more employees than there are coal miners in the United States, for example. The problem is there’s an enormous amount of investors and entrenched interests who are going to have trillions of dollars in stranded assets from these policies. Those folks should not be made whole for bad investment decisions.
Since 2010, I'd bet the US Government has spent in the neighborhood of $60-$100 billion on renewable energy subsidies. The EIA reports that for 2010 and 2013 the figures were a combined $30 billion.
Then throw in nuclear energy subsidies over the last 25 years, which is comparable to the Bezos figure by itself.
So 6% of the money being actual new money focused on fixing climate, times $154 billion, is $9.24 billion.
I think that's an appropriate comparison since the Bezos money is new money specifically for fixing climate.
Maybe I am too cynical but these guys got to where they are by always looking out for themselves first.
if its an actual fund then it can make more investments, no immediate tax consequences, but any long term capital losses, because nobody has a sustainability solution that makes any money, will serve to offset any taxes that he would have to pay on the long term capital gains of his Amazon stock sales.
if its another charitable foundation, then the whole $10B will offset up to 50% of his whole tax bill any year, rolling forward till there is no more to deduct. not just limited to any particular type of capital tax. he can also just donate his amazon shares without selling them first, gaining a charitable deduction on the entire value and no capital gains tax event, but depending on the type of charitable foundation the donation could be limited to his cost basis, instead of the current fair market value, another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible. Actually this could be genius because his cost basis might have become pegged to the fair market value in the divorce. The IRS allows divorcing couples to keep their original cost basis on split property but could be optional, given the nature of their settlement where it seems there were modifications onto what the stock contract actually is - with some shares transferred but voting rights retained.
So for example, there is almost no scenario where Jeff Bezos has to pay any taxes on the $4Billion in Amazon shares he sold earlier this year. Whether he converts another $10B shares to cash or not.
So even though he 'spends' on a cause and theoretically doesn't get to use that money for himself, even though its not paying the government either, he doesn't actually lose any money he ever actually had.
It's nice that a transaction towards this cause is occurring.
> another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible
It is fun to think about. Ever since I read that part of the tax code I’ve been taking a dim view on the 401(k) statutes since the 501(c)3 and 509(a) statutes are like supercharged tax deferrals and shelters if you have 6-figures annually to put into them
Step 2: Donate 99% of your remaining money before death
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit, when the world is a less shitty place
It's really the most devious tax swindle of all time.
Step 1: Place fortune in a large tax-free foundation
Step 2: Invest that wealth as normal, but without the need to pay taxes
Step 3: Spend charitable funds in such a manner as to increase the value of investments from step 2
> Also announced was the decision to spend all of the foundation's resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths.[177][178][179][180] This was later lowered to within 20 years of their death.[181][182] This would close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
(source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...)
I’ll be impressed when billionaires actually make sacrifices themselves, rather than just write checks.
Checks are important, but let’s be real about these people.
Why? Jeff Bezos donating that much money to combat climate change will have a much larger positive good than the negative things you outlined that he does.
Let me ask a more clarifying question, then, I guess? What could he do where you wouldn't think he was up to no good?
But in the scheme of things, it's really not worth complaining about them vs. our enormous vehicle fleets.
rpjguy seems to regard the rocket thing as Bezos's hobby, for his own entertainment, rather than as an actual attempt to get humanity into space in a meaningful way.
I don't have a source handy, but I remember hearing that each launch is the equivalent of the annual output of 2 passenger vehicles. So all rockets launches worldwide = 200 drivers.
[1] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171113006466/en/Fut...
a) Donating $10B b) Reducing his personal environmental impact to zero
You are literally more interested in virtue signalling than making actual change.
This doesn't mean staying silent about the bad things they do. But if we only respond to the good things by bringing up the bad things, we end up perversely being more critical of the ones who do some good, and diverting our scrutiny away from those who don't even bother.
(I haven't looked into this pledge, so I'm just speaking on the hypothetical case where it is likely to do good, as you've acknowledged is at least possible.)
edit: I just noticed that you say in another comment you 'do not believe in climate change'. In which case I guess this line of reasoning won't have any force for you. But maybe you can understand why people who do see climate change as a serious problem are going to take a pragmatic view, and treat the investment of $10b as vastly more important than the lifestyle sacrifices of a single person.
"Gross displays of privilege" are a distant second.
> I dislike gross displays of privilege.
You appear to simply dislike people who have much more money than you.
I propose one standard of expectation and we make everyone follow it.
How does that Gandhi quote go: Be the change you want to see in the World... or was it pay for the change you want to see in the World?
You think Gandhi would have effected the change he did by paying others to engage in acts of civil disobedience? Paid others to break imperial laws and get arrested? Paid others to engage in hunger strikes?
Gandhi was a western educated and trained lawyer, but he boycotted western clothing and adopted the dhoti...it is not just a symbol (or virtue signaling) but it was a necessary act. Whereas $10B from Bezos for Climate change appears to be just a symbol, because he continues to head a Company that facilitates unbridled consumerism and global consumption and he seems unwilling to make personal sacrifices to his lavish lifestyle.
Climate change is billions of people over decades. Bezos can't sacrifice enough to make a difference.
Maybe that is not a significant change in his spending account, but how many of us are truly making lifestyle sacrifices to support these causes? I think it's a very small number, and most people haven't given 10 billion dollars to the cause (or done any of the other amazing things Bezos' has done for this society).
Noone is perfect. Greta eschewed the plane for a yacht, and guess what, people like you are still complaining. This is why people are blocking it out and are angry at her. How the can anyone win with this logic?
We can't just shame ourselves into fixing the climate. Broad regulation is the only way this will get solved. It can't be up to each individual person to save the climate.
If that's your solution, we're even more fucked than we currently are. Even if everybody stopped flying or eating ribeyes or whatever, there's still a huge amount of carbon that needs to be sucked out of the atmosphere, and plenty of extremely large sources of carbon and methane that are still there. The world is going to shit and you want me to eschew the tiny bit of enjoyment I have left in the hopes that everybody else does the same thing? Not gonna happen.
It sounds more like you find it unfair that he gets to live the way he does.
So, I think some people just don't like the message and will find any and every excuse to talk about the messengers instead.
I'm not that impressed by Jeff Bezos either, but I'll take a billionaire pledging $10B living in a lavish mansion over a billionaire pledging nothing and still living in the same mansion. It's a step in the right direction.
Donating 10 billion dollars sounds like a pretty big sacrifice.
Generally, when someone gives up a significant portion of the wealth to an important cause it falls under the category of "sacrifices".
Or would you rather he just drive less or something?
Here, by your own admission, Bezos spent 165M on a mansion and 10B on climate funding, ~70x his personal outlay, and you chide him from not making sacrifices. He did make sacrifices. You just refuse to acknowledge them because 'evil rich people'.
That should be the preface on every single Bezos article. Every time his name is mentioned, it should explained as follows "Jeff Bezos, who is the world's richest man and neither he nor is company have ever paid any tax at all."
Then people can effectively make their own mind up about whatever his PR team is pushing this week. It's impossible to be cynical enough, in my opinion. YMMV.
Disagree? Write down what you think this announcement means. Review it in a year and see if you were misled.