Are the Rich Gaslighting Us When They Donate Billions to Charity?

"Gaslighting" certainly has lost all meaning and become a generic thing to accuse people of whenever you don't like them.

The rich are gaslighting us by commissioning articles that misuse the word gaslighting so that we don't understand what it means and how they are actually gaslighting us.

Diabolical.

It’s pretty clear from the comments that nobody read the article. It’s about the use of charitable foundations primarily to avoid paying the same tax that everyone is supposed to pay with the charitable benefit being secondary or, more scandalously not a thing because the money never leaves the trust. In my opinion, it’s fine to donate to whatever charity you like, or none at all. It’s your money. But pay your damn taxes like the rest of us.

Whether you agree with the article or not, there are some eye-popping numbers mentioned in the article. It is hard not to think about those

United States takes up 39% of all military spending globally

Harvard, for instance, has an investment fund worth over $59 billion. Or put another way — $2.6 million per enrolled student.

Elon Musk is while he takes $4.9 billion in government subsidies and pays $0 in federal taxes in 2018

And on and on. I find that Harvard number especially hilarious. Isn't it supposed to be a non profit? How can they justify stockpiling 59 Billion dollars??!!

I hate the use of the phrase "The Rich" as if it's some kind of secret society of people who all think and act the same.

I want to like this article, because it does make some nice (to my non-expert eyes) points about being more skeptical of private foundations and donor-advised funds. But it's hard to wade through all the vitriol about "genetic lottery winners and fake-tanned narcissists", the one-sentence-per-paragraph organization, the setting up and knocking down of a shrill strawman ("“How dare you? Charitable donations step-in where the government fails!”), and the pretty facile arguments against some of the donation categories ("$56 billion was given to help provide child services and family care, something that should probably be paid for by society").

But yeah, random private foundations seem suspicious.

If they give it to the Red Cross that’s one thing.

If they self-manage the funds that’s another thing.

Microsoft is good. It pays taxes. It is accountable to customers. (Even if competition is imperfect). It is required by law to have a meaningful annual report.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bad. It doesn’t pay taxes to pay for the costs it incurs. It is accountable only to Bill and Melinda Gates. It does not face competition in any way. It is not required to tell anyone much at all about what they did.

I'm not sure in what conceivable way this could be considered gaslighting.

Donations to charity need not be altruistic to be good for society. Sometimes charitable organizations support causes that you don't just as the government often pumps money into things you disagree with. The difference of course is that one has a choice in the matter when they're making charitable donations while at most you have an extremely indirect say of how your taxes are spent (through electing public officials).

Charitable donations are also not only for the rich. Everyone is eligible to make charitable donations (and they should!) to organizations of their choice and that donation is tax deductible for schmucks like me just like it is for Jeff Bezos.

> We shout at the top of our lungs in praise while Amazon pays next to nothing in taxes and kills thousands of small businesses across the world.

Who exactly is doing this? Does the author live in a fantasy world where he's just happens to be so lucky to be one of the "enlightened ones?" This isn't just hyperbole, this is idiotic.

The one thing I'd be down is some kind of AMT for billionaires.

The sticky bit is when to force them to recognize capital gains- if a founder is trying to retain a certain control over their company, forcing him/her to sell to pay their taxes seems unfair.

But, otherwise, if billionaires are cashing out, but then diverting money to various foundations/DAFs, require a certain minimum payout in taxes, regardless of deductions, don't let it get to zero regardless.

Now, unlike the frantic assertions in the article, the lack of this isn't suddenly going to fund universal healthcare, but it does restore a sense of basic fairness and stake-holding to the public.

There's a meme floating around that elucidates this well, I think: Celebrities with a freezer full of candy bars guilting you into giving all of yours away. I don't think there are really any wealthy people who are giving away money for truly altruistic means. Maybe I'm jaded, but there always seems to be a benefit, a catch, for the rich person. Otherwise, why announce the fact you're giving the money away? That in of itself should raise cause for concern.

The rampant abuse of the word gaslighting is out of control.

Not what gaslighting means.

It's probably quite demotivating/depressing for the employees who worked hard directly or indirectly for Mackenzie Bezos to see her rather give her money to some strangers or random charities than raise their salaries to something decent or above. I find it very strange.

Someone brave enough should write a handbook for average people to learn how they can do it too. Once average people start doing it, the government will finally try to close the loopholes.

What a trash article, no historical context just F the Billionaires

Related: "Pledges" to charity sometimes don't turn into donations.

Yes. If the former Mrs Bezos wanted to help students, she would pay tuition directly, not donate a million dollars to the chancellor of a university. If she wanted to help artists, she would buy art, not donate money to the trust fund of a museum.

Gaslighting has been collectively redefined to “when someone says or does something which evokes emotions inside me in the case where I generally dislike that person”

How does it matter? I don't care what other people do with their money. How is that any of my business or concern? This whole article is ludicrous.

I donate (microscopic amounts, comparatively) to causes I care about.

Donate, or don't.

It’s been almost 20 years since Bill Gates committed to giving away his money, and somehow he is worth more now than when he made that public commitment.

The man deserves recognition for the scale of his lie, and he is hoisted up as some reliable resource on vaccination and global pandemics. Serious topics deserve credible spokespeople.

The rich have better things to do. Like charity work. Envy really is the mother of all sins.