Bill and Melinda Gates Aren’t Leaving Their Kids Billions
wired.com
wired.com
If you want to call out Gates, you can criticize his attitude towards closed source software, IP, etc, but his charity contributions are awesome. Compare him and his family with the current generation Waltons, for example.
Not just educated, but nourished and relatively healthy. BMF has done a lot to make the world better.
You can read about them all here: http://givingpledge.org/
Organisations focused on the people in need, but operated by people with money have been too much under the spotlight, allowing many to give hardly anything yet enough to set up a photo op. The point of the Giving Pledge is to focus on how much someone can give without harming a reasonable lifestyle.
Gates is STILL the richest man in the world. He didnt get that way by participating in the http://givingpledge.org/, which is years old now.
This is just a laughable straw man. And you bothered to create a new account just to repeat it?
He got that way despite participating in the Giving Plesge. If he hadn't been giving away his money, he'd have more than $100 billion by now.
Gates is a eugenist IMO like his dad. If he wanted to give away his money right now. Not make a fake .org site for good will.
I don't understand why anyone would want to raise an entitled brat.
It may also have helped that I had no interest in cars, so I didn't realize that driving BMW/Mercedes had any significance, and we had never stayed at a hotel that wasn't 5-stars so I just assumed all of them were like that.
No one wants to raise an entitled brat for the sake of it, it's just that raising an entitles brat is so much easier and less time consuming.
Short term satisfaction is seemingly more gratifying, especially in someone visibly fragile, potentially loud and that you instinctively care deeply about.
Further, regardless of how much money they are actually left, those children will live billionaire lifestyles for the rest of their lives. Out of security concerns, Bill has likely arranged for bodyguards and ensured that they will be able to travel via private jet for the rest of their lives. The Gates family owns multiple homes, one in Washington being over 50,000 square feet, that will likely stay in the family and where the children would presumably be allowed to stay should they choose.
Hopefully his kids choose to be productive. But the idea behind this - that he is leaving them enough to "do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing" - simply isn't true. They could do nothing and be just fine.
The Gates' have billions of dollars. I have seen it stated that each kid will be inheriting something like a million dollars, which yes, is a lot of money, but nowhere near enough money to do nothing for the rest of your life, and a drop in the bucket compared to the family fortune.
Just because you "presume" the family estates, etc., will not be sold for charity despite all of their statements otherwise doesn't make it true.
This is not supportive of a claim that this is genuine. I'm a little tired of the wealthy bragging about how they are like, totally generous and stuff.
Huh?
Bill Gates has most of his wealth in US equities. Thus US stock market returned over 30% last year.
Warren Buffett has almost all of his wealth in Berkshire Hathaway. BRK underperformed the stock market last year.
Carlos Slim has almost all of his wealth in Mexican companies. The Mexican stock market returned -10% last year.
It's not hard to see how Bill Gates increased his wealth relative to his competitors, despite giving away billions of dollars every year.
What's more, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given away $30 billion since it was established. Where do you think the money came from? Warren Buffett's contributions have thus far been in the single-digit billions.
If you stop believing in conspiracy theories and try looking at the data, you'll understand the world a lot better.
Here is some raw data for you:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/03/06/bill_...
He has continuously increased his wealth, while trying to convince young entrepreneurs to start planning to give away half of their wealth before they are even 30. He started late and he has a pile of money that compounds away at a rate that it has become absurd. He has the audacity to claim that now that he is retired, he is just giving it away.
It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
It's pretty clear that you're not interested in reaching conclusions by interpreting the data. Rather, you just want to call Bill Gates names, and prefer to cherry-pick the data to do it with.
For example:
> It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment.
First, he started giving away his money a lot more than five years ago. Second, he did not plan to give away half his wealth -- he planned to give away all of it. Third, very few people who've taken the Giving Pledge have seen their wealth decrease. The market has simply performed well recently.
Imagine if Bill Gates followed a strict policy of ending each year with less money as you suggest. Thus, he would give $20 billion in a year in which the markets one go up 30%, and $0 in a year in which the markets fall. This is a terrible way to give out money. Charities would be unable to undertake any long-term projects with that kind of fluctuation.
That is why your criticism of Bull Gates is not only highly misleading, but highly illogical. Philanthropists should hold onto the money in good times, so that they can continue giving in bad times -- precisely when it is most needed.
Body guards are no-one’s idea of luxury (I’ve dated someone who had an escort). As for private jets, I’m fairly certain that is part of the things that they won’t get unless they work for it.
> Most people are motivated to work, at least in part, because they will starve and be homeless if they don't.
Interesting take worldwide, but I don’t think this is true for anyone close to Gates' family.
> Hopefully his kids choose to be productive.
The point of the article is precisely to say: they won’t have a choice. He took legally binding steps to make sure that he won't be able to help if they end up in an unacceptable position by their own actions.
Buffet's son is on the board of Berkshire.
As for Berkshire Hathaway, Directors only get paid $3,800 a year.
Imagine how they would feel if, after they were gone (and I realize they can't feel anything at that point...), one of their kids was in their 50's and lost everything because of bad luck - cancer or other disease for example. Then the "kid" had to live his/her life out in poverty. How sad would that be that he/she had the richest parents in the world (due to good luck) but lived in poverty because of bad luck.
http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx...
For that matter I don't care much if anybody "has to work for a living". Anything else would be jealousy.
It's an approach to be lauded, but one thing their children will always have is that they started out privileged which is itself a huge inheritance.
Or maybe not. Up to him/them. But that's what I'd do.