
40 billionaires pledge to donate half their wealth - twism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38556042/ns/us_news-giving/
======
abraham
"If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half
their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion"

Perspective: The US national debt is increasing by over $4b per day. If the
$600b was used just to keep the debt from increasing it would last less then 5
months.

<http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/>

~~~
sk_0919
Another perspective:

What a $100 billion can do - [http://www.visualeconomics.com/what-bp-could-
have-bought-wit...](http://www.visualeconomics.com/what-bp-could-have-bought-
with-all-the-money-they-lost/)

~~~
angstrom
So this is how one defines Opportunity Cost...

------
enjo
Teach a man to fish....

I'd MUCH rather that they pledge to donating half of their wealth to economic
development. We are in desperate need of investment capital here at home.
Wouldn't that $600B be better spent investing in alternative-energy and other
high growth fields?

We've given these folks huge tax breaks with the idea that they'd reinvest
that money in our economy. The article is somewhat light on details about
where this money ultimately ends up, but I firmly believe that it's best spent
helping tomorrows billionaires (all over the world) get their start.

~~~
hbt
Interesting point.

Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids
_or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc.
here at home?

Which one is short term and which one is long term?

~~~
muriithi
As a Kenyan who falls under the OP's definition of "a bunch of Africans" I do
not want American philanthropy to "feed or cloth" Africa.

Most African economies are agricultural and it is therefore alarming that the
EU uses 40% of it's budget(about 48B Euros annually) on agricultural
subsidies. The US uses about $20B every year on the same.Ending these
subsidies would enable Africa to export more, buy more products from the US
and Europe as well as form the basis for industrialization.

We need more trade and less aid. Is that asking for too much?

More info;

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy>

<http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies>

[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html)

~~~
1053r
This sounds great in principal, and ending American and European food
subsidies would be great for Africa. Additionally, food subsidies distort the
market by, for example, making corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US.

The problem is that many Americans (I don't know as much about Europe) aren't
actually that wealthy. Without food subsidies, our food quality would probably
increase, but so would our costs. Poor Americans are overweight today because
the distorted food costs make it cheaper to eat processed food (that is more
expensive to make overall) than to eat basic fruits and veggies and grains.
Without subsidies, they would be starving, or at least calorie deficient.

Nixon put in our current system of subsidies because "food should never be an
issue in a presidential race". And since then, it hasn't. America may be
wealthy, but the wealth is very unevenly distributed. Without social programs,
many of our people would be starving as well.

~~~
muriithi
I respectfully disagree. The same prophesies of doom were advanced when in
1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm
subsidies.

Productivity and efficiency have increased much faster than when subsidies
were in place.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02f...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html?_r=1)

<http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411>

~~~
heresy
And one result of those subsidies being cut is the US erecting trade barriers
to protect US dairy farmers from the now hyper-competitive NZ dairy farmers.

------
sandipagr
I had always had more respect for Bill Gates than anybody because of his
contributions for welfare of humanity. Now, I have 39 more in the list. This
is just awesome. I hope there were more people like them and you don't have to
be a billionaire to give back to the world. Keep up the good work.

------
kenj0418
I too agree to donate half of my net worth to charity.

United Way: Please send a check for $25K to Sallie Mae on my behalf, and we'll
call it settled.

~~~
josefresco
While 25K is nothing compared to what these billionaires might donate, it's
still a lot of money and the United Way would be happy to accept your funds.

It also opens up the discussion of what burden 'normal' folks assume when
their most basic needs are taken care of. How many HN readers donate at least
10% of their earnings?

~~~
hnal943
I believe the joke is that he has a negetive net worth due to student loans.

------
MBlume
I was slightly disappointed that the article made no mention of the fact that
where you give your money is probably _more_ important than how much you give,
that the current charity market has multiple orders of magnitude differences
in return on investment -- ie in how much human suffering can be alleviated
per marginal dollar.

I'm sure Gates and Buffet already understand this well, and have said so, but
I wish it were making it into the coverage.

------
yumraj
Conspicuously missing from the list, Mr. Jobs, Mr. Woz, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Page
and Mr. Brin.

Even Larry Ellison is in the list.

~~~
xexers
I don't think Steve Woz. has anywhere near a billion dollars.

------
johnnyg
Say that the value of money holds and that this goes forward without
corruption or inefficiency. You still are looking at a situation where a huge
amount of money needs to be invested in a such a way as to return more than it
originally was. If it takes me 40 years to build $1B in wealth, what makes me
think I can efficiently or intelligently deploy that amount back into
"society" or "the community" in far less time? If I band together with other
$1B people, doesn't that bring even more competition to the give-it-all-away
party and make my job even harder?

~~~
jberryman
Not sure I understand your point.

> what makes me think I can efficiently or intelligently deploy that amount
> back into "society" or "the community" in far less time

It's simple to invest billions of dollars with the intention of increasing
your wealth: you hire people at some well-respected financial institutions and
pay them a good amount to do it for you. (let's overlook recent history here)

In the same way, there are many excellent charitable and non-profit
institutions that have the infrastructure and knowledge in place to turn
monetary investments into social good.

~~~
kiba
Becoming wealthier often involves making other people wealthy absolutely by
providing better goods and services.

It might be more cost-efficient to make everything cheaper to make it easier
to help Africans in poverty.

------
smiler
Warren Buffetts letter is absolutely brilliant.

~~~
rkowalick
For those who want a direct link to his letter:

<http://givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett>

~~~
Jun8
To me the essential point was:

Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I
like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be
a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its
owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and
long-standing friends.

Nothing to say on top of that.

~~~
sonnyz
"The things you own, end up owning you." - Tyler Durden (fight club)

~~~
wilschroter
My favorite is from Larry Ellison, who basically says "Warren Buffet told me
to write this, so I did." That's what I inferred from his message, which is
pure Ellison.

~~~
fuzzythinker
For those who's getting the impression that Ellison is an ass, please read his
whole letter (just a paragraph).

------
nphase
Whoa. Larry Ellison is on this list. I honestly did not expect that
whatsoever.

~~~
aptimpropriety
AFAIK, he's been quoted a number of times in the past saying things to the
effect of "I don't want to leave _that_ much to my kids" i.e., most of it will
go to charity anyway.

~~~
nphase
Sorry, I don't keep myself posted on his life happenings. With his reputation,
I expected him not to be this type of person.

------
Samuel_Michon
Nice PR for the billionaires involved, but I doubt this project changed any of
their plans. The article states:

 _"The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not
involve pooling money or supporting one cause or organization. It's up to each
person who signs the pledge how to divvy up their wealth."_

Also, reading the pledge letters, it becomes clear that these folks won't be
giving away their fortunes today or tomorrow, it's about what happens to the
remainder of the funds after they die. For all we know, they could've spent it
all on hookers by then.

------
tommynazareth
None of this money will go towards empowering people. It will be used to
reinforce the status quo. A lot of people will get suckered by the publicity,
and they will buy into how this kind of movement can change the world.
Meanwhile, they will continue to be rice pickers serving their billionaire
overlords.

I don't buy any of this. What charities are going to handle this kind of money
without the majority of it being misappropriated? This sounds more like a set
up for a giant scam and huge distraction than anything that might actually be
useful to other human beings.

~~~
DaniFong
The Rockefeller foundation funded the argonomists behind the green revolution,
which has hugely improved world nutrition and has been credited with saving
more than a billion lives.

Philanthropy has worked in the past.

------
pasbesoin
I hope they'll give some of it away while they're still alive, along with a
significant effort in time and effort to ensure it's well applied. And with an
open enough mind to identify and recognize the value in things outside of
"mainstream business" (e.g. "pure" R&D as well as the public domain and public
property (e.g. libraries, as an an old school example)) -- something I assume
they mostly have or they would not have achieved such levels of success.

We need enabled intellectual prowess as much as outright cash.

------
marze
The bottom line is what the money actually does in the end. It is much more
difficult than most people assume to help people or solve problems with money.

Pulling that much money from where it is invested now means less money for
startups, etc. It could easily be a net loss to society to have that funding
diverted to charities unless they were some pretty awesome / above average
charities.

------
lelele
This is admirable, but I'm a bit worried that a lot of donated money will fall
into some black hole. Money matters, yes, still I would much prefer successful
people donating their smarts to the world instead of their money.

------
ck2
I like how some of them state what kinds of charities they will help in their
letters.

I mean there are charities and then there are self-serving charities

(ie. the Dominos pizza billionaire literally built his own catholic city).

------
sliverstorm
With $600 billion floating around in private, generally unmonitored hands...

Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on charities? That sounds like it'd be ripe for
exploitation.

------
tommynazareth
They should give the money to Louis C.K.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fNgx8aCS8>

------
throw_away
Ralph Nader recently wrote a book on this topic:
<http://onlythesuperrich.org/>

------
harscoat
that really gives hope. We are at a tipping point of selflessness. At the
infinite limit Selfessness is our best self interest (I help people so that
one day when I would need help other do the same)... for the moment, it is
still an asymptote which requires a leap of faith.

------
JeffL
So I have a question - doesn't this effectively take billions of dollars that
was (via investment) essentially going to capital expenditures to increase
productivity overall and make it go instead to consumer expenditures? Doesn't
that make the country worse off overall, despite helping a few people in the
short run?

------
Ardit20
I used to paint all the rich with the same brush. When reading the Forbe's
list and the astronomical numbers I would be at first amazed, then jealous and
then think of them as thief's and cheats.

Although I still think that the wealthy have a vastly disproportionate
influence over government and at times to the expense of the greater public
and that many of the super rich would short the public to increase their
bottom line, reading the letters written on <http://givingpledge.org> has
entirely reformulated my perception. I am now much more likely to give any
rich person the benefit of the doubt and even perhaps view them slightly
favourably rather than default to their status being illegitimate.

I have been inspired and it is absolutely amazing to see what the captains of
industry are doing with their wealth. There were many of them committing 90%,
99% of their wealth, even to die broke. Not only so but committing their time
and experience too. Some of the most experienced and I would think of
intelligence individuals dedicating themselves to such great causes as
Socratic methods of teaching, many scholarships, medical research, clean
water, libraries, homeless, social programmes for the young... I think is very
inspiring and motivating to become rich.

What is inspiring also is reading things such as Greek immigrant, orphanage,
all our worth at the back of a Ford's car, an average American.

There is much that can be improved with the working of democracy, but with
people like these I have faith in that country and trust much to be good.

I can now once more view them as role models. They are great people doing
great things and I am inspired to become as great if not more.

------
zemanel
well good night Ireeene :)

------
thornad
They OWN the f __g charities. This is more consolidation of power in the hands
of the same people while also giving them great PR. They are having a laugh at
you.

------
quinndupont
That's one way to keep from paying taxes.

------
lionhearted
Good stuff. Could we immediately stop taking taxes from anyone who takes this
pledge? Considering the high percentage of the government that's full of
corrupt and incompetent bunglers running questionable programs, I have
immensely more faith in talented and driven people deploying their resources
better to improve the world. The idea that $300M would go into the U.S.
government sending "aid money" directly to a dictator's government in Africa
instead of Gates deploying it to wipe out malaria is no good, for instance.

~~~
smiler
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews>

Buffett says the rich should pay more taxes

~~~
lionhearted
> Buffett says the rich should pay more taxes

Easy to say for a guy who built his wealth starting with an insurance company,
which uses government regulation to make most of its money. Wealthy people put
their money into the insurance company because life insurance payouts aren't
taxable but estate taxes are. Then Buffet's insurance company gets to invest
that money in low risk bonds to get basically free money before paying it out.
This only exists because of insurance company lobbying - it only adds friction
to the system and wastes time and resources, while insurance companies get
rich extracting money from the system. This is how Buffet built much of his
starting capital.

Then he keeps most of his earnings in the holdings company, and only
occasionally pays capital gains. The guy's gamed huge loopholes in the U.S.
tax system his whole life, and then has the audacity to say that "the rich"
should pay more taxes? Physician, heal thyself.

Edit: Reply instead of downvoting? There's a bunch of not commonly known facts
in this comment and it's getting some downs, a non-fact progressive viewpoint
is getting some ups... that's got to be the most disappointing thing about HN
lately, the trend towards up/downvoting based on politics and not content in a
comment.

~~~
locopati
And what should he do? He plays the system that's there. At least he's honest
enough to say the system that's there is tilted in his favor. But, I do ask
the question seriously? Run for government? Fund progressive candidates who
would raise tax on higher incomes?

~~~
lionhearted
> And what should he do?

Stick to business and stay out of trying to be a folk hero? Or pay higher tax
rates voluntarily to set an example? Campaigning for a tax increase when a lot
of his money came from helping people use a tax loophole created by his
industry doesn't seem particularly righteous.

~~~
peripitea
That does nothing to solve the overall problem, though. It would give us back
Buffett's taxes, but they pale in comparison to the aggregate taxes being
avoided by the thousands of other super rich.

As a businessman, he's required to exploit these loopholes, much like a lawyer
is required to defend a client they know to be in the wrong. What makes
Buffett special is that he, unlike so many other super rich, is choosing to
publicly draw attention to the system they all know to be broken.

