NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2149346/gates-funds-tb-fight-pledge

Yep, Bill Gates pledges 600 million to fight tuberculosis.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.

That's not to say that Cuba's never done anything. They did give about 1.15 million dollars (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/jan99/13e6.htm) worth of vaccines to China once. I'm impressed, are you?

Yea I am impressed. This is a pie in the face for those people who think that the only way to get people to help other people is to force them. (through taxes).

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.


Being an advocate of the free market, as well as a libertarian, I'm inclined to believe that Bill Gates is motovated by nothing more than a desire to boost his own ego and reputation, as well as to provide indirect advertisement for his business interests. (Edit: Of course, these are characteristics and motovations that are applicable to the entirety of homo sapiens sapiens)

That said, I also agree with Adam Smith in that while people are in fact selfish, petty, and generally disgusting little evil bastards, our drive to assuage our need to be recognized and admired can and does often result in great good being done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments).

Aye, Bill Gates is cool. Of course, once you have as much money as he does, there's not much you can do with it other than give it away.

Of course, the fact that the richest man in the world is generous doesn't mean that all of the uber-rich are. Observe: a Study indicating that those with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20051219100909990001) are the most charitable, rather than the corporate CEO types.

Side note: I'm rather distasteful of Gates' business practices, but that doesn't stop him personally from being a cool guy.

Yea I am impressed. This is a pie in the face for those people who think that the only way to get people to help other people is to force them. (through taxes).

It would be if Bill Gates weren't already very well known for his very generous charity work all around the world, especially his orginization based on fighting AIDS.

Nobody ever said that all the ultra rich head honchos in capitalistic economies are bad guys who don't donate shit to charities, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay taxes. Bill Gates still has plenty of money that he might as well burn, even after all his charity work.

Taxes are there so that, while some people may generously give to charity, money still gets to important social services. Those services, which include the police, firemen, public schools, etc., would exist for no one except the rich and middle class if there were no taxes.

But then again, a lot of pro capitalistic social darwinist types consider the rich to be superior peoples and don't really care if the poor die, but they're kind of morally evil.

Aye, Bill Gates is cool. Of course, once you have as much money as he does, there's not much you can do with it other than give it away.


Hmm, I don't think that's really true. I mean, the US tax revenue is much much greater than Gates' income, and the US government doesn't exactly have nothing to do other than donating to charity does it?


Of course, the fact that the richest man in the world is generous doesn't mean that all of the uber-rich are. Observe: a Study indicating that those with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20051219100909990001) are the most charitable, rather than the corporate CEO types.

Well, that might be true, but then wealthier income brackets are taxed more heavily. So might we not conclude that the more you're taxed, the less willing you are to donate?

The idea being that if you pay taxes that can be seen as a substitute for donation. Since taxes fund health care and stuff like that. Trouble is, taxes also fund things like wars and pro-US dictatorships. I definitely see voluntary donation as the more positive in that light, anyway.

Hmm, I don't think that's really true. I mean, the US tax revenue is much much greater than Gates' income, and the US government doesn't exactly have nothing to do other than donating to charity does it?

Well, true. Of course, the government also happens to have much more stuff to pay for than Gates.

Well, that might be true, but then wealthier income brackets are taxed more heavily. So might we not conclude that the more you're taxed, the less willing you are to donate?

Beats me; someone'd have to check charity rates throughout the economic spectrum before income taxes were levied. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw similar numbers, with the exception of ludicrously rich guys like Carnegie.

The idea being that if you pay taxes that can be seen as a substitute for donation. Since taxes fund health care and stuff like that. Trouble is, taxes also fund things like wars and pro-US dictatorships. I definitely see voluntary donation as the more positive in that light, anyway.

Meh, I don't think people's minds work in quite that manner. I'm inclined to think that most people don't relate taxes to charity- heck, a lot of people fail to realize that the money the government spends comes from taxes. Of course, I've never used someone else's brain. I'll also note that I dislike the US's interfering policies and would much prefer that the military be shrunk into an almost entirely defensive role. However, the government has needs and responsibilities far above those of any one charity- that includes maintaining police and military forces, as well as internal improvements, not just health care and the like.

Your thread sucks. I don't even understand your post. Are you being sarcastic, or are you just a victim of polio who has nothing left to do but bitch. If you would like to explain yourself, feel free. I care not.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2149346/gates-funds-tb-fight-pledge

Yep, Bill Gates pledges 600 million to fight tuberculosis.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.

That's not to say that Cuba's never done anything. They did give about 1.15 million dollars (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/jan99/13e6.htm) worth of vaccines to China once. I'm impressed, are you?


And what is wrong with what he did?

Well, that might be true, but then wealthier income brackets are taxed more heavily. So might we not conclude that the more you're taxed, the less willing you are to donate?


Higher taxes in proportion to income ends up meaning less likelihood that the person paying taxes will also give to charity. There was a study done on this which pretty much confirmed this, though I don't feel like just googling for it.


Basically, it showed that states with fairly high taxes, like Massachusetts, often have less people giving to charity than states with lower taxes, like Maine, or many of the southern states.

But do keep in mind that we would have not only no social services or military, but no form of government as we know it, if we got rid of taxes. It's a very, very bad idea to depend mostly on the charity of the rich to try and fund everything, taxes are pretty much required to make a country actually work.

Awww, he's so nice. In fact, he's so nice that Microsoft can't be bad. I might go and buy some Microsoft things now. ;)

Awww, he's so nice. In fact, he's so nice that Microsoft can't be bad. I might go and buy some Microsoft things now. ;)



The only thing wrong with Microsoft is their products suck.

The only thing wrong with Microsoft is their products suck.

And their business practices are rather ruthless. That's how they've gained such a large share of the market. Now, computer consumers are so used to Microsoft's crappy software that other developers are able to cut corners on debugging with few complaints.

That's not to say that Cuba's never done anything. They did give about 1.15 million dollars (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/jan99/13e6.htm) worth of vaccines to China once. I'm impressed, are you?

Actually, I am. Or, if I beleived the anti-Cuba propaganda spewed by our national leaders, I would be. But I've always known that Cuba and Castro weren't the evil pig-dogs the JFK lovers make him out to be.

:rolleyes: I think the fact that this is published and debated over shows how ridiculous the point is. WOW! Bill Gates donating money is such a big story. Like other people here have said, he has money to burn. Quite literally. If philanthropy was that common, that it would make any real difference in the world, then stories such as this wouldnt even be unusual enough to report. With a bare handful of exceptions the worlds wealthiest are NOT generous do-gooders giving to charities and feeding orphan children in their homes. Unfortunately i have little to no faith in true generosity. Taxes arent the only way to get people to give thier money. But for the greater proportion of the population taxes are the only way they'd ever do anything for anyone not directly linked to thier lives.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2149346/gates-funds-tb-fight-pledge

Yep, Bill Gates pledges 600 million to fight tuberculosis.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.

That's not to say that Cuba's never done anything. They did give about 1.15 million dollars (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/jan99/13e6.htm) worth of vaccines to China once. I'm impressed, are you?

Well, there goes this week's mad money. :)

Some companies in America have annual turnover which exceeds the US's national budget. If they devote some of their cash to funding international infrastructure or relieving poverty or something the world would be a better place.

Some companies in America have annual turnover which exceeds the US's national budget. If they devote some of their cash to funding international infrastructure or relieving poverty or something the world would be a better place.
They won't though, because the robber barons who run them are only interested in making occasional donations to obvious charities in order to boost their egos and pay less tax.

Yea I am impressed. This is a pie in the face for those people who think that the only way to get people to help other people is to force them. (through taxes).

If that were true then we wouldnt hear about it and he would have given in the money anonomously. Also, exactly what percentage of his personal fortune is that? What about the beggar who gives £5 to a man with a tin in the street when its all he had.

Yep, Bill Gates pledges 600 million to fight tuberculosis.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.
TSK! What WILL those rich bastids do next! ;)

If that were true then we wouldnt hear about it and he would have given in the money anonomously. Also, exactly what percentage of his personal fortune is that? What about the beggar who gives £5 to a man with a tin in the street when its all he had.
That is sooo specious. What matters is that Gates gave to a very worthy cause, and one which is obviously not some "cultural" thang. Many well-to-do people donate only to those causes which have some presonal relevance to themselves.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2149346/gates-funds-tb-fight-pledge

Yep, Bill Gates pledges 600 million to fight tuberculosis.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.

That's not to say that Cuba's never done anything. They did give about 1.15 million dollars (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/jan99/13e6.htm) worth of vaccines to China once. I'm impressed, are you?

Well you have to consider the charity as a percentage of what each could afford. $600 million is like an hour's pay for Bill Gates, whereas $1.15 million is around 48% of Cuba's GNP. If you look at it that way, Cuba is way more generous. :)

Well you have to consider the charity as a percentage of what each could afford. $600 million is like an hour's pay for Bill Gates, whereas $1.15 million is around 48% of Cuba's GNP. If you look at it that way, Cuba is way more generous. :)
That was only one donation of Gates'. He's donated millions to aid Africa, as one other example. :rolleyes:

People might give a bit more money to charity if they aren't taxed, but not to any great extent.

I mean, say a person earns £100,000 a year, and 50% of that gets taken away for tax, leaving him with £50,000. He usually makes a point of donating at least 1% of his money away to charity. Therefore, he donates about £500 in charity a year.

Say a liberatarian government comes in and abolishes income tax. Assuming the whole system doesn't break down, which realistically it would, the man now earns £100,000 a year. If he's a good person and sticks by his pledge to donate 1%, he'll now donate £1000 a year.

There's a little bit of a difference between £50,500 being in total donated for the good of all and £1000 now isn't there? I'm sure you can go on about charity being more efficient than tax, but at the end of the day it's plain no way near as much. Not to mention the fact people tend to judge how much money is given to charity not in terms of % of income, but in terms of how much actual money they donate. Just look at Americans who claim they are the most generous nation despite the fact other countries give a far bigger % of their GDP for foreign aid. Most likely he'd give more money to charity, but it wouldn't reach £1000 as he'd not look at it in terms of %.

Besides, I doubt he chose the charity because it's something he feels strongly about or anything - most likely he donated to fight a disease common in India to give Microsoft a good image there - a country whose technology is increasing at a rapid rate, and can be a massive market for Microsoft if they get their image right.

$1.15 million is around 48% of Cuba's GNP.
:confused: Perhaps you mean 0.48%. I don't think Cuba's GNP could be so low (about 2.3 million dollars).

Regarding the donations, I believe everybody's overlooking an important aspect. The rich may give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than the not-so-rich, but because they have more money, their donations are larger in absolute ammounts. And ultimatelly, that's what matters when helping people.

Besides, I doubt he chose the charity because it's something he feels strongly about or anything - most likely he donated to fight a disease common in India to give Microsoft a good image there - a country whose technology is increasing at a rapid rate, and can be a massive market for Microsoft if they get their image right.
Cynical, but probably a fair point: India is enjoying an IT boom at the moment.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.

speration of individual from system is important. a capitalist can be the nicest, kindest person in the world - it is the system in which he operates that is inherently selfish and kitten-torturing

speration of individual from system is important. a capitalist can be the nicest, kindest person in the world - it is the system in which he operates that is inherently selfish and kitten-torturing


The capitalist system would never tourture a kitten. The Cost/Benifit ratio is much too high, as is the Risk/Reward ratio as well.

Yet another example of how the only way to succeed in capitalism is by being a selfish shark who deliberately tortures kittens, and how the world would be much better if Cuba ran everything.Well, I have two questions:

1)Is he getting a tax writeoff for this money?

2a)Is doing this generation enough publicity to motivate people to buy his products who wouldn't have otherwise?
2b)Would this be enough people to recoup the donation?

If one or all of these questions is "yes", then the donation has an element of selfishness to it. After all, he could have donated it anonymously.

The capitalist system would never tourture a kitten. The Cost/Benifit ratio is much too high, as is the Risk/Reward ratio as well.
ah but in capitalism the externality of kitten-pain isn't taken into account without government intervention. it is therefore a profitable exercise ;)

the real issue though is whether consumers demand kitten torturing *nods*

Actually, I am. Or, if I beleived the anti-Cuba propaganda spewed by our national leaders, I would be. But I've always known that Cuba and Castro weren't the evil pig-dogs the JFK lovers make him out to be.

Then again, I see it as communist Cuba paying tribute to communist China. I mean ever since the USSR fell apart, they still need a big, powerful, overseas communist government to suck up to, right?

Doesn't seem so generous in that light.

If that were true then we wouldnt hear about it and he would have given in the money anonomously. Also, exactly what percentage of his personal fortune is that? What about the beggar who gives £5 to a man with a tin in the street when its all he had.

So it doesn't matter any more if someone's given 600 million dollars to a good cause, it only matters if that's a large enough percentage of that someone's total wealth? WTF? Like people in third world countries are sitting there in risk of tuberculosis saying, "I sure hope I don't get tuberculosis, but I would REALLY hate it if whoever paid for my vaccine didn't spend 50% or more of their personal fortune on it!"

And what ABOUT the beggar who gives 5 pounds? I've never heard of him or seen him. Usually you see, beggars are asking for income, not handing it away. Maybe your experience is vastly different. But I rather think your example is completely fictitious.

1)Is he getting a tax writeoff for this money?

2a)Is doing this generation enough publicity to motivate people to buy his products who wouldn't have otherwise?
2b)Would this be enough people to recoup the donation?

If one or all of these questions is "yes", then the donation has an element of selfishness to it. After all, he could have donated it anonymously.

So what if it has an element of selfishness to it?

Tell me, when you give money, food or shelter to a homeless person - and I'm sure you do, right? - do you

1) Feel better about yourself for being generous and helping out?
2) Look good to anyone else?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then that too has an element of selfishness.

But that doesn't invalidate the donation. In fact, it only shows that selfishness leads to helping other people. The triumph of capitalism, in other words. :)

I think the fact that this is published and debated over shows how ridiculous the point is. WOW! Bill Gates donating money is such a big story. Like other people here have said, he has money to burn. Quite literally. If philanthropy was that common, that it would make any real difference in the world, then stories such as this wouldnt even be unusual enough to report. With a bare handful of exceptions the worlds wealthiest are NOT generous do-gooders giving to charities and feeding orphan children in their homes. Unfortunately i have little to no faith in true generosity. Taxes arent the only way to get people to give thier money. But for the greater proportion of the population taxes are the only way they'd ever do anything for anyone not directly linked to thier lives.

Philanthropy IS that common. In fact it's more common among people who "only" make 50,000 to 100,000 a year (see the article Pennterra linked to in the 4th post of this topic). We don't usually hear about those folks, true. But then their donations rarely equal over half a billion dollars in one swoop.

And as for taxes, well knowing my tax dollars have helped kill a few tens of thousands of Iraqis makes ME feel a lot more generous, how about you?

And speaking of taxes, how much did the UK allott to this particular cause? Answer me that, was it more, or less, than what Gates did?

And as for taxes, well knowing my tax dollars have helped kill a few tens of thousands of Iraqis makes ME feel a lot more generous, how about you?
Hasn't the bulk of the funding for the Iraq adventure come from Bush taking out foreign loans (that some future President is going to have to worry about paying, presumably) rather than taxes. About the only tax money I remember hearing linked with Iraq was the cash he's been skimming off the leevee maintenance programme in Louisiane since 2003.

Hasn't the bulk of the funding for the Iraq adventure come from Bush taking out foreign loans (that some future President is going to have to worry about paying, presumably) rather than taxes. About the only tax money I remember hearing linked with Iraq was the cash he's been skimming off the leevee maintenance programme in Louisiane since 2003.

Taxes pay for the military, is all I know.

If its the case that he took out enough foreign loans to pay for every single thing we've done in Iraq - I doubt it, really - then its not today's taxes, but tomorrow's instead when we pay it back. Not much of an improvement.

That was only one donation of Gates'. He's donated millions to aid Africa, as one other example. :rolleyes:


:confused: Perhaps you mean 0.48%. I don't think Cuba's GNP could be so low (about 2.3 million dollars).

....

Please tell me that at least some people didn't take my post so damn seriously.

....

Please tell me that at least some people didn't take my post so damn seriously.


Having read the thread backwards, I can safely say I did not take your post so seriously. and probably wouldn't have if I read it forwards.


Also, I'm not surprised at Gates or Cubas donations.

let's assume Bill Gates networth is $40 billion

donating $600 million would be 1.5% his networth

that is equivalent to a person whose networth is 50k donating $750

HE SHOULD BE CANONIZED!!

Gates is following in the Robber Baron traditions of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Throwing a measly amount of his vast wealth into charitable donations and causes so history will look back and find less fault with his ruthless business practices... even praise him for it.

So what if it has an element of selfishness to it?

Tell me, when you give money, food or shelter to a homeless person - and I'm sure you do, right? - do you

1) Feel better about yourself for being generous and helping out?
2) Look good to anyone else?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then that too has an element of selfishness.

But that doesn't invalidate the donation. In fact, it only shows that selfishness leads to helping other people. The triumph of capitalism, in other words. :)That's true that my donating money to a beggar would have an element of selfishness in it, but only because there are no selfless deeds.

I would also argue that helping other people nor selfishness is exclusive to capitalism.

Gates is following in the Robber Baron traditions of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Throwing a measly amount of his vast wealth into charitable donations and causes so history will look back and find less fault with his ruthless business practices... even praise him for it.That's a good point. It's appalling how many people here froth at the sound of Carnegie's name "His name is on libraries!" they exclaim, as though it excuses his appalling business practices.