It currently has a $50b endowment, which is not the same thing as saying Gates contributed the $50b. Much of its value is accumulated investment growth, since the foundation trust fund holds its assets in equities.
Maybe, though he left a lot of roadkill tech companies behind him back in the day. Behind every great fortune is a crime.
Sure, Gates was a bastard in acquiring his fortune. At least he’s not a bastard in spending it.
magnet
6515
Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $30 billion to their foundation. They net worth is now around $100 billion.
Yes, their contribution amounts to about 8 years of their income. None of their wealth.
Edit: That’s why I said it was a rounding error. Gates could throw off his earnings to the foundation every year. Assuming he makes 5%, in ten years that’s $50b, but his wealth is no less than it was.
Nesrie
6517
This seems as little off track.
We can absolutely have the ultra rich pay more without sucking them dry… no matter how they spend their wealth. And it’s okay to have billionaires in that scenario, where the billionaires pay a hefty price but can still be rich.
This does not have to be a pitchfork scenario.
I’m not sure what the distinction here is. The Gates funded the Foundation with a sizable chunk of their on-paper fortune. If they had not chosen to do so they would be worth half-again what they are worth today, which they may or may not have realized at the time.
I think your point is that they did not suffer any real inconvenience in giving away so much money, so it should not be viewed in as good a light as other donations?
Yeah, the torches & pitchforks approach won’t end well for anyone. That said, I can certainly appreciate how good it might feel while it was happening.
Doesn’t he have more money now then before he started the charity?
Nesrie
6521
What difference does this make?
People are allowed to accumulate wealth. It’s not a crime nor is it a something we should discourage. We can have higher tax brackets at the end of this and not really have either of those as a goal. And whether or not his money goes to charities, that’s up to him/them.
The point is that, generally speaking, they did not. They fund it with the income from their fortune and contributions of others. It’s good that they do that, but it isn’t good that they have that fortune, and it isn’t true that they’re giving away all of their fortune, as the PR has it.
My point is that giving away your income when you have more money than you can ever spend isn’t particularly selfless. It’s better than spending it on hookers and cocaine, sure, and they’ve certainly done some good with it, but they aren’t saints, and we ought to tax the hell out of that fortune they can’t spend anyway, and they ought to agree to that level of taxation if for no other reason than considering the historic alternative.
If he has only paid $10 billion in taxes, he’s paid a lot less than most people, proportionately. Even people with robust retirement accounts, relatively high home equity, and no other debt are often worth less than their annual income, which means that they pay an amount in taxes equal to, say, 1/4 of their wealth every year?
Now, Gates does other good things with his money, but that doesn’t mean he’s paying his fair share in taxes. Add up your current household wealth, and tell me what percentage of that you’ve paid in taxes over the past 10 years. Let’s see if that comes out to the 10% he’s implying (and that possibly counts many prior years, not just 10).
And then he said that Warren was probably too close-minded to sit down with a person who had money and talk about it.
I mean, they should be praised, surely, but then again, maybe we should first consider how their donations impacted their available cash / lifestyle choices and compare to people who make $100k / year and donate 10% of it.
If you have $50b and make 5% / year over inflation, you make $2.5b / year. If you donate $30b you now make $1b / year - a massive pay cut! But, if you only spend $15 million/year on your household (because how the hell do you even spend that much money on your personal life, let alone 100 times that much?), then actually you didn’t take a pay cut at all. You simply reduced the rate at which you were pocketing money to no purpose other than increased money-pocketing rates.
That doesn’t make it a bad thing, but maybe it should really be the expected thing? Actually, maybe far more should be expected.
I mean, Bill Gates had $100b in 1999. Today, he has…$100b. Which means that, by definition, he’s giving away his income, not his wealth.
Well, $100b in 1999 was worth a lot more than it is today.
Matt_W
6526
No one is advocating pitchforks, just taxes. Huge wealth begets huge power. Billionaires (and mere millionaires) have an enormous ability to impact our national politics in ways that make the system more responsive to them. The shift in income distribution that we’ve seen over the last 4 decades is a result of those policies, as is the slow rot of social programs, educational institutions, infrastructure and transportation development, and other ways that we commit as a society to providing opportunity for everyone. I’m not saying everyone should have the same income, but billionaires are completely unnecessary. Any one of us with a couple of million dollars in our pockets could quit work forever and live comfortably for the rest of our lives. Who really needs any more than that?
Oghier
6527
That idea doesn’t apply to healthcare. It’s the single most important issue to most voters – there are no “tiny little policy” changes. And “we’re taking away your current insurance” is a gigantic change.
I think Warren’s plan is awful in terms of both policy and politics. I vastly prefer a public option, MFAWWI or some other gradual path to single-payer, without throwing everything into chaos for the next few years.
She’s still my top candidate for a variety of reasons. On this one, I hope she’ll move back toward political reality if she’s elected.
Oghier
6528
As I understand it, her tax is 2% of every dollar beyond $50m. That’s probably outside the range of a rounding error, but it seems pretty reasonable to me. 2% less wealth isn’t going to effect a billionaire’s lifestyle in any meaningful way.
I don’t know the details of how it would work, especially with regard to illiquid wealth. But I support the idea.
You count up what it’s worth, then give the person a bill. You aren’t taking 2% of a building, just charging them to own it. There are well-established ways to account for the effects of liquidity on value (for example, the methods used to put a value on shares of a private company).
Oh, but who decides the value will be interesting.
If you want it done fairly, we will need to up the budget of the IRS, which I am general in favor of anyway.
But, the IRS has put together rules of this type before, they can do it, if properly funded.
As for Bill Gates, for a man giving away his wealth, he sure isn’t in any haste. Sure, his wealth is less valuable then before, but the same could be said of the 5 dollars I put my dollars piggy bank a few years back. That doesn’t mean it was given away.
No it is, it’s just the most important issue to more voters than any other individual issue. But it was a plurality even in 2018 (and appears to be less important now).
Warren’s plan doesn’t throw everything into chaos immediately, there will be a transition. MFAWWI as a glide path to single payer is just unicorns and fairy dust. “People don’t want to give up their current, just-barely-tolerable insurance for your government plan. But if we offer it as an option, then it will do great! It will be more expensive because it will still only have the people who can’t pay or can’t get private coverage, so people will like it even less than the MFA version, and people will still have to pay for their own healthcare while also contributing to those who use the new public option, but the end result will be that we don’t have to raise taxes and we get an amazing universal healthcare system for free!”
