Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

defcon_penguin t1_iv1pe4l wrote

What about the richest man on the planet? Is he also the stingiest?

83

Tax_onomy t1_iv25uj5 wrote

Guy believes his companies are a form of charity because "aspirationally they want to save the world". Can't make that shit up

87

Killingagency t1_iv4to0k wrote

that is actually a good line of thinking from him. I know you probably disagree on first thought but hear me out.

If you have a clearly set (innovative) goal for your company it benefits humanity. Any kind of new tech brings us forward and increases our welfare. Any kind of product is usually bought when it brings value to the buyer. Products bring a better life to people, especially if they are set on progressing humanity.

So as an owner it's actually better to invest most of your money back into your company. Donating that money brings less value to humanity in those cases. kinda like: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, learn a man fishing and he will eat for a lifetime. Donations are a fish, whereas innovations are the fishing skills.

−7

thurken t1_iv4wcw0 wrote

Donating is generally done to organisations so it is not giving man a fish but giving a teacher and a medic the tool to help the man learn, grow, and heal.

The difference is that these organizations are driven by the usefulness to the people while a company is driven by its profits. Only in some case profits and usefulness to the people is aligned.

7

Killingagency t1_iv4y5qn wrote

>donating is generally done to organisations

Yes but these organizations do not produce anything. They just redistribute money, like you said they give out medicine or food. That is the exact equivalent of giving a man a fish.

>They are driven by usefulness while a company is driven by profits.

Yes and how do you get profit? By being useful. You trade money against value. You buy things that make your life better. Every single thing you touch has been created by a company not by a charity. All a charity does is redestribute the essential products to places who are unable to fish (produce) themselves.

I also find it funny you mention medicine and food, because all of those innovations (yes food has a lot of innovation especially in the supply chain and harvesting) are created by for profit organisations.

−2

st4n13l t1_ivaanfy wrote

>Any kind of new tech brings us forward and increases our welfare

>Products bring a better life to people

>Donations are a fish, whereas innovations are the fishing skills.

If you believe this shit, I've got a bridge to sell you.

1

Killingagency t1_ivab0na wrote

whats there to belief lol, its the truth.

It baffles me how many people, like you, somehow can claim the oppossite whilst literally standing and living in the middle of all these innovations.

Like literally every single item you touch is the proof lol.

0

st4n13l t1_ivadom8 wrote

My issue with your statement is that it's absolute. Not that new products and innovations can improve lives but rather that all products and innovations do improve lives simply by existing.

>Like literally every single item you touch is the proof lol.

Proof that products exist. Not proof all products improve our lives.

1

Killingagency t1_ivajn6l wrote

Well fair enough, talking in absolutes is always easily countered. However people buy products because it provides them value.

If a product doesn't provide (enough) value either the company switches to different products or goes bancrupt.

So yeah each product that you have is proof that it improves life. But what I am mostly aiming at, is to compare each product to their counterpart 100+ years ago.

0

MansfromDaVinci t1_iv4uia3 wrote

Ah yes, philanthropic leaded petrol. Innovation is not humanitarian neither is business. If the charity is shit awful and the business is very beneficial this is true otherwise it's not.

−1

Killingagency t1_iv4uxsz wrote

You don't understand the message. I'm not saying we do not need charities, especially during a humanitarian crisis they are essential.

However keep in mind every single thing that makes your life liveable. From your isolated house, to phones, to computers, to food and medicine, all comes from (for profit) companies. If people would have donated that money back then to charities you would be worse off.

2

MansfromDaVinci t1_iv51r1w wrote

You don't understand, sometimes companies make things that improve life say insulin, sometimes they make DDT, and they don't care either way, they care about what makes a profit. Charities also make houses, food and medicine and do care about the human effect.

Every single thing that makes my life unbearable, from social media echo-chambers, through processed food, to global warming comes from for profit companies. In my country the idiot right-wing sold off the public services to companies for a song and now we are trillions poorer in lost profits, pay through the nose for them at point of access, pay again from taxes and get a worse service.

1

Killingagency t1_iv55dyw wrote

ok you start, sell literally everything you own and start buying only from charities who "care" about you. I'm incredibly interested in how far you will come lol, keep me updated.

0

thurken t1_iv4wt18 wrote

No they come first from for non-profit science, which is the biggest breakthrough. I'm not saying companies are useless: they leverage greed to accelerate the productionizaton, scalability, and marketing of science breakthroughs and this is useful. But here we're not talking about not having companies, but after having successful companies and making billions, giving some of these billions away. If you want to be convincing you should cite examples of billionaires not giving their billions and making our life liveable because of that.

0

Killingagency t1_iv4ygc9 wrote

science comes mainly from universities which are for profit.

Also a lot of breakthrough comes from R&D, which is also science but well funded and with a clear goal.

I would much rather have Musk invest all of his wealth into R&D at SpaceX than give it to charities.

Edit: public universities are non-profit officially, but they do indirectly profit from their research by attracting more students. They are world aparts from charities.

−1

SpunkyBananaSpunk t1_iv4znmx wrote

Universities that do research are all not-for-profit. and universities generally don't make much money from research. There really isn't that much profit in basic research which is why it is important to have it publicly funded.

1

Killingagency t1_iv50b0u wrote

Well yes and no.

State funded (public) universities are officially not-for-profit. However they are no charity and behave themselves as a for profit organization. They maximise their amount of students, maximise their quality and minimise costs, they are at risk of going bancrupt and have many deals and ties with businesess. Their quality of research indirectly attracts students and with that money.

Besides the world surrounding research is definitly for-profit mostly, journals and publishers play the key role and are generally for-profit. The only people not really earning well on their efforts are the researchers themselves.

−1

psyche_2099 t1_iv4x1ae wrote

Counterpoint - if that money had been donated, I and everyone else on the planet might be living reasonably comfortably, without the looming spectre of climate change coming to kill us all.

Break it down:

If everyone on the planet had more or less the same base wealth, we'd all be equally comfortable.

Innovation and drive don't come from capital, people are independently innovative, so I imagine it reasonable to think some (not all, but enough) of our creature comforts would exist.

Without the drive for profits, these billionaires wouldn't be ferociously driving their businesses to be profitable, so those companies would be more sustainable and climate change less severe. Plus wealthier people disproportionately emit CO2.

0

Killingagency t1_iv4zntp wrote

We tried running that test globally multiple times it didn't work once.

Innovation comes from competition, plain and simple. Take away the competition and you take away the drive of people for more.

Besides that, it simply doesn't work like you suggest.

Let's imagine your perfect world, we will redistribute all of the wealth among all people equally.

Well the problem is, it would literally take less than an hour for all of that to become unequal. Some people would spend it outright on drugs and alcohol. Others will invest it to create something new thus creating more wealth in some form.

It's the pareto distribution a fundamental "law" that is natural in every single creative domain. The amount of goals scored in NBA? 20% of people have 80% of the goals. Same for articles published, records sold, money earned, etc etc.

You cant fight it. An equal redistribution of wealth is fundamentally not possible.

0

[deleted] t1_iv1s2qh wrote

[deleted]

5

jakubkonecki t1_iv2sb0r wrote

If a mega-billionaire donates 2.4% of his fortune to charity but no charity gets any money, does it actually count as philanthropy?

That’s a lingering question surrounding Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive and world’s wealthiest person, over the past month. A terse regulatory filing in mid-February disclosed that Musk, who is currently worth $235 billion according to Bloomberg, had earmarked $5.7 billion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided about where the shares have gone: “To charity,” according to the bare-bones prose in the SEC’s disclosure form. No nonprofits have recently announced receiving any money from him, and Musk did not respond to several Fortune requests for comment.

From Fortune website

38

[deleted] t1_iv2ss7j wrote

[deleted]

−11

jakubkonecki t1_iv2thyo wrote

Yes, but if Musk's fund haven't actually donated to any charity, is he really a philanthropist?

15

euk-ko t1_iv366m9 wrote

i hate reddit

3

emperor_scrotum_II t1_iv3zmx4 wrote

I don’t like musk either but don’t pretend Reddit isn’t religiously anti-Musk. Your opinion is the status quo on 90% of the subs, especially the larger ones

−2

[deleted] t1_iv379b3 wrote

[deleted]

−6

euk-ko t1_iv37rg3 wrote

defending a billionaire online for literally nothing sounds like a you problem

7

awakenedchicken t1_iv3wjlp wrote

I can never understand fan boying for people whose wealth doesn’t affect you at all. Do you people think one day you’re going to be a billionaire? Why do you like people who continue to get richer and richer on the back of people like us?

7

[deleted] t1_iv4qs90 wrote

[removed]

0

awakenedchicken t1_iv4r0fn wrote

Yeah I’m big idiot boy.

The link says he put it in a fund. No evidence that he ever donated with said fund. Therefor, he hasn’t donated any money.

0

TJATAW t1_iv3b7tw wrote

If you look at the article it says:

"Our estimates factor in the total lifetime giving of American billionaires, measured in dollars given to charitable recipients—in other words, we are not including money parked in a foundation that has yet to do any good. To that end, we also do not include gifts that have been pledged but not yet paid out, or money given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements—unless the giver shared details about the grants that were actually paid by such entities. This is a list of individuals and couples who are U.S. citizens; as a result, we excluded extended families like the Waltons, controlling shareholders of Walmart, and excluded big givers like Hansjoerg Wyss, who lives in the U.S. but is a Swiss citizen. Net worths are as of January 18, 2022."

Musk said he gave $5 billion to charity, but won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got money from Musk. So his donation is likely "given to donor-advised funds—opaque, tax-advantaged accounts that have neither disclosure nor distribution requirements". In other words, a tax write off.

32

[deleted] t1_iv3bd3s wrote

[deleted]

−2

jakubkonecki t1_iv3e4hd wrote

"still needs" is the most significant part of the sentence.

5

[deleted] t1_iv3ev7m wrote

[removed]

−9

jakubkonecki t1_iv3fihb wrote

Not 'only'. Fund can be dismantled and all the money returned. And what good come from this money sitting in the account? Please don't tell me there's no charity out there who is worthy of Musk's money. It's an obvious tax dodge.

5

row64software OP t1_iv1vasc wrote

Interesting... I wonder why Forbes didn't catch that.

6

TJATAW t1_iv3butf wrote

Because Forbes is only counting verifiable facts.

Musk won't say who got it, and no one is saying they got it. All we have is Musk saying that he gave it to charity.

15

peter303_ t1_iv5lrj0 wrote

Lot of that was to charitable trusts, which havent given out the money yet. Mainly for tax reasons. A whole 2% of his wealth too!

Anyone in the US can use a charitable trust.

0

jevvpanese t1_iv3l631 wrote

>illion worth of his Tesla shares for charity in late November. And yes, that’s the only detail Musk has provided ab

i guess donating internet to Ukraine doesn't count

−6

685327592 t1_iv1pu4x wrote

IMO there's definitely different tiers of philanthropy. Anything political shouldn't be praised, it should be condemned. Even donating to your own foundation is pretty questionable since it's a huge tax dodge and often directed towards pet projects.

70

40for60 t1_iv1qznl wrote

Aren't all charitable donations by everyone a "tax dodge and directed towards pet projects"? The tax code has been created to encourage donations this isn't a "dodge".

19

685327592 t1_iv1rthh wrote

No. If you donate to a charity like the Red Cross then they now control that money. However if you donate to your own "charity" then you still control all that money and can now spend it tax free.

13

40for60 t1_iv1sbht wrote

So you can buy a house and a boat for yourself with the money "tax free"?

6

685327592 t1_iv1t4lw wrote

That certainly has happened before, but most people are a little more subtle.

8

40for60 t1_iv1tk1g wrote

explain, I'm really curious how in-tune you really are with this, are you a CPA or an Attorney who sets up and manages charitable trusts and foundations? You seem to be very smart. What % of dollars going into foundations are being used for self dealing?

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/acts-of-self-dealing-by-private-foundation

1

_BreakingGood_ t1_iv3z185 wrote

Much of it isn't necessarily to buy themselves a yacht or something. It's setting up a foundation, putting your family members in extremely high paying executive positions, then donating to it. Your family members get paid their huge salary to do nothing, and it is beneficial from a tax perspective compared to a gift.

12

40for60 t1_iv5tcax wrote

The family members still need to pay income tax on that so all that is happening is avoiding the estate taxes which you can easily do without setting up a foundation, you don't understand tax codes. In your child like thirst for finding fault you dismiss the good that is done because you need to find villains around every corner. I'm curious what do you do to help the world? Can you list your accomplishments? Or are you just a whiner and complainer? A loser critic?

1

_BreakingGood_ t1_iv61i3p wrote

Yes I said "beneficial from a tax situation" not "tax free"

Learn English mate

1

40for60 t1_iv61sla wrote

But it isn't and would be a big expensive hassle that could put the family members in legal jeopardy for no good reason if the only goal was to funnel money to heirs. Also I'm not your mate, I want nothing to do with you.

1

_BreakingGood_ t1_iv6k1zv wrote

Nope it's pretty well practiced as an approach, nothing illegal about it. Your child or friend just happens to be an executive at the nonprofit you founded. How is that illegal?

Tax benefits come from being able to donate to the non-profit to pay their salary, rather than giving them a flat gift, which has huge taxes after around 11 million.

1

40for60 t1_iv6lu0f wrote

Nothing illegal about doing legal things but there are rules and self dealing is a issue.

If the goal is to get your kids money without the expectation of them doing anything for it there are better ways. Why go through the hassle of setting up a fraudulent foundation? What kind of attorney's and accountants will participate in an obvious illegal venture? All you are doing is generalizing so we might as well say all poor people are criminals too because some poor people steal things. If a person intends to create a foundation and donate money to it with a stipulation that the children are on the board or payroll and they do nothing for it at some point it will be a issue if its abused. My guess is that this problem is much smaller then what you want to believe and most foundations act in good faith. I personal have been involved in many and have yet to witness this kind of bullshit. Do foundations sometimes get top heavy, yes, do they make mistakes, yes, but self dealing as a practice, I doubt its that big of a issue.

1

FlurpZurp t1_iv2mkys wrote

An institutionalized dodge is still a dodge. Just because you bought the politicians/process to enshrine it in law doesn’t make it less immoral.

3

40for60 t1_iv2rx77 wrote

Giving to charity is "immoral". Based on what dogma?

3

Dave_A480 t1_iv3dlw5 wrote

Given the government's record in terms of use-of-funds...

A 'dodge' that goes to private charity is actually more likely to help those in need, then letting .gov have it.

1

[deleted] t1_iv1s8vt wrote

[deleted]

6

685327592 t1_iv1sw2d wrote

It shouldn't be up to Billionaires to decide what is or isn't a worthy cause. They should pay their taxes either way. Bringing up Malaria is a strawman because there's far more questionable things some of these foundations are funding than that.

0

40for60 t1_iv1up8w wrote

If we raised taxes on the rich would things like this happen? Right now the bottom 50% earners in the US only contribute 3% of the Federal income tax, the US doesn't have a VAT and our energy taxes are low. The bottom 50% earners in the US have a comparatively low tax burden versus Europeans and really everyone else.

8

[deleted] t1_iv1uy0p wrote

[deleted]

2

40for60 t1_iv1vfx6 wrote

The charitable giving deductions are not "loopholes" its designed this way on purpose while a loophole is something that was overlooked.

6

685327592 t1_iv1ve68 wrote

Half the people you see on this list are in the bottom 50%. That's because people pay taxes on income, not wealth. So, if you don't sell any stocks you don't pay any taxes even if you're worth 12 figures.

−4

40for60 t1_iv1vpni wrote

No one on this list reports less then 70k per year in income.

People like you are easy to discredit because you don't have your facts or terminology right.

7

685327592 t1_iv1w3rz wrote

That's just false. They routinely report no income. Even when they do report income it's peanuts compared to their actual wealth.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

In some cases these Billionaires have even received credits meant for the poor:

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-claimed-tax-credit-for-children-propublica-2021-6

3

40for60 t1_iv1wuiw wrote

It certainly can be the case were they will have years of no income after they retire from their jobs like Bezo's has but they eventually cash out some and pay a bunch then. You can make the argument that they can borrow against their wealth but so can any home owner or person who has a 401k, lots of people do this. Anyone can do this, its not illegal. Self dealing on a foundation is illegal and 99.9% of the people who set up foundations don't, this is why Trump is such a scum bag.

4

685327592 t1_iv1x6o2 wrote

Most people are not able to avoid taxes that way. We have W2 income that is taxed far more aggressively.

2

40for60 t1_iv1yvqi wrote

Most people don't actually pay shit for Federal Income taxes, the top 25% earners carry the US paying nearly 90% of the Federal Income tax and last year 57% of the earners paid zero taxes. So your statement is false because MOST people are not paying shit. And most people are not taxed "aggressively". See chart 6 below. Again you don't know what you are talking about.

So MOST people are not taxed on their income, the US doesn't have a regressive consumption VAT tax and our energy is taxxed at a very low rate.

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

1

685327592 t1_iv206tu wrote

Most people don't pay much because they don't make much. Your numbers include people in school and retired. Working class people are paying taxes.

PS you still don't seem to understand that top earners and top taxpayers are totally different. The people paying high taxes are W2 earners like athletes and movie stars. People whose money is coming from stocks pay far less or even zero.

1

40for60 t1_iv21vq3 wrote

It includes people who have filed a tax return and also this number is skewed against the top earners because "Readers should note the IRS dataset excludes the refundable portion of tax credits such as the earned income tax credit, which means the IRS data overstates the tax rate paid by taxpayers at the bottom.".

I do understand it, better then you do.

The US tax polices are some of the most progressive in the world and although we don't have some of the same exact social programs some of the Europeans have we also don't have the regressive consumption taxes they have to fund them. The income taxes and corporate taxes are mostly in line with Europe.

3

SB_Raider t1_iv36pmp wrote

I agree with everything you're saying, but the wealthiest 1000 people don't pay nearly the same % of wealth as the rest of the top 5% of earners.

1

40for60 t1_iv37ukp wrote

this is true and it certainly is a problem and why I think the bigger issue is the unearned income tax rate which has made it much easier to accumulate wealth and has allowed Private Equity to become such a big player.

1

_Bellegend_ t1_iv3fxv9 wrote

That’s a damn good reason to tax them appropriately. Some of the best uses of surplus wealth aren’t the ones that get taken up by the rich as pet causes. I agree

−1

IBeThatManOnTheMoon t1_iv24qlb wrote

Buffet also made an agreement with Gates that when he passes, the majority of his wealth will go to the Gates foundation.

When you see some older interviews of Bill Gates talking about philanthropy, he always mentions “Warren’s generous gift”.

68

KingNFA t1_iv557fi wrote

Which is sad if you know the story of the gates foundation

1

Ambitious-Concert-69 t1_iv581xz wrote

I don’t. What’s the story?

0

Dysp-_- t1_iv58r13 wrote

You will probably now be presented with some qAnon shit about Gates being a lizard and part of a pedophile ring or some shit.

Imagine having donated millions upon millions of your wealth, and helped millions of impoverished people, then to have some wankers in their parents basements spread misinformation about you.

Human psychology is amazingly frightening.

8

deMachiavellian t1_iv5b9vh wrote

It’s just a way of moving money into nonprofits controlled by the same families. These massive donations are all about long term tax planning for inherited wealth. These billionaire family will still control the wealth they donate. Most of these donations are given to “philanthropies” that are started by a friend. You donate to mine I’ll donate to yours and we both get to control tax free money.

There’s also the argument that the Giving Pledge is ludicrous as both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates net worth has more than doubled since they created the pledge. When Gates first made the pledge in 2010 he had a net worth of about $53billion. Today after giving away $33.4billion, per the chart didn’t actually confirm this, he has a network of about $115billion.

Now yes the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation has done some great things with STI/STD and other infectious diseases as well as food insecurity and global hunger. However the reason they were able to do this was because the gutting of the US tax system and Bill gates being one of history greatest monopoly players. Instead of nation-states providing these services the world now must rely on the benevolence of globalized oligarchs.

7

KingNFA t1_iv59gw9 wrote

Basically in « no such things as free gifts » by Linsey McGoey the author explains with backed up sources that Bill Gates uses his foundation to have some power over poor countries, a sit at ONU and pretends to do what he doesn’t.

You had interviews of African people saying that they had a lot of vaccines for diseases that were never heard of in their villages for example.

Bill Gate also has the highest amount of land in the us, no shit he’s for vegetal food.

Btw I’m not trying to convince you I’m just saying look it up

−5

kineticPhoton t1_ivesdci wrote

If he has that much land, his best chances of making profit of it is producing soya for animal food. That logic doesn't check out.

You need way less land for vegetarian food. I'm pretty sure that meat consumption would be more profitable for a land owner than vegetarians would be. There'd be a hell lot of overproduction if you'd produce as much on field nowaday and take away the animal's food consumption. About 77% of Soy production world wide goes into livestock food source. So soy business is pretty lucrative. Especially if there are a lot of people eating meat.

(I'm not stating eating meat is better than plant-based, I'm just stating that I doubt that Bill Gates profits of vegetarians more than of meat-eaters)

1

Eldervelder t1_iv24zjt wrote

Bezos is trash. This has pushed me over the edge of quitting Amazon.

28

rastaladywithabrady t1_iv3b6ja wrote

i understand why you think this, but there's a lot more good that's come out of his wealth and donations that wouldn't have happened without him.

it's backwards to try to say it's anything negative

−21

bjlile99 t1_iv3yqpr wrote

Lol something else would take that space. He isn't printing the money.

4

Hairyballzak t1_iv33rkh wrote

I don't think George Soros should be categorized as a philanthropist so much as a political financier.

28

Nalemag t1_iv39isu wrote

similarly, wtf is Charles Koch donating to?

12

Opposite_Oven_6114 t1_iv40nui wrote

But if they believe that the world will be better by donating to their political party than they WOULD view it as being philanthropic I believe.

3

Spillz-2011 t1_iv49hbx wrote

His foundation works all over the world and not just on “political” issues.

4

kingsnowsand t1_iv1uai7 wrote

When hiding your money in trusts you control counts to save taxes counts as philanthropy!!

10

WubbaLubbaDubDub311 t1_iv3otg6 wrote

Wait until a few of these billionaires pass. They’ve signed pacts to donate a vast majority of their wealth towards philanthropy.

6

row64software OP t1_iv1letj wrote

Source: Forbes 2022 Most Philanthropic Billionaires

Tools used: www.row64.com, a data animator powered by Python. Adobe Premiere Pro for Logos and Labels

4

leeguel t1_iv2vjop wrote

Bezos isn’t shit, his ex wife gives more than him and he is still making all that money.

3

lyonsguy t1_iv3pak9 wrote

Most of these philanthropists are on record to support taxes for Universal Basic Income.

Even Elon and zuckerbutts have spoken in support.

3

Fernsck t1_iv48a2u wrote

Would be nice to see how much these people are making at loopholing taxes and donating between each other or their own charities used for political influence.

2

locootte90 t1_iv63gyt wrote

Ah yes, Jeff Bezos.. one day the world will lynch bad people like you!

2

CryptoIndie t1_iv4kuru wrote

Interesting that they have budget better than some department of UN, yet the impact from their work is not widely known to the people.

1

little_bonk t1_iv4oi7x wrote

The X axis doesn't correlate at all?

1

[deleted] t1_iv4pl61 wrote

I can’t find Donald Trump? Wouldn’t he have the yugest donations? Even bigger than his hands!

1

GARBAGE-EATR t1_iv4w34p wrote

Warren Buffet is soooo philanthropic. Wow. Cool guy. (Pays the lowest tax rate of all billionaires, about 0.1%).

An bill gates is also soooo philanthropic. Wowowowy. Giving all that money to his own foundation that he totally doesn use to lobby massively. He also pays little taxes.

Or you have Yvon Chouinard. The amazing guy from the Patagonia brand that "donated" the whole company to charity. Fuck off with this bullshit. The guy placed the shares in a fund, to be lead by his children. This way he avoids a billion in death tax, and his children can be rich forever without paying taxes.

I hate this billionaire propaganda. Fuck them all. The only truly philanthropic one is Jeff Bezos's ex wife. The rest just want political influence and avoid taxation. Scum.

1

vacsora t1_iv52035 wrote

Most of the problems that the philanthropist want to solve are created by the “philanthropist “. If they pay tax (not offshore) if they keep environmental regulations most of the problem wouldn’t exist. Moreover if the paid tax the money would be distributed democratically not according to the philanthropist’ s personal preferences

1

ReturnOfSeq t1_iv5d2kp wrote

Too far off the right of the image to be seen: Dolly Parton

1

Auliya6083 t1_iv5i7w2 wrote

I'd rather they just pay their employees more than being philanthropists

1

Elfas_tasma t1_iv623qr wrote

i just want one, one million of these

1

_Bellegend_ t1_iv3fgz3 wrote

I think there’s a pretty good argument to be made for taxing wealth as well as income. People sitting on massive fortunes don’t really contribute proportionally to the economy. Encouraging them to spend their fortunes does

0

WhizLove t1_iv3hbbz wrote

Is that the Patagonia guy?

0

eyetracker t1_iv4s4hs wrote

Yvon Chouinard is not on there, but he's not nearly as rich as some of these

1

Fit_Low592 t1_iv3k7fn wrote

I don’t see Elon on there. I mean he gave us our freedom and delivered us from a world of restricted speech… <\s>

0

marfaxa t1_iv4as41 wrote

More proof George Soros is the worst person ever invented by liberals.

0

PacketFiend t1_iv3lbcq wrote

Another shitpost.

Define "Philanthropic".

−1

itsrandomboy77 t1_iv528po wrote

ok i wouldn't go as far as calling it a shitpost, OP has spent a considerable amount of time congregating and visualizing the data

blame forbes for trying to define Philanthropic , not OP

4

Lethlnjektn t1_iv3vjx2 wrote

Kanye just “gave” a bunch of his money back/away. He didn’t make the list?

−1

wish1977 t1_iv1mu9h wrote

Isn't Donald Trump on here?

−5

Onlymediumsteak t1_iv1o0cd wrote

Has he ever donated something besides to „charities“ controlled by himself for tax harvesting?

8

AK47_username t1_iv51zeb wrote

You realize that’s exactly what gates and soros do right? They “donate” to charities they control

2

CHIsauce20 t1_iv3jrz5 wrote

This is a stupid chart. The data has to be normalized somehow. Yeah, Warren Buffet is one of the better billionaires, but he’s had like 60 something to be a mega-philanthropist

−7