Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DrMcJedi t1_iscd6px wrote

That’s both incredibly generous…and super petty.

43

PM_ur_boobies_pleez t1_iscr13s wrote

I don't know how petty it is. There have been cases where someone donates millions of dollars to a hospital on the condition that the hospital be renamed for that person, followed by someone else donating more money and renaming the hospital after the new donor, and in a short period of time.

46

cl0001 t1_isct557 wrote

Frankly this “petty” one up-manship should be encouraged, billionaires might start donating more money

36

ArrowRobber t1_isd5rep wrote

So there needs to be a national law that a 4x donation within 10 years, or 2x donation within 20 years, nullifies any "in perpetuity" clauses?

7

phyridean t1_isdshyx wrote

Hey look, you've just invented taxation, which is how we should be funding public goods in the first place, instead of operating on rich folks' whims!

2

ArrowRobber t1_isdya0b wrote

This is a framework of rich-person-vanity-license plates.

Nothing is in perpetuity no matter how much one pays, guarantee a new generation can get stuff named after them.

2

mm089 t1_ise5r08 wrote

It’s not incredibly generous. His net worth is (rounding down) 7 billion USD. 100 million is thus 1/70th of his wealth, or the equivalent of someone with a net worth of 100,000 USD giving 1500 USD (rounding up). When you also consider that donations are tax-deductible, it becomes clear that this is basically a very rich person changing their amount of wealth by nothing at all. And then somehow being a dick about it.

−5

MaskedMexicanWrestlr t1_iseb7te wrote

What’d you donate 1/70th of your wealth to today?

5

mm089 t1_iseg7ow wrote

Nothing, because donating 1/70th of my wealth doesn’t leave me with billions of dollars left over.

−2