Jamie, if i''m not clear, i apologize.

1) I'm not interested in argueing whether the Gates foundation is good/evil organisation.

2) If a rich person, (like Bill Gates) has accumulated a lot of wealth and chooses to redistribute via charity, this is inherently good.

3) However, 2above falls prey to the same inefficiencies as accumulating the wealth in a government fund and redistributing it that way. (because it is still a centralized authority and centralized fund)

Assuming best practices are used throughout.

Is my position clearer now?

@Ivo, i never said punish people who are rich. However all taxation is redistribution on some level - redistribution does not need to mean taking ALL their wealth.

As was said recently, 'Paying taxes buys civilisation'

Also i don't know if there was much effect, but i know that during the financial crisis several major governments (EU/US) were looking to crack down on tax avoidance measures (registering profits in the caymans, for example)

Roughly speaking, they specifically targeted tax exempt banking organisations and threatened economic sanctions.

it is possible to tax people where ever they go (and i'm fully aware that i am posting from Ireland, which has in the past 15 years had a very low corporate tax rate, specifically designed to encourage US giants to establish their European headquarters in this English speaking, well educated, low tax rate have... I worked rather well!)

I think the principle stands.

And @Ivo, if punishing people you make them leave/stop paying taxes/find a way to use their power to create tax loopholes. Then surely the same arguement can be made for other crimes.

Yes, if you punish bank robbers, they will leave (to avoid prosecution)/use their power to avoid earning money for themselves.(physical power, along with contacts and reputation in criminal circles, rather that financial power, along with contacts and reputation in political/business circles)

- You are argueing a fine and valid practical thing, but it does not follow that no-one should pay taxes, or that all social change should come from charity.

(And i admit that one of the biggest funders of Irish charities is in fact the Irish government - highlighted this week when an umbrella group called for the government to confirm how much less they would be getting so they can plan for the short-fall)

Orathaic, my point is that you have to create an environment where people want and see it as realistic goal to have a good life financially. Rich people should pay more for sure. The bank robbers argument is irrelevant, you don't want to have bank robbers at all, so any humane measures are ok as far as I'm concerned. Capable people with skills can leave... and that's not a good thing.

You're right, my bank robber arguement is not at all relevant to how you provide for the poor.

However when dealing with People, you have to create an encironment where they want and see it as a realistic goal, to earn a living and have a comfortable life. If this means redistributing wealth to the poor to prevent them from robbing banks, then it is a valid strategy.

I don't think you will ever get a system where no-one robs banks unless there are no banks (and no need for banks - see star trek for an example of the utopian ideals which probably don't include a need for banks...)

Capable people with skills are a seperate thing to super-rich people who avoid tax by setting up foreign bank accounts (and don't personally leave) and it feels perfectly fair to aim at the richest people first.

"Putin, why are you so angry with this world? It makes you really dumb."

If you're what's considered an 'intelligent' person, I'd much rather be 'dumb'. Better dumb than someone who relishes and/or is indifferent to human suffering, as you and your capitalist friends appear to be.

"I'd argue that Bill Gates is able to manage better his funds than any government"

Of course you'd argue that. You're rich. The rich always think their being rich is better for society than a democratically elected government deciding what our social priorities should be.

'You can't just vote in laws saying rich people should pay the bill, cause they can decide to move some place else."

Let them go to some place that doesn't pay any taxes. I hear Somalia is nice. The rich always threaten to take their ball and go home. It's high time governments stop catering to their traitorous instincts. I know the rich believe they have no country, but no country is morally or legally obligated to put up with their demands.

"Any solution starting with "we have to take from these guys and give it to..." is generally wrong."

Funny, that's exactly what capitalism is. Capital takes from their workers and gives the money to themselves. They usually don't invest this "surplus" in better products and higher wages for their workers, instead they cut corners in order to maximize their own wealth. Of course you find nothing wrong with this kind of 'theft', but are outraged when governments demand from those who benefit the most from society pay their fair share. You call that 'theft'. I call that reclaiming stolen property.

"you go to Cuba and Putin moves to Siberia :)"

I'm staying here so people like you don't turn America into a banana republic.

FYI, ivo is not American.

"I'd argue that Bill Gates is able to manage better his funds than any government"

argue away, i want to hear it.

I'm specifically talking about his charitable donations, not his business interests. I've never suggested (in this discussion) that he give control of his companies to the government.

I'm well aware he's not American. He's living in America last I knew. Came hear at taxpayer expense, as he's proud of saying. Unless he returned to Bulgaria, a country he whose people he despises. Whatever.

*here

But, seriously, Putin, I want to know:

What motivation does the 2nd wealthiest man in the world have for making a non-altruistic charity?

so now were questioning bill and melinda gates foundation huh

lol

well... whatever. you guys enjoy that.

aww, thucy, don't go... i need someone reasonably sane to talk to :p (and no i'm refusing to discuss something which doesn't actually concern the topic at hand.)

To avoid taxes and make more money, all while giving him and his fellow robber barons good PR (by all accounts Gates is obsessed with good PR - so much so that he buys time to promote his 'charity') because he can claim he 'donates' all this money to good causes.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/10/bill_gates_buys_more_news_cove.php
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story?page=2



http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story?page=2

What is with this insistence that everyone talks about exactly what the thread initiators want to talk about with every post.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

Honestly, Gates is one of the more modest billionaires. And the whole "make more money" line is just bull shit. He's the 2nd wealthiest man in the world.

Which makes more sense: Gates is using his brilliant business knowledge to invest in companies to help *grow* the foundations money in order to help more help than donations alone would support.

-or-

He's actually using his charity as a front to make even more money (despite the fact that there are so many better ways to do that) and to appear generous (even though he is not incredibly outspoken given his position and he could appear generous by actually making a real charity)

Sorry Putin, but that's a load of malarkey.

Ok, then explain to me why his 'charity' in companies that have some of the worst business practices in world - including companies that are directly responsible for many of the ailments he is supposedly wanting to fix?

And explain to me why Mr. "Modest" Bill Gates repeatedly pays off media outlets to cover his 'good works'?

Which companies?

And, is it possible that he's paying media outlets to give people better awareness of issues he thinks are important? Why would he cover issues that he isn't helping? If he isn't helping them, it clearly doesn't think they're the biggest issues...

Did you read the LA Times link I posted - it goes into detail about this.
Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Tyco International, Conoco Philips, Dow Chemicals most of the Niger Delta oil companies whose operations (flaring - burning 1 billion cubic feet of gas) are responsible for causing so much respiratory disease and other ailments in the region - Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Total of France.

From the article:

"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy."

Yeah, and you know what I say to that: it makes fiscal sense.

These are huge, profitable companies. Gates can use the ROI to help people. The reality is, that if he were to not invest in these companies, it would make no difference to them. And, if he were to actively work against them, he would fail and then he wouldn't be able to help anyone.

It sucks, but that's the way the world works. Now, you can say that Gates is settling or he's a hypocrite or whatever, but that isn't the case. He's using the system in the best way he's able to help people.

I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you.

"And, is it possible that he's paying media outlets to give people better awareness of issues he thinks are important?"

Yeah, sure. He's also paying them to cover these issues in the way that he wants them to be covered, and gets them to write glowing pieces about great Gates is.

http://techrights.org/2010/09/21/purchasing-main-events-for-pr/

" it makes fiscal sense."

Of course it does. This is all a money making scheme. It makes about as much moral sense as giving people cigarettes for free while telling them not to smoke. Or giving away Hummers for free while telling people to mind their carbon footprint. No amount of spin can change that.

"He's using the system in the best way he's able to help people."

How is this helping, again? Is he telling the oil companies to stop flaring so people stop getting respiratory diseases? No. He's preventing African countries from getting cheaper generic drugs for lifesaving diseases, and investing in companies that sell these drugs at gouged prices. How is this helping?

And clearly there are 'red lines' he won't cross on investing. For example, the foundation issued a press release patting themselves on the back for withdrawing all investments in Sudan. But if your logic holds - and it doesn't matter where he invests so long as it makes 'fiscal sense' - why would he get out of Sudan?

@Putin: "What is with this insistence that everyone talks about exactly what the thread initiators want to talk about with every post."

Self-moderated, i have every right to ask you to make your own thread, and you have every right to ignore me.

On the other hand, i'm so glad you're enjoying this distraction.

About Gate:
1) i don't think anything you can say here will prove anything.
2) this conversation distract from the premise - that accumulating money and then giving it away is at best as inefficient as taxation.

"1) i don't think anything you can say here will prove anything."

You could say that about any argument. Noted...I guess.

"2) this conversation distract from the premise - that accumulating money and then giving it away is at best as inefficient as taxation."

The premise has already been discussed. No one has put up any argument for why charity works better than taxation, other than banal slogans like 'taxation is theft' or 'people know better about what to do with their own money'.

As for people knowing what to do with their own money. People spend their money on absurd and wasteful junk. The idea that rich people in particular, who love to flaunt their money and luxury, know better as to where money should be spent is empty rhetoric with no basis in fact.

i think the arguement for people knowing better is for spending money on themselves.

and i don't think people know what to spend their money on to be happy, unless taking anti-depressants counts...

"This "ass-sitting Marxist" has been politically active for 10 years."

That's all well and good, and I could match you point for point and raise you. But what have you personally done to help poor people? Ever worked in a soup kitchen, for instance? Ever donated your hard-earned wages (?) to a charity? Have you even paid more in taxes than you were liable for? It's always easy to be charitable with other peoples' money; I'm genuinely interested to know what personal sacrifices you have made to help the less fortunate.

"Does the CalPERS claim to be a charity set up to help fight poverty, etc? If not, then the comparison is invalid."

CalPERS *is* a charity that fights poverty - among retired government workers. The comparison is entirely valid. Bill Gates is evil because his charity parks its money in publically traded corporations that do evil, but governments who park their money in exactly the same evil corporations are somehow free of the same evil? I honestly don't follow the logic here.

"So you're against intellectual property rights and patents? That's rather strange for a defender of capitalism"

You wouldn't find it strange at all if you'd bothered to do some homework. Try S.E. Konkin's "Copywrongs", for starters. Relying on Marx to tell you about Capitalism is like relying on Goebbels to tell you about Communism.

"Inflation has remained non-existent"

ROTFL! You yourself remarked a few threads ago that Americans' buying power has been declining the last few decades! That is a textbook definition of inflation. Even if we take the CPI as a reliable indicator of inflation, the dollar in recent decades has lost 3% of its value every year on average. This of course ignores the fact that the CPI has some pretty funny rules about valuations which keeps the rate artificially low, and doesn't include such trivial non-essentials as food, housing, and gas. Even 'orthodox' economists who point to the CPI freely admit that the dollar has lost 97% of its value in the last hundred years. Everyone I know - even people who aren't capitalists - complains that things are much more expensive than they were even a few years ago. But maybe where you live you can still get gas for $1 per gallon and rents have not increased in the last ten years.

"even in the midst of the financial crisis."

That's because the financial crisis was the result of the inflation-driven real estate bubble bursting, which caused *deflation* as *overinflated* assets suddenly lost much of their phantom value. This was predicted by Austrian economic theory, and Austrian economists had been calling the collapse since the early Oughts while your High Priests of Economic Orthodoxy were saying everything was fantastic and real estate never loses value.

"Not funnel it into a bullshit tax exempt foundation that falsely claims to be a 'philanthropic' organization in order to evade taxes?"

If he wanted to evade taxes and hold on to his money so he could be buried in a giant mausoleum with it, he's doing a crappy job. The foundation is required by the same laws you're condemning to donate a minimum of 5% of its assets (about $1,500,000,000, according to wikipedia) annually. there are much better, easier, and more efficient ways to hide one's money from the tax man than setting up a massive "fraudulent" charity that costs a billion and a half dollars annually.

"It's not all 'his money', people donate to his investment fund thinking it actually does something positive for the world."

Riiiight... the Gates foundation has done NOTHING positive for the world. I'm sure contributors like the evil top-hatted Warren Buffet have been warned by people like you about the alleged malfeasances of the Gates Foundation; They have not pulled their money out.