• Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the charity itself is doing proper work, that makes sense tbh. I mean, if you had billions to donate, would you give it to some random ass organisation… Or set up your own thing to do things that you personally agree with?

        • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          im sure its doing something like ‘raising awareness’ like all those breast cancer charities do where none of the money goes to actually helping people with breast cancer and straight into some ceo’s pocket that makes 300k a year

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ll know when these billionaire charity trusts actually have an impact because they will do everything in their power to scream it in your ear.

      • Ichi_matsu@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, and I’m find with the tax deduction if the charity works they do is legit, it’s not like he is paying taxes anyway.

        • CookieJarObserver
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah and if he donates a majority of his wealth, thats more than he would have been taxed regardless.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is exactly the issue. He doesn’t “donate” shit. He opens a non-profit that does nothing but funnel his fortune to his children. It’s all a sham. Same as with that other clothing company who “donated” their entire fortune.

            • Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not sure about elsewhere, but in Canada a Charity is a special kind of non-profit that has more public oversight as to how they manage their money, and allowed to write charitable receipts. Non-profits might do some good things, but you don’t get a tax credit for donating money to them, and there’s less oversight of how they’re managed.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Though I don’t have all day to devote to determining if these sources line up with your claims and if they’re worth a darn but I did attempt to skim.

          Number 1. I dropped my subscription so I can’t view the article. Can you share?

          Source 2. “The Saviorism of Melinda Gates: Eugenics, Philanthrocapitalism, and the Perils of ‘Western’ Feminisms” . This is a senior honors thesis with some pretty big claims and I’m not sure the paper presents a strong enough argument.

          Mind you, Eugenics is evil dog shit steeped in racism, classism and so on. Fuck that shit.

          Anyway, the author attempts to draw a line between making birth control / family planning available (to third world countries) and eugenics via population control of certain groups.

          Their argument traces a very long and winding path of rather tenuous links along the way and I don’t find it very convincing. It seems more like a student grasping for straws to write a paper.

          They seem to be suggesting that forced sterilization, forced sexual segregation, and similar despicable things are equivalent to ultimately voluntary family planning.

          I see the point. If these programs are intended to control certain populations at a national level driven by eugenics, yeah that’s fucked.

          They may have shown it is plausible that this is what the Gates Foundation has been doing but I don’t think they successfully proved it.

          Source 3. Hush money… “Jeffrey Epstein allegedly tried to extort Bill Gates over extramarital affair” … yeah that’s not awesome.

          • Hexagons [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            zifnab’s comment has links to:

            • The Washington Post
            • A paper from Duke University
            • The Guardian

            These seem to me like sources that wouldn’t usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.

            Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment?

              It makes a billionaire “good one” look bad, so they reject it. bootlicker

            • hakase@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “A paper from Duke University”. This is a random, non-peer-reviewed, undergrad honors thesis. Having supervised honors theses myself, they are not exactly the height of sociological research. Also note that the author only proposes “throughlines” between eugenics and Melinda Gates’ work, by definition flimsy and tenuous, at best.

              This is a perfect example of a Facebook conspiracy theory, based on shoddy, non-peer-reviewed, amateur “research”, but appealing to authority by attributing the paper to “Duke University”, with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question.

              Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?

              Jesus Christ you can smell the hexbear from a mile away. Go sealion somewhere else.

              For anyone else reading this, the problems with the other two “sources” are that the WaPo article is just an opinion piece disguised as “analysis”, and the Guardian source (an editorialized version of a much better Wall Street Journal piece) seems to actually imply that Gates didn’t pay any hush money to Epstein. Either way, it does make it clear that Epstein had nothing to do with Gates’ affair whatsoever, and was just trying to profiteer off it.

              Note the fact that the language used by the hexbear above effectively claims the opposite of what their source implies, and leaves out the fact that there’s no evidence for any of these assertions. Never blindly trust a source from a hexbear. Actually, never trust a “source” from a hexbear at all, for that matter.

              Edit: Also, for anyone reading this, only ever comment on the errors in a hexbear’s sources and arguments - don’t ever actually engage with a hexbear themselves, because your good faith will be wasted on their disingenuousness. This comment is just a fact-checking PSA for anyone who wondered about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the above sources. Note also the bullshit asymmetry principle well at work here.

              • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                30
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                As a moderator of Hexbear, I would like to formally apologize for our users committing the Preconceived Prejudice Bias, link if you’re unfamiliar.

                As we all know, multi-billionaires do not have control of our media institutions and are unable to shut down, directly or indirectly, research and investigations into their activities. They do not have the ability to portray themselves in an extremely positive light. Therefore, you are quite right to assume that all these rumors that they are committing acts like our other users implied are frankly entirely false.

                I generally take a similar tack when arguing against conspiracists in Russia who argue in the Russian media that Russian oligarchs are committing evil acts in support of the war - this is obviously untrue, as if they were, they would surely be reported in reputable journals and peer-reviewed as you rightfully point out must be done before putting ANY information onto the internet. Any accusations against Putin himself are, similarly, completely bizarre - the Russian media rightfully portrays him as a shining beacon of light. All other “accusations” are from discredited media and crank Telegram and Facebook groups that oppose Putin and the oligarchs, and I am working to try and get them shut down. It’s a similar situation in China, as far as I can tell.

                Have a great day, and stay classy, my good friend!

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                appealing to authority by attributing the paper to “Duke University”, with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question

                Lmao you didn’t even look at the links before dismissing them you dweeb

              • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thanks for this. I wasn’t able to read the wapo article but unfortunately devoted time to the second source. It definitely reads like an undergrad thesis paper written by someone trying to make a very tenuous connection at all costs despite a paucity of solid evidence. Kind of the written version of this:

            • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In addition to being a senior undergrad thesis it’s kind of shit. I don’t know why I spent the time to skim it but I did. I think it can be tossed right out.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the charity itself is doing proper work

        And if the charity is donating to other charities that donate to it as part of a money laundering/tax fraud scheme, what would you say?

      • SomeoneElseMod@feddit.ukOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, I’d go for the middle option: donate to existing charities that appeal to me. I don’t want to run a charity, it sounds like a massive headache.

        • Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re probably a different demographic. I’d guess the kind of people that become billionaires, assuming they actually want to be philanthropic, think that they can do a better job of managing their charities than existing charities would do managing their donations.

          • SomeoneElseMod@feddit.ukOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s definitely fair to say I’m in the “extremely unlikely to ever be a millionaire, let alone a billionaire” demographic!

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        that makes sense tbh

        It makes so much sense to be a vampire parasite that writes their own kickbacks and gets PR and praise from sycophantic media and bootlicking rubes.

        bootlicker farquaad-point

    • CookieJarObserver
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean if you donate billions you kinda don’t want someone do a extit scam or it going to some very sketchy places… Tax reduction is a point but pretty far down the list.

      And even if its for tax purposes, the money is then tied to certain purposes and will definitely do more good than as regular taxes. (and its way more than regular taxes)

      Man i hate that guy but this bashing isn’t justified.

      • SomeoneElseMod@feddit.ukOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t bashing him, just providing additional information as the headline is makes him sound like an altruistic hero “uniting humanity”. He isn’t. He will benefit from this in one way or another or else he wouldn’t do it.

  • Perfide@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    202
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m so fucking sick of all these billionaires “pledging” their fortunes. “I promise to donate all my wealth when I die” then fucking do it you cowards, die already.

    • Bricktamland29@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They donate their wealth to avoid taxes. Basically their families control the foundations, they donate and avoid a whole shit ton of taxes their next of kin get the money from the foundation.

      Adam Conover did a video on it.

        • Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh, Gates is older and has shown more commitment to the idea than most. I still wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him but the foundation has done some good things for a long time. And maybe with fewer self-aggrandizing press stories compared to others.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How do you go and, true to the expression, really throw someone?

            Does it imply throwing a human being as we’d throw a log? Perhaps a brick? I’d expect it involves a lot of physical strenght. And does it imply being from a stationary position?

            Does throwing someone down a window or from a moving car or perhaps a boat count?

            It intrigues me.

            • stjobe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Left hand by the scruff, right hand by the belt, lift, swing forward, back, forward, and release. Easy :)

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They give away all their money so they don’t have to give away some of their money. Then they commit crimes so their kids can… have the money they gave away to not give away.

        What a take lol

    • average_internet_enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s not forget, that while they “pLeDgE”, they are also literally fucking their workers at the same time and expect that it all cancels out…

    • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      One night I went through Gates’ “Giving Pledge” and I compared the wealth of the people who signed on in 2010 (when they started doing this pledge to give more than half their wealth to charity thing) to their wealth now. The average increase in wealth in those 12 years was like 170%, and the total combined wealth of the 50 or so signees had gone from like 250b to almost 700b. I wanted to make an effort-post with the data and more comprehensive analysis, but I got too busy and mad about it lol.

      It’s crazy how profitable “charity” is for the ultra-rich

    • GarfieldYaoi [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like, imagine if Elon Musk actually did spend all the wealth he got from profiting off of the shitshow of COVID and solved climate change. He’d be hailed as a hero and the left would be stuck eating their hats for decades to come. But no, he would rather own the libs because they convinced his daughter to join their side.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So many of them are financing “try to live forever with vampirism” style projects so what they’re saying is they want positive PR now just in case they fail… and probably will send their hoards to their eugenics-inspired failsons later anyway.

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the same thing that other billionaire did with his fortune. Gave 3 billion “away” to his own charity so his kids could inherit without paying a penny in taxes.

    I make under 200k and the highest bracket I hit is 51% of my salary. Warren buffet has paid less than 10% taxes on his entire fortune. They’re playing us, the new cool thing is just to say it’s for the climate.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bezos pledged 40 billion (maybe 20, can’t remember) I believe in 2019.

      To date he has actually donated less than $200 million of it IIRC to any climate-related funds.

      It’s just a bold face lie, not even taking his own charity scams into account.

      Edit: also side rant: I have gotten a lot of wallstreetbets armchair investors in the past saying “b-b-but muh liquid vs assets, he would crash amazon stock.”

      Bezos has liquidated a minimum of $12 billion per year without even a slight blip in amazon stock. PLENTY to fulfil his pledge. People don’t understand the scale of sold shares. The stock market is completely speculative bs. If he liquidated every stock of amazon in a short time after an anouncement like this, investors would absolutely speculate that it would recover, the price would lower for a week or so while every hedge fund in existence rushes to buy every single stock that they have and voila, it would magically recover within a month and bozo would not be a complete lying scumbag. It would probably cause him to be audited though which is every bilionaire’s nightmare because they have all done such shady things and dodges so many taxes for so many years. At least if the IRS had any balls.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s tax “brackets”. So from say 20-30k you’re taxed ~21%, the following 30-50k you make is taxed at another amount like 30%, and so forth. The last 30k made from 160-190k is then taxed at 49% (51% because I’m taking a bit more money instead of dumping into my pension fund etc…)

        And yeah it’s Canada, but in the province of Quebec, the most taxed province of all (where education is still heavily subsidized/ free for people born there etc…)…

        I’ve done this whole exercise on /r/theydidthemath years ago on reddit comparing to the US, and with all the medical insurance garbage they have there like co-pays after deductibles, tax credits, dental, daycares, tolls/infrastructure etc… It amounts to roughly the same as the taxation + private insurance in the US. It just “looks worse” because it’s all mostly up front. I know ex-millionaires in the US who were basically homeless because they had a sick baby who needed to stay in the hospital for a year after birth. It cost them 5 million dollars to keep the baby alive without having to go to court with the insurer. This doesn’t happen in Canada.

        I’m fine with it, I just want the rich assholes to pay the same. I live very comfortably, bought a home in February this year and have more than enough.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eeee. Youre completing forgetting that he can BORROW against those stocks, and pay a measly interest rate, paying out when it’s convenient through various loops of the tax system. Warren Buffet, even if his worth in billions is not in his pocket, has contributed less than most relative to his income.

        • kbotc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The thing you drug up about the US hasn’t been a thing for more than a decade. The individual out of pocket limit is $9,450 this year for an individual, and Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care are considered “essential health benefits” so as long as it was an actual factual real health plan and not something like a health care sharing ministry, there’s no way you’re going in a millionaire and coming out destitute unless you did something phenomenally dumb like demand an NICU be built into your house. Out healthcare is broken in so many ways, but the bandaids do exist on the system.

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have no idea what his situation was, he had full healthcare. There’s the law, and then there’s bringing insurance companies to court over the law. This might have been about a decade ago.

            An out-of-pocket maximum is a cap, or limit, on the amount of money you have to pay for covered health care services in a plan year.

            The key word being “covered health care services”. This also does not cover their own expenses, loss of salary etc… These laws are intentionally complicated so it’s theoretically possible to be covered, but good fucking luck going through the loops.

            You can still find studies that claim that over 500k people file for bankruptcy every year due to accumulating medical costs I’m sure all these people are stupid and had NICUs built in their homes…

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Might be Canada, I’m in a similar situation and GTFOing. No way am I going to continue paying this much in tax but still lack quality education and healthcare for our kids.

        • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you/your children Quebec citizens? Education and healthcare are very cheap and accessible. If you’re a foreigner here then yeah it might not be as easy. Healthcare is still free and medicine is subsidized to a minimum of 80%. Also medicine potency is regulated, knock off brands of “advil” are guaranteed to be as potent as the brand name, which is a huge plus and keeps medicine costs very low.

          I have a lot of experience with the medical system in canada; my parents both died of cancer, so did my mentor, and were in treatment in the public system the same week they got diagnosed. They didn’t wait months to see specialist like is often thrown around on reddit.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah instead in the US you get to pay healthcare insurance premiums instead and have the companies try every trick to deny your healthcare claims. And pay who knows how much for your kids education, tens of thousands a year. All so your marginal (not effective) tax rate is what 40% instead? I think you need to recheck your math and your outrage. Don’t forget those expenses are after tax.

  • rustydrd
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Taxes. He should pay taxes.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unless he’s donating everything tomorrow, this is all bullshit.

    First off he doesn’t have 124 billion. He is WORTH 124 billion, the vast majority of it being the worth of his stakes in Amazon. If he sells all his stakes in it, the Amazon worth would plummet and he’d be worth a fraction of what he’s worth today.

    But lets say he has a 124 billion dollars. If he gives out 10 millions every day it will still take over 300 years. In that time his worth likely would.grow faster than he’s spending it so in 300 years he’d still be worth more than he is today.

    All this charity stuff is bullshit, TAX THE RICH. Taxes will give honest amounts of money to governments who can then use that money for universal healthcare, universal education, universal income…

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sacrifice the profits of parasitic shareholders for the good of society, returning America to the level of taxation when it’s economy was great, putting the money back in the hands of the workers that keep the economy running? The workers that will spend their money, stimulating the economy (unlike shareholders)?

      No - that’s impossible! Pay no attention to the 90% top tax rate implemented by Eisenhower - a goddamn Republican.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was a favor 10 off but that doesn’t matter, the point still stands.

          No single person should be ever control that much money

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But while he gives away 3.65 billion a year, his remaining 120 billion appreciated to 130 billion or whatever. Then the next year he gives away 3.65 billion and his remaining 126 billion appreciated to 136 billion…

          As long as he doesn’t give away more than his principal gains, it’s an indefinite loop.

    • And009@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      governments who can then use that money for universal healthcare

      Press X to doubt

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fun fact: we could having universal healthcare right now and both businesses and individuals would make more money. We don’t because voters are dumb and can’t do math.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fun fact: it’s not that easy. It’s likely possible and likely great for everyone but it’s also an enormous undertaking that you don’t want to fail. It would take years if not decades to implement, don’t ever think it’s easy.

          I’m all for it, but it’s not a “we could do it now”

          • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not that easy, which is why every comparable country does it 🤷🏻‍♂️

            You’re right though, it wouldn’t be easy because we built a monster of a insurance industry that’s in the way that nobody wants to dismantle because muh profit

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for taxing the rich but the rest of this is just pure stupidity.

      Like why did you cap how much he can give away at one time lol

      • Setnof@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Try to sell all your stocks at once if you own a big chunk of all available shares. The stock price would fall faster than you were able to sell your shares.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bezos already engages in structured stock sell-offs worth vastly more than $10MM

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t cap anything. There are realistic limits to what you can give to charity. Give a charity that normally gets a few millions a billion and they won’t be able to spend it in any normal way. Breeds corruption, etc.

        Charity shouldn’t even exist, as it is always this patch on holes left by governments. Tax the rich until they are “normal rich” and then use that money for projects that normally would require charity

        Also, his wife actually had the exact same situation I just described. She spent millions over millions and once done she had more wealth than she started with

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No.

            If only governments would tax the rich properly they’d have enough money to put good social programs in place. We wouldn’t need charity.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There will always be a use of some sort of charity until we live in a post-scarcity world.

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. The government should take it from him as taxes that he avoided. So the people can decide how best to invest it instead of over egomaniac with a history is abusing his people.

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be honest, going all toward climate change seems better than what the government would use it for. That being said, he should definitely pay more taxes.

      • ToastedRavioli@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude for sure is going to spin up his own charities with lofty mission statements that he “donates” to which exclusively pitch solutions that require a lot of investment in his for-profit endeavors.

        Don’t mistake money laundering for benevolence.

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You know he’s not really giving it away, right? I bet my bottom dollar that his assets are being transferred to a fund he controls. Because the fund is categorised non-profit, it will receive max tax write-offs.

        His ex-wife on the other hand, has given away butt load of money to actual charities.

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah if it actually goes towards climate change and “uniting humanity” that’s way better than giving it to any government.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And if it isn’t done with anti-public stuff on the side. Take bill gates, he funded a Covid vaccine which is great! But strings were attached, namely they were required to patent it. His charity consistently mandates ownership of intellectual property and partnerships with corporations. I fear something similar with bezos. You’re gonna need new technology and a push against overconsumption to do Jack shit against climate change. I fully expect him to not permit that new technology to reject patent or use a copyleft style license agreement. And I don’t believe the owner of Amazon will promote things like creating a society where we only work 20 hours and consume less low quality goods, instead opting for long lasting and repairable things that end up using less natural resources in the long run. Instead I expect him to throw billions at carbon capture, which is needed and can be done responsibly (especially if we build a strategic biofuel reserve), but is also the carbon equivalent of trying to out exercise your fork.

      • whome@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jeff bezos funds a study how to fight climate change. Study finds humanity needs to decrease their usage of energy drastically and stop consumerism as we are doing it right now. Jeff bezos: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US government? LOL. How much of the taxes goes to fossil fuel and corn subsidies and to the military industrial complex?

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The majority of our taxes goes to social programs and healthcare. Military spending is insane, but we have to keep in mind that taxing billionaires will absolutely bring benefits to the common folks.

    • zib@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree in principle, but the government would take the money and allocate 99% of it to the military budget rather than do anything useful with it.

      • CountZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, the government generally has a plan and definite budget for their money, which includes social programs and infrastructure. You can debate about how good it is, but at least it’s there.

        Giving money to a charity directly controlled by them (or their kids, or one of their billionaire friends) might just make that money disappear.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    pledges

    That weasel word is tiresome.

    unify humanity

    Coming from a techbro vampire, that term is especially creepy.

    Unify how? honk

    UNIFY HOW? big-honk

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly.

      They aren’t giving their money to other people. They’re giving their money to their own charities, either that they created or that they have some control over the board.

      They get to take a deduction on their personal taxes the year that they move the money, so they move is slowly based on how much they want to limit their tax liability that year. Good year for amazon = move lots of money. Bad year where he can take a business loss = retain direct control over the cash.

      Then when it comes time to spend it, they know what it’s getting spent on. Vaccines for the poor like Bill Gates? Buy up pharma stocks. Climate change initiatives? Buy up stock in carbon capture companies, solar companies, etc.

      They make this money back, and they get a benefit every time it moves.

  • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I pledge to not post this comment…whoops, darn, oh well. I tried.

    bezos is a cuntasaurus, I’ll never forget when Shatner was trying to share his feelings about the genuine experience of going into space, and cuck-lord bezo not only interrupts shatner, he sullies the moment by acting like a sore winner

    • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve hated bozos since forever, but this right here was unforgivable. Shatner trying to give inspiration after a really being in space, after a lifetime of being an icon? You fucking listen

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If he doesn’t do it, don’t give him credit for doing it. If he does, be sure it’s not some incestuous Nonprofit moneylaundering scheme like those foundations usually do.

  • Not A Bird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    What that means is he will invest that much in energy related projects during the course of his life. He did this the last time as well. He is not giving his money away. We are just used to turd ass quality journalism.

  • Echo71Niner@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s all fucking BS and theatrics, it’s easy to promise shit AFTER YOU DIE.

      • Echo71Niner@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        lol you are a silly person. You must think if he liquidated his asset he will walk away with $124 billion dollar, don’t you? So silly… lol Once he is caught selling his stocks, so will the market sell theirs, and his stock will become worth pennies in no time, before he even clears his first stock-block sale. None of these billionaires are worth the tag assigned to them, that is a market value so long they stay in the game lol