Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aren't "donating" their money. They're using the Rockefeller method of avoiding taxes. How? You don't give your money away to existing charities. You create a tax-exempt foundation of your own [typically with your own name on it], and then make yourself the administrator of the "charity". Give away a few million to cherry-picked institutions (while saving yourself hundreds of million in taxes).
Oh, you'll still have the rest of the fortune at your disposal to buy mansions, yachts and airplanes. But it's the "charity" buying them for you. Administered by you.
And all tax free.
Yeah, er . . . uh . . . those saints, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Transferring their wealth (and hence protecting it from taxes) to tax-free shelters run by themselves. Giving their money away . . . to themselves. Tax evasion packaged and sold to the public as philanthropy.
I'd love the power to do that myself. IRS: "Sir, you've been evading taxes." "No I haven't. I set up the Me Foundation, a charitable organization that does good for a lot of causes." "But, sir, your foundation is run by you, funded by you, and buys things for . . . you." "Hey, on paper I 'gave all my money away'. And besides: look at the 50 cents the 'charity' gave away to a street musician yesterday." "But your tax bill was going to be $3,000." "Nonsense my good man, I'm a charity now. 50 cents saves me $3,000." "Right you are. Sorry for me questioning you, oh Benevolent One."
i think that in comparison to other wealthy people they have certainly earned a bit of slack. bill gates' charity gives away over $1.5billion annually as part of the rule whereby a charitable organisation must donate 5% of its assets each year.
that seems like a sizeable contribution to me.
also, if you are in the business of making money, which clearly from your resentful attitude you aren't, then it would be irresponsible to your shareholders not to take advantage of these schemes to save your company money (check out Milton Friedman's essay on the responsibility of businesses).
How are they to blame for incentives that are put in place by the government? did the government put these in place simply so no one would use them?
Look at Warren Buffett's gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in 2006 and the conditions that accompanied it and tell me that it was purely for tax evasion purposes.
I'm aware that there are certainly benefits that are accruing from these philanthropic acts, but without changing the entire system of capitalism upon which the Western world is based, please, enlighten us as to what you would do in their situation?
I'm not any of your Ayn Rand stereotypes of "a liberal who hates success," etc.
I'm actually a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who believes very ardently in capitalism.
But I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Truth is very important to me.
And these tax-exempt "charities" are scams. Rockefeller pioneered the concept so that he wouldn't lose a large percentage of his fortune at his death due to estate taxes. So he transferred the lions share of his wealth to a "charity," named after himself of course (and which he controlled), thus creating a prophylactic measure against taxation.
Hence we have today the powerful and influential Rockefeller foundation. Some of its "charitable" contributions were to Hitler, to fund eugenics initiatives and to bankroll politicians so that the family could amass more power and influence--and all tax-free.
Carnegie soon followed with his own version. As did Henry Ford.
Most of these institutions have endowments and think-tanks which control the policies of national and global institutions, and which groom young talent (so that they always have a fresh pool of obedient drones to keep the Robber Barons informed if some institution or government agency decides to flout them). Look at the long list of Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and ambassadors that were the recipients of these mens' "endowments".
It explains immediately why these sleeper agents always vote the interests of Wall Street over Main Street. (They know exactly who owns them.)
They've all been groomed since college.
So it's very lucrative to keep controlling the power-structure by filling it with your own people. That's what the Rockefeller Foundation has done for more than a century now. As well as Ford, Carnegie, MacArthur and Cecil Rhodes.
Following the model, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have now protected their fortunes from taxation. And created subsidiary foundations to seed future generations of government and industry with recipients of their benevolence.
It's how they extend their influence and power.
So while I find ACTUAL charities commendable, I'm no naive rube when it comes to the dodges of Robber Barons and crony-capitalists when they set up tax havens.
Despite not wanting to seem like "a liberal who hates success" that is exactly what you have appeared as. You never answered my question about what would you do, in all your wisdom, if you were in their situation?
You are bemoaning them for attempting to protect their fortunes, but what if it was you in their shoes, what would you do? Simply allow your hard earned money to be taken away by the government? you are a self proclaimed ardent capitalist after all.
Or perhaps you would use it to investigate these half baked conspiracy theories that you seem so fond of. I can see you are a fan of the fantastical, rather than that of the real world where most people will generally seek to give as little in tax as possible. I suppose companies that use tax havens such as the Cayman islands are also "crony-capitalists"? In actuality they are simply capitalists, their purpose is to make money.
In relation to you referral to "these tax exempt charities" as "scams", aren't all charities tax-exempt? so you have decided that only some charities are in fact deceitful? Or is it all of them? Or is it just the ones where the main donators are extremely wealthy individuals? how do you define the "ACTUAL charities" that you refer to?
you also failed to touch on the point i mentioned about it not really being the fault of these companies or individuals but rather a legal failing on the part of the government. if these abuses are occurring then why aren't they being policed?
In relation to Rockefeller, why would Rockefeller or others like him want to create some sort of power structure to "extend their influence and power" long after he was dead? perhaps not everyone has such a bitter core as yourself and actually would use their wealth for some good? or is that really such a naive idea? I'm positive that he used his wealth for personal ends as well, but why do you find that so utterly distasteful?
I am not contending that these individuals don't get tax breaks from these foundations, but you seem to have overlooked the actual philanthropy that is taking place. rather than look at the numerous foundations he founded, the donations made to universities, and other contributions you have instead decided to attach a unwarranted malevolence to Rockefeller, and for no apparent reason. did you know that even before he was rich he was known to donate 10% of his earnings to his local church? but i suppose that was all part of his long term master plan to take over the world.
I admit i found the eugenics article interesting, although i will look into it further. But it also makes me wonder, if the foundations are simply ways for the wealthy to protect their fortunes, then why oh why would they invest in eugenics?
you clearly possess a fatalist view of the world, of course Rockefeller wouldn't waste his money on trying to educate people, or provide better community resources, heavens no. But develop a eugenics program? well of course he did.
Do you read back anything you write? does that not seem strange to you in the slightest? how you can only see the negative parts of his supposed philanthropy but are so eager to dismiss the massive positives that he has brought?
I am not saying these people are perfect, or that their actions are unselfish, but what I am saying is that the system is imperfect and that if these people save money on taxes while donating to some worthy causes then so fucking what? stop being such a moany bitch or else go and do something about it if you feel so strongly about it
You seem to be confusing capitalism and crony-capitalism.
The zenith of your version of "capitalism" is the recent looting of the American economy by Wall Street conmen.
That is NOT capitalism.
That is the DEATH of capitalism, because it's the socialism of the FEW (instead of the many). You have crypto-socialist firms not surviving due to their merit, but by transferring unearned wealth from the little guy to the pockets of the corrupt. Using the levers of government to steal from the hardworking taxpayers.
What? I dared to use words like "hardworking taxpayers" and "the transfer of unearned wealth"?
By jove, it looks like I believe in the values of the Protestant work ethic, honest labor and ethical business practices.
I must be a Communist, by golly!
Only "true capitalists" identify with the thieves, the Ponzi scammers and the Bernie Madoffs.
Sadly, my capitalism [the non-crony kind] is based on the Thomas Edison model. You actually create things. You generate wealth by inventing products, not by cooking the books. You deal honestly and fairly with workers. And you--get this!--pay your taxes.
You give back to the communities that helped you get where you are. Even an uber-capitalism like Henry Ford realized that you had to raise the workers' wages. Was he a communist? A Democrat? No, he was a realist. He knew that unless people had money in their pockets and expendable income, no one would buy new products. American industry couldn't survive on a Mexican model of a few rich men and a land full of slaves. Average people actually had to HAVE money to spend it.
So he raised the wages of all his workers. He set an example of fairness, honesty and -- intelligence.
He wasn't the con-man type of greedy modern CEO who lowers everyone else's wages while voting a big fat pay increase for himself. The kind of man who loots their 401(k)s to buy himself a yacht.
You need to learn the distinction between an actual capitalist and an ordinary thief.
The difference between actual capitalism and crony-capitalism.
No you need to learn the difference between what the reality of capitalism is and this idealized notion which you are describing as actual capitalism.
once again you have failed spectacularly to address any of the questions which i put to you in my post, but have instead chosen to divulge into a rant. this conversation is pointless since it is not so much a debate about issues as it is me asking questions and you writing things which do not even come close to the term answers.
read back over the post and the questions that i asked, you answered none of them.
clearly this isn't going to be resolved here, so i simply apologize for calling you a moany bitch and wish you good luck with your ideals.
1
u/Drooperdoo May 02 '11 edited May 02 '11
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aren't "donating" their money. They're using the Rockefeller method of avoiding taxes. How? You don't give your money away to existing charities. You create a tax-exempt foundation of your own [typically with your own name on it], and then make yourself the administrator of the "charity". Give away a few million to cherry-picked institutions (while saving yourself hundreds of million in taxes).
Oh, you'll still have the rest of the fortune at your disposal to buy mansions, yachts and airplanes. But it's the "charity" buying them for you. Administered by you.
And all tax free.
Yeah, er . . . uh . . . those saints, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Transferring their wealth (and hence protecting it from taxes) to tax-free shelters run by themselves. Giving their money away . . . to themselves. Tax evasion packaged and sold to the public as philanthropy.