upvote
You don't get that rich in the first place without being a ruthless asshole.
reply
You'll have to prove the "an actual charity" at that. It's literally in his name, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and Melinda had enough of Bill that she nixed their relationship.

Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are also behind Common Core and basically ruined public education in the US.

The foundation is a way for Bill to keep doing what he likes without having to pay taxes on it, he's just done a better job of repairing his image than Larry.

reply
You can be both good and bad. Like, it's not an impossibility.
reply
Yeah, doing shitty things while “donating” a bunch of money to make your legacy look really good is a classic move throughout history.

These guys don’t want to be remembered for the awful behaviors they had in their personal and business life. They’re extremely conceited and concerned with their image.

reply
deleted
reply

  > basically his entire fortune
Money is a completely different concept for someone that rich.

If I give away 50% of my fortune my entire life falls apart and I am struggling. If I give away 10% it is going to hurt.

But Gates? He gives away 99% of his money and he's still a billionaire. His life isn't really going to change in any meaningful way. His money still generates tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year without him lifting a finger. He gives away 99.9% of his money and he's still worth $100m and again, his life effectively does not change, making now only millions of dollars a year doing nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad he's giving his money away and this is far better than Ellison or plenty of others, but that doesn't absolve their crimes/behavior. There's definitely a hierarchy of wrongness, being a cheater is definitely better than being a pedo cheater but neither is good or an excuse. The dude was associating with a known sex trafficker. Definitely not an "ops, I didn't know", his wife definitely knew and told him...

reply
Listen, billionaires just have to do three things to be beloved:

  1. Donate 5-10% of their fortune to random unobjectionable charities.
  2. Don't abuse children.
  3. Stay off Twitter.
It's not a high bar, we don't need to give a silver medal to those that fall short.
reply
This was enough for Carnegie, and the fact that they're not pursuing similar public works simply illustrates that while they may want to be loved, they don't care if they're loved or not.

Because they don't want to be beloved, they want to turn people into dinosaurs. (to adapt the Spiderman quote)

reply
> The kind of piece of shit who donates basically his entire fortune to charity?

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ ranks him at #13 wealthiest in the world with $108B net worth.

He's donated about half his fortune, and 60% of that to his own org.

reply
I'd prefer if rich simply paid their taxes and contributions instead of spending money on fighting poor children in Africa.
reply
One of Michael Shellenberger's central theses is, I think, that the government's ability to invest in "extras" like overseas aid, science, the environment, space exploration, etc is directly a function of how large and healthy the middle class is because that's where the political capital to do these things really comes from.

Basically the post-WWII period was a golden age for all of the above because the middle class of returning soldiers was there, and it was as power and wealth consolidated in the 80s and onward that there was less and less interest and agreement about spending on stuff other the essentials (which turned out to be mostly just defense).

So really it's a two pronged thing:

* the wealthy need to pay much more, and the government needs to invest that in services that benefit the middle class (education, health care, energy & transportation infrastructure) and also which keep people from falling out of the middle class (social safety net, consumer protections).

* eventually there's a critical mass of middle class people comfortable enough to look out their windows and feel concern about pollution, the poor, etc, and then you ultimately get a combination of individual action, NGOs, and government programmes that meet the very needs that are noticed and lobbied for.

But I think the issue is that many advocates want to jump directly from "more taxes on the rich" to "gov't spends directly on my pet issue", and if you miss the second step, you're never going to get the willpower to either raise the taxes or direct the money into environmental initiatives or whatever else.

reply
The same Michael Shellenberger who assured us PV cells are made with rare earth elements?
reply
I think you're referring to this piece: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...

Yes, I don't love that he puts out hits like that on solar and wind in his effort to promote nuclear as a sole solution, but I still find his larger arguments around the dynamics of environmentalism as a movement persuasive.

reply
After he has lost his integrity by posting obvious propaganda like that, why believe him on anything?
reply
I mean literally taxing the literally rich. Most population by "taxing the rich" mean those earning >90k EUR/USD on employment contract. They see the real rich maybe few times in life from a distance on a yacht in Caribbean or Mediterranean but don't connect the dots.
reply
I don't have a magic answer for how to get people on board, but I can say that I make a lot more than that number, and my taxes (in Canada) are way too low.

I think some of it is the psychology that government is incompetent and will just waste the money anyway ("let Bill keep his money and build toilets in Africa himself, at least he'll get it done"), and the best way to fight that is probably what Carney is trying to do right now: kick off a bunch of ambitious programmes to build new things like pipelines, rail, airport expansions, etc on an accelerated timeline. Perhaps if people see visible progress they'll be more open to saying yeah okay, I'm all right with paying more to live in a country where we get stuff done.

reply
If government is so ineffective and incompetent then stop charging people in the lower band of salaries 35%-45% from their monthly payslips as well.
reply
deleted
reply
That made some sense back when the government used to use the taxes to help poor children in Africa, or poor children in the US for that matter. As of 2025 it seems to just leave that sort of thing up to Bill.
reply
You're absolutely right in a cold logical sense, even if it makes other people emotionally react to the comment. This was a kind way to react to a lazy false dichotomy, that it's either taxes or donations.
reply
Jeffrey Epstein ran a child sex slavery operation for rich people.

There is nothing at all you can do that could ever overcome the harm of helping that man, participating in his business, and calling him a friend.

I don't care if Jesus Christ himself comes down and says Bill Gates is solely responsible for the ending of all suffering.

Raping kids is Bad. Enslaving kids to rape is Bad. This is as clear as you can get in real human society to being The Bad Guy, and Bill Gates spent his precious, limited time on this earth helping him, legitimizing him, and participating in his influence peddling and child rape and slavery

Bill Gates is a piece of shit.

reply
Okay, a complete piece of shit with an undigested kernel of sweet corn stuck in it.
reply
The problem is how the society allowed him to build that wealth. It shouldn't be allowed, not in that way.

He took more from the society than he gave back. And when you take from society, you're not supposed to decide alone how to redistribute. That's the issue

reply
>The kind of piece of shit who donates basically his entire fortune to charity?

So he is no longer a billionaire? And donating to what charity, The Gates Foundation? The one that he controls? The one that he uses to push his ideological stances and repeatedly fails to help anyone? Just look how successful his work on improving education system in America was. What a sacrifice it was for him...

reply
They've admitted the US education work was a mistake. They are hardly alone in making that mistake, improving education in the US is hard.

Their work to clean water and cure diseases has saved millions of lives. They know what they are good at and they've decided to double down on that.

reply
>They've admitted the US education work was a mistake. They are hardly alone in making that mistake, improving education in the US is hard.

It's only hard if you don't want to help anyone and your only goal is to push charter schools(by any other name) by any means necessary.

>Their work to clean water and cure diseases has saved millions of lives. They know what they are good at and they've decided to double down on that.

They helped so many people by not allowing them getting covid vaccine or by fighting generics? Also their "good" deeds weren't without negative consequences that could be avoided if someone actually listened to people they were "helping".

reply