Billionaires are giving their wealth to philanthropy

B

BobF

Well-known Member
Location
Ohio, USA
phi·lan·thro·py
fəˈlanTHrəpē

noun

noun: philanthropy

the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.-
------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

The Giving Pledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to make a commitment to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes. The campaign specifically focuses on billionaires (or those who would be billionaires if not for their philanthropy) and was made public in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. The Huffington Post reported in April 2012 that "81 billionaires committed to giving at least half of their fortunes to charity".[SUP][1][/SUP] As of May 2014, 127 billionaire or former billionaire individuals and couples have signed the pledge.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP]
......................................[/SUP]

http://givingpledge.org/





For this section you will need to click on the link and it will bring up a list of names and the cursor over the name will activate a picture of the person.
 

Warrigal, I guess that is what creates a wealthy corporation. Some of the corporations money goes to listed owners, some goes to stockholders if they decide to sell. Some goes to the operating expenses, some goes into funds for future operations and development. Some will go for taxes to the cities, states, and federal. Just not sure where all there money might go. Many companies do have funds for local needs like hospital funds, special local collections, what ever comes up.

So the owners and big time stock holders might become billionairs but I don't really know when or why the accountants do end up with a companies working wealth. I am sure it is a very confusing way to do this.

I just thought the idea of the billionaires of the world were giving much of their money to needy efforts of one kind or the other.
 

Yes, I understand. We have several billionaires and other well off people who have always been generous with their money although they mostly tended to be patrons of the arts and children's charities. They also donated to hospitals to build new wards or to buy equipment.

Governments, on the other hand have to funds roads, schools, welfare and other social services. For this we need taxation revenue and it doesn't help at all when global corporations spend lots of dollars working out ways to avoid their share of taxation. Even when companies like McDonalds, Coles, Woolworths etc contribute to charities they tend it use this to increase sales (eg spend x number of dollars and we will give you a coupon what you can collect for your local school. The school with the most coupons will win a computer. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's no substitute for better funding via tax dollars.
 
I give a lot of money to Beefeater in my effort to support the workers in my favorite nation...
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Yes, I understand. We have several billionaires and other well off people who have always been generous with their money although they mostly tended to be patrons of the arts and children's charities. They also donated to hospitals to build new wards or to buy equipment.

Governments, on the other hand have to funds roads, schools, welfare and other social services. For this we need taxation revenue and it doesn't help at all when global corporations spend lots of dollars working out ways to avoid their share of taxation. Even when companies like McDonalds, Coles, Woolworths etc contribute to charities they tend it use this to increase sales (eg spend x number of dollars and we will give you a coupon what you can collect for your local school. The school with the most coupons will win a computer. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's no substitute for better funding via tax dollars.
Click to expand...

And Warrigal, you have just pointed out where the US has not approached the problem for years. We have a very messed up tax system and the one side of our government will not attempt to fix the problem. They just continue to play with the special ways certain companies don't have to pay taxes and our lenders controls. To just raise the taxes without fixing the problems will make the US just as broke and helpless as much of Europe is right now. The US needs complete new tax and revenue controls that are solid and fair to all US citizens. We will also need to pay down this ever rising debt so for some time our nation will need to hold back with some niceties, not necessities, in order to pay down debts and get our nation back into a reasonable basis for doing things without going deeper into debt.

The cost of living has really risen a lot in recent years and some of the solutions offered on this forum will only make things worse, as they have lately.
 
QuickSilver said:
Isn't this the movement started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Pretty LIBERAL guys I might add.
Click to expand...

Yes, those folks really are quite liberal in their nature. But they are not as distorted about running a business as our liberal government is.

Being liberal in actions is not something wrong. But too often liberal governments, and other types, are wrong.
 
I think that comparing Government budgets and spending to a household budget and spending is quite sophmoric. Simply to say.. we must cut spending and live within our budget may work at the house hold kitchen table, but cannot and ususally does not work for Government. You are completly oversimplifying it. For one thing.. a household is not 238 years old. When a household ceases to exist, it's debts are assumed or released... not so with the government.. We have debt accumulating for over 200 years.. There is no final payment date. The Federal government has been in debt since 1776.


A household cannot levy taxes.. Oh sure.. dad may have to take a part time job.. but the point is.. The government relies on taxes to provide services such as defense.. infrastructure.. etc.. That is the "paycheck" A household cannot control it's curency... it cannot print money... it cannot adjust interest rates. A household cannot pay debts with IOUs that are accepted around the world as CASH.... as the government does in the way of bonds. NO household is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency. US dollars are very desireable around the world. I know of no household that can simply say.. Here's an IOU.. and have the recipient feel they have been PAID.
 
QuickSilver said:
I think that comparing Government budgets and spending to a household budget and spending is quite sophmoric. Simply to say.. we must cut spending and live within our budget may work at the house hold kitchen table, but cannot and ususally does not work for Government. You are completly oversimplifying it. For one thing.. a household is not 238 years old. When a household ceases to exist, it's debts are assumed or released... not so with the government.. We have debt accumulating for over 200 years.. There is no final payment date. The Federal government has been in debt since 1776.


A household cannot levy taxes.. Oh sure.. dad may have to take a part time job.. but the point is.. The government relies on taxes to provide services such as defense.. infrastructure.. etc.. That is the "paycheck" A household cannot control it's curency... it cannot print money... it cannot adjust interest rates. A household cannot pay debts with IOUs that are accepted around the world as CASH.... as the government does in the way of bonds. NO household is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency. US dollars are very desireable around the world. I know of no household that can simply say.. Here's an IOU.. and have the recipient feel they have been PAID.
Click to expand...

I don't see the household comparison you are talking about as governments also have needs to balance their budgets to income they can develop. Yes, in the old days before the modern government came on in the late 1800's, the US had often gone down to $O old debts and stayed out of debt until the next emergency. Since 1900 the US has had debts, WWI and they were paying it down. Then came WWII and the debt went to extreme levels but after the war the debt was being addressed and was being paid down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

[h=2]History[/h] US federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038


Main article: History of the United States public debt
Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
.........................
This chart does, sort of, cover your claim that there was always a debt in the US. But always has shown some effort by the government to pay down these extreme debts and get back to a balanced budget. This no longer seems to be happening and it should be happening. A bankrupt country that is no longer trying to stay ahead of cost will be no good for anyone living here.

We need more controls of spending for optional items, that need defined and limited by the Congress, and the public needs to be told why certain things will no longer be covered by the US government. Budgeting and planning is not limited to just home level and families, it is part of the governments responsibility to do so as well.

The US government needs new tax laws that stop all these gimmicks to get to not having to pay taxes for businesses and people. The US needs a government that will not tolerate all this theft of peoples taxes. We do not need more regulations that cost the farmers or manufacturers more money for their products. For far too many years our government have operated out of control. Being in control of our daily wants and needs and our future direction is one of the governments duties.

It does not matter if the government is party oriented, as it should not be driven by parties, but by local representation per the Constitution. All of us should get back to the basics and do some real and proper governing for the US, or end up just as broke and unable to take care of the people as Europe seems to be these days.

I am not 'far left' as some are. Nor am I 'far right' as some will call me. I am in between and at times my vote can go either way as I vote for what I consider the candidates honesty and sincerity.
 
oldman said:
Does anyone remember the challenge that Bill and Melissa Gates made to the wealthiest people to give half of their fortune away to charity either during their lifetime or after death? http://fortune.com/2010/06/16/the-600-billion-challenge/
I did not re-read this article, so I may be wrong, but I believe that Ted Turner was against such a notion.
Click to expand...

That challenge was what started this thread. Go back and look at the first post of this thread. You are so right, this is something that many of the richest do for others. And Turner does not show up on the list I posted. The second link on my post. It shows names of member. To me, Turner and his wife are not really folks I would like in my life so no matter to me.
 
I don't believe that all debt is necessarily bad... is it? It's how one handles ones debt that contributes to credit rating.. And a good credit rating is important for future borrowing and at a better interest rate. Same with Governments. Having one's State or Federal credit rating downgraded is NOT a good thing. You cannot get a credit rating without debt. Right now the US can borrow money at vertually 0% interest.

I have no problem with the Government controlling spending so long as it is not based solely off the backs of the middle class and the poor with cuts in programs that these groups depend on.. Cutting Medicare, Social Security and food stamps while giving the wealthy MORE and MORE tax breaks.. and continueing with the loopholes corporations and the wealthy use to cut their tax liability is NOT the way to balance a budget. This is why the Ryan budget might have passed the House, but was DOA in a Democratic Senate.. AND even if by some stoke of luck.. (or gerrymandering with voter suppression) the Republicans manage to take the Senate.. it will not be veto proof.. and the POTUS has a very nice Pen.
 
BobF said:
That challenge was what started this thread. Go back and look at the first post of this thread. You are so right, this is something that many of the richest do for others. And Turner does not show up on the list I posted. The second link on my post. It shows names of member. To me, Turner and his wife are not really folks I would like in my life so no matter to me.
Click to expand...

Same thing only different. The date of the pledge that I listed was much earlier than the one in the first post. Just semantics.
 
Last edited:
QuickSilver said:
I don't believe that all debt is necessarily bad... is it? It's how one handles ones debt that contributes to credit rating.. And a good credit rating is important for future borrowing and at a better interest rate. Same with Governments. Having one's State or Federal credit rating downgraded is NOT a good thing. You cannot get a credit rating without debt. Right now the US can borrow money at vertually 0% interest.

I have no problem with the Government controlling spending so long as it is not based solely off the backs of the middle class and the poor with cuts in programs that these groups depend on.. Cutting Medicare, Social Security and food stamps while giving the wealthy MORE and MORE tax breaks.. and continueing with the loopholes corporations and the wealthy use to cut their tax liability is NOT the way to balance a budget. This is why the Ryan budget might have passed the House, but was DOA in a Democratic Senate.. AND even if by some stoke of luck.. (or gerrymandering with voter suppression) the Republicans manage to take the Senate.. it will not be veto proof.. and the POTUS has a very nice Pen.
Click to expand...

Over half of us in the US pay no federal taxes at all. Most of our tax spending depends on the wealthy to cover the costs. If they do finally get a bill into and through Congress that straitens out all these ways to wiggle out of paying taxes, expecially the businesses, then maybe we could start lowering this debt burden we know have.

And if the President should reject the bill, I think there is still a way to push it through with an increased vote in the Congress over the rejection. I have not looked that up but think it is so.
 
BobF said:
Over half of us in the US pay no federal taxes at all. Most of our tax spending depends on the wealthy to cover the costs. If they do finally get a bill into and through Congress that straitens out all these ways to wiggle out of paying taxes, expecially the businesses, then maybe we could start lowering this debt burden we know have.

And if the President should reject the bill, I think there is still a way to push it through with an increased vote in the Congress over the rejection. I have not looked that up but think it is so.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go... The people that don't pay Federal taxes are those with incomes so abysmal that they don't even fall on the tax schedule as owing taxes. YET.. they DO pay taxes.. They pay FICA.. they pay Sales tax.. They pay property tax if they happen to own a home. Are you saying that someone making $15,000 a year should pay taxes at the same rate a person making $500,000? As it is.. The wealthy are able to whittle their tax rates down to well below what a middle class person pays. Remember Romney?? What did he get away with? 9% or something like that.. But a person living at or below the poverty level should pay a higher rate?

Yeah.. a veto can be overridden.. with 2/3rd majority vote in BOTH the house and Senate. If the Senate is taken by the GOP in November, it will only be by one or two seats.. So they will never get the 2/3 vote needed. They can pass all the GOP garbage they want.. It will not become law. So.. you will have to keep the House, Win the Senate AND the White House to get any of that nonsense passed. See any chance of that happening in 2016?
 
pchrise said:
Just one little point Real People never get help , maybe dirt poor will get moldy bread and the one giving gets a Tax break. The charity keeps most of the money , why? the CEO earn 500k places like the Red Cross


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
Click to expand...

So true, pchris, when I lived in another city, one of the places I regularly volunteered on Sat mornings, we prepared the lunches. The bread that was donated, we had to go through checking for mold because the bread was always old bread. I've also volunteered at the Red Cross and other organizations and truth be told, many people running the organizations are just paid managers CEO and the like with little heartfelt concern for those they serve. It's mostly bottom line numbers for them. I'm not talking about volunteers, even though, I've heard a few say some very unkind things as well about the people they served.
 
QuickSilver said:
Oh here we go... The people that don't pay Federal taxes are those with incomes so abysmal that they don't even fall on the tax schedule as owing taxes. YET.. they DO pay taxes.. They pay FICA.. they pay Sales tax.. They pay property tax if they happen to own a home. Are you saying that someone making $15,000 a year should pay taxes at the same rate a person making $500,000? As it is.. The wealthy are able to whittle their tax rates down to well below what a middle class person pays. Remember Romney?? What did he get away with? 9% or something like that.. But a person living at or below the poverty level should pay a higher rate?

Yeah.. a veto can be overridden.. with 2/3rd majority vote in BOTH the house and Senate. If the Senate is taken by the GOP in November, it will only be by one or two seats.. So they will never get the 2/3 vote needed. They can pass all the GOP garbage they want.. It will not become law. So.. you will have to keep the House, Win the Senate AND the White House to get any of that nonsense passed. See any chance of that happening in 2016?
Click to expand...

They do not pay federal taxes and FICA is not considered a tax, just a payment towards your Social Security Retirement payments. All you are pointing to is why the government should redo our tax system and make sure the lower income folks are the least taxed. Our federal tax system is so complex that it is hard to determine who gets charged how much. A bit of game playing is done on the filing form which makes it even harder to determine who pays what. This could all be cleaned up a bit if the government would allow it to be done. I have paid no taxes for several years now and I make a lot more than nothing. I just follow the tax rules and end up getting some federal moneys back, so I end up paying nothing for the year.

And for all folks, if we are all taxed at the rate of 10% we would all pay less than those making more money would. Seems fair to me. If I make $20,000 I would pay $2,000 for the year, If I made $100,000 I would pay $10,000. My made up rate just to show how being wealthier would make a big difference to the government. In a true tax system, any dollars that go into my hand as wages or other means would be counted for tax purposes. Fairness to the lower paid folks and no mercy for those who somehow get large sums of money into their hands.

Look in here and tell me if there is any real rational rules to live with. Everything in our tax system is split and no way to tell how much is actually charged. Depending on the individual you get to go to this or that table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_tax)
 
Here it the first page of the link
mostlyfalse.gif
MOSTLY OUTDATED AND INACCURATE.
So what are we to believe?
 
AH..... The Old FLAT TAX BS... Just another way for the Rich to pay LESS.. and get the poor to pay more. The flat tax is just a regressive Conservative ploy to continue to hurt the poor to benefit the wealthy.. Ok... I know I won't change your mind because you've bought into this nonsense hook line and sinker. So HOW do you believe the flat tax is fair? If a person earning $15,000 a year .. and he is taxed at 10% rather than 0% He now has to try to live on $13,500 a year rather than $15,000.

Now let's look at the Person who earns a $1,000,000 a year. Normally, if they have a good accountant and some or most of their income is unearned., they will maybe pay 20% income tax.. and will have to struggle to get by $800,000 AH... but don't worry..... Enter the Republicans and the wonderful FLAT TAX!! So now he is taxed at only 10% and his income now RISES to $900,000... much better.

How in the WORLD can you believe a flat tax is fair??? Seriously???
 
QuickSilver said:
AH..... The Old FLAT TAX BS... Just another way for the Rich to pay LESS.. and get the poor to pay more. The flat tax is just a regressive Conservative ploy to continue to hurt the poor to benefit the wealthy.. Ok... I know I won't change your mind because you've bought into this nonsense hook line and sinker. So HOW do you believe the flat tax is fair? If a person earning $15,000 a year .. and he is taxed at 10% rather than 0% He now has to try to live on $13,500 a year rather than $15,000.

Now let's look at the Person who earns a $1,000,000 a year. Normally, if they have a good accountant and some or most of their income is unearned., they will maybe pay 20% income tax.. and will have to struggle to get by $800,000 AH... but don't worry..... Enter the Republicans and the wonderful FLAT TAX!! So now he is taxed at only 10% and his income now RISES to $900,000... much better.

How in the WORLD can you believe a flat tax is fair??? Seriously???
Click to expand...

Here you go again. Just love to call people names and try to insult them. You sound much like a person on a different forum that I also write on.

I have repeatedly said our current tax system is broken and needs replaced. I did not say we should go to a flat tax as you are claiming. I used a flat tax as a demonstration and said so in my post. Now you are claiming I want nothing but a flat tax. Did you take any time to find out how I make a fair income but have not paid any taxes, and it is legal too. Due to many of the inside twists our tax forms take. Nothing fair in that at all.

I repeat that our tax systems are wrong and need to be replaced. How they do that is up to the Congress as they debate there way through the process. I certainly hope for fewer ways to avoid paying taxes and the emphasis should be on high earners and businesses. Low income folks should be protected. Your argument included ways for businesses to avoid paying taxes. Those are the ways that our flawed tax system needs to be relieved of. WE NEED A NEW AND STRICTER TAX SYSTEM. You are crying about the little persons and they are not the problem for the US. There are some of us little guys that do need to see the taxes taken from our incomes. No one really should be exempt from earned income being taxed. At what rate, is of the tax program designers, not you nor me.
 
BobF said:
Here you go again. Just love to call people names and try to insult them. You sound much like a person on a different forum that I also write on.

I have repeatedly said our current tax system is broken and needs replaced. I did not say we should go to a flat tax as you are claiming. I used a flat tax as a demonstration and said so in my post. Now you are claiming I want nothing but a flat tax. Did you take any time to find out how I make a fair income but have not paid any taxes, and it is legal too. Due to many of the inside twists our tax forms take. Nothing fair in that at all.

I repeat that our tax systems are wrong and need to be replaced. How they do that is up to the Congress as they debate there way through the process. I certainly hope for fewer ways to avoid paying taxes and the emphasis should be on high earners and businesses. Low income folks should be protected. Your argument included ways for businesses to avoid paying taxes. Those are the ways that our flawed tax system needs to be relieved of. WE NEED A NEW AND STRICTER TAX SYSTEM. You are crying about the little persons and they are not the problem for the US. There are some of us little guys that do need to see the taxes taken from our incomes. No one really should be exempt from earned income being taxed. At what rate is of the tax program designers, not you nor me.
Click to expand...

No one has called you any names.. and if you are insulted that I have pointed out the flaws in your example... that's not my problem.. Yes the tax system is broken, I agree... BUT it is broken to the advantage of the rich.. The ONLY fair tax is a graduated income tax with poorer folks paying less, and the very poorest should not pay at all. What's broken and unfair is that the wealthy can get away with LEGALLY cheating the government.. as you are. Your legal robbery is really hurting this country. Let's fix the tax system by making sure the wealthy pay what they should pay, and not be able to hire tax attorneys to game the system for them.

See... the poor cannot hire lobbyists to grease the palms of Congress.. or make huge campaign contributions to get laws passed to favor them. ALL the poor have is their vote.. and that is being systematically taken away too. I tell EVERYONE I know to vote this November... Like their lives depended on it.. because it does.
 
Outdated or not remember Mrs Dole runing for president was head of red cross had to disclose how much she earned. 1. I always paid taxes, 2. Never been on government anything. 3. Know first hand if you have bad luck, you will never get any help not even from a church . 4. Not part of anything politics.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top