Terminally ill “Simpsons” co-creator to leave entire fortune to charity

[octoberlib]

Sam Simon, the 58-year-old nine-time Emmy-winning “Simpsons” co-creator who was recently diagnosed with terminal colon cancer, has decided to leave his entire fortune to charity. His post-”Simpsons” credits also include shows like “Anger Management” and “The Drew Carey Show,” and the writer-producer admits that he doesn’t even know the full amount of his wealth; he continues to earn “tens of millions” from “The Simpsons” in royalties every year.

This kind of generosity is rare for anyone, but it’s especially out of step in status-obsessed Hollywood. But Simon, who is not married and does not have any children, has been a philanthropist his entire life. With his fortune, he has founded the Sam Simon Foundation, worth nearly $23 million as of 2011, which feeds starving people and dogs. He has donated hefty sums to PETA, Save the Children and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/25/terminally_ill_simpsons_co_creator_to_leave_entire_fortune_to_charity/

[Rowdyboy]

1. What a kick ass guy....I stand in awe

[roguevalley]

37. he understands that money only matters if its used and using it for good makes him

my hero.

[tofuandbeer]

45. +1

[Scurrilous]

2. K & R

[rhett o rick]

3. This is wonderful. nm

[Hydra]

4. *Tips hat*

May your rest come mercifully and be sweet, Sam.

[Luminous Animal]

5. This is an extraordinary thing for him to do and illustrates

why obscene wealth should be heavily taxed. The welfare of the poor, the abused, the environment, should not be left up to the whims of extraordinary generous people.

[flvegan]

6. ...and the world will be worse without him.

If ever a miracle was called for, maybe he deserves it.

[applegrove]

7. I love people who walk the walk.

[Lex]

8. Now that's how it's done.

What a lasting effect on people and animals this man will have.

[alittlelark]

9. A brilliant career, and a beautiful legacy....

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. Jimmy, have you ever seen a grown man make a pizza?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Straw man on aisle two!

[Skittles]

22. repukes would just use it to start unnecessary wars

[RudynJack]

48. Hrm...

what a curious right-wing parody of liberalism. It's almost like you're a ... nah, it couldn't be.

[longship]

54. One his four posts.

Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

Wonder if there's time for ?

[Nay]

59. Nope, no time for popcorn......

[Chef Eric]

55. Where can YOU do the most good? Not here, it seems. nt

[Arkana]

60. Hey, you're right!

Maybe he should--it could provide health care for thousands of Americans, feed them, clothe them, etc.

That's a great idea, champ. You keep on keepin' on.

Asshole.

[caseymoz]

11. K&R

What a great guy. It's too bad the world is losing him.

[Firebrand Gary]

14. Humanity at its best! 58 is way too young.

I know next to nothing about where we are in the fight of curing cancer, I can only hope that some where in the world someone is close to curing this dreadful disease.

[nomorenomore08]

51. Problem is, what we call "cancer" is actually hundreds of different diseases.

So curing one form won't necessarily = curing others.

[DearHeart]

15. So HORRIBLE that he is terminal! What an amazing & generous man! nt

[Hulk]

16. God bless this man, truly!

It's difficult when you have offspring and a spouse (or two, or three); and brothers and sisters and parents, and nephews, nieces, etc. But to be able to put aside your worldly gains and donate them to a worthy cause is extremely noble!

I love the mark this man leaves on life after his has come to it's end. I wish I could do the same one day, but unfortunately it won't happen. I expect to leave my wife and four children behind me, and I want them to gain a little from my departure to the ozone layer, or wherever we go after this life on earth.

God bless! I know there are lots of little slogans that could say it all, but I'm just in awe to this man with my admiration.

[krispos42]

17. Marc Maron interviewed him recently

If anybody is interested.

[octoberlib]

21. If it's the one from May 16th, found it . Thanks !

http://www.avclub.com/articles/episode-389-sam-simon,97816/

[krispos42]

26. That sounds about right.

I listened to it a couple of weeks ago, and I'm behind.


Being unemployed really has cut into my plan to catch up on my podcasts.

[MotherPetrie]

18. K&R

[HiPointDem]

19. he's not giving away his entire fortune. he's setting up a rockefeller-affiliated foundation.

which will carry out the work of the ruling class while fronting some nice PR.

Clue: when you 'give away all your money," you just give it away, you don't set up an immortal foundation.

Foundations are set up so you *don't* give away "all your money," just 5% of the assets/year. Foundations are set up so you can keep growing the capital after you die, & your descendants a/o friends can direct the investments of the principle in their own interest.

It's really gag-making to see people oooing & aaaing over the 'generosity' of the .001%.

[Bluegene]

28. You are wrong about that

He isn't like you and I. He will continue to receive money long after he is gone and must set up a foundation to handle the continued monies coming in from his past work, this does not make him an elitist or a bad person. It is set up so he can be sure the money is spent as he wants it to be long after his demise.

[HiPointDem]

31. NO. A foundation needs only give away 5% of its total assets every year. Meanwhile, it can

make 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% or whatever on its investments.

Foundations are usually set up to *hold on to* fortunes, not to disperse them. Foundations are set up to immortalize capital, and to keep it out of the hands of the state.

For a small price (5%), the heirs, friends, class associate of the deceased can continue to manage the capital, direct it into investments which favor their interests, use the power of the foundation to reward friends, family, associates, and to direct public policy.

It's one of the biggest scams going, which is why it's so disgusting to see everyone praising this guy (& all the other monied guys who do the same thing). He's not giving away his money.

[KittyWampus]

40. he is setting up foundations that do good work. True, there will be trustees, but so what?

Your post is sickening.

[HiPointDem]

41. no, *your* post is sickening, & the continued fraud upon the general public by big capital is

sickening.

[brett_jv]

47. Lame ...

Fact is, dude could've done any number of less cool things with his money, such as: left it in a foundation directing all his $$$ to the NRA, ALEC, and the Heritage Foundation, or given it all to random no-account cousins, nephews, siblings (nobody really has NO family), etc.

The only difference here is that instead of just handing it ALL over to these charities right now, wherein the people in charge at these places at this moment in time get to decide how to manage/spent his entire fortune for him.

If it were my money, I'd do the same thing as this guy. What he's doing here is making it possible for all these different organizations to have a yearly stipend that is basically never-ending, in order to continue to exist, pay administrative costs, and do the works they're charged with over the course of multiple generations of their elected leadership. Why should he just 'hand it all over' to be managed at the whim of the people presently in charge of those outfits, rather than get to decide, along with the people he trusts, to provide the charities of his choice (ALL of whom I'm sure depend on 'foundations' set up in the same manner for their guaranteed incomes so they can continue to exist) with a basically eternal source of funds?

I think it's pretty friggin classless to blast a dying man who's giving so much to causes that ALL of us would LOVE to see be able to continue w/doing their good works just because you have some 'issue' with the way these types of things are normally done.

[HiPointDem]

50. The entire set of assumptions underlying your post are so counter-factual that it's not worth

unpacking them. Foundations are a tool for economic & social control. Any 'good works' that get done are strictly incidental.

[joeglow3]

66. If that was his motivation, why not just give it to his friends and skip the 5%?

[HiPointDem]

77. because just 'giving it to his friends' doesn't serve the same functions

starting with tax avoidance.

[joeglow3]

83. But those individuals pay taxes on their salary

Thus, the taxes are not avoided.

[HiPointDem]

84. which is why he didn't just 'give it to his friends'. avoiding taxes while retaining indirect

control of the cash is one of the main reasons for the existence of foundations.

[joeglow3]

99. He still has to give it to a 501(c)(3)

As 15 year tax CPA, I still don't see how you come to the technical conclusion you do.

[HiPointDem]

100. has to give 5%/year of the assets. but can also make 5% or more off the assets.

i don't see what's so hard to figure.

[joeglow3]

101. But he doesn't get to keep that money

Just means there is a larger "endowment" for charities. I don't see what is so hard to grasp.

[HiPointDem]

102. he doesn't get to personally keep the money in any case, since he's dying. but foundations

allow heirs, friends, business associates TO KEEP ARM'S LENGTH CONTROL OF THE PRINCIPAL, & indeed, grow the principal -- & use it politically, as well as the 'charitable' contributions.

I don't see what is so hard to grasp.

[joeglow3]

103. And they pay taxes on what they earn as trustee

Thus your arguments that it is for tax evasion are once again wrong. Again, as a 15 year tax CPA, you don't know what you are talking about.

However, I would love to know your expertise in this subject.

[HiPointDem]

104. that doesn't speak to the issue of retention of the principal. i said nothing about salaries for

trustees (who actually often don't get salaries) or for foundation staff (who do). another issue entirely.

http://www.gmafoundations.com/?p=1472

"as a 15 year tax CPA, you don't know what you are talking about"

lol. check your grammar.

i've been in or around the foundation world for decades. i stand by my claim.

but if you've been a cpa so long & know so much about foundations, why did you think trustees get salaries as a routine matter?

in fact, they don't: "Approximately one-quarter of U.S. foundations compensate their trustees in one form or another." = 3/4 DON'T.

If you're a CPA, why are you so willfully blind to what I'm talking about?

With a record of giving that extends in the hundreds of millions and throughout New York's cultural institutions, Mr. Cullman, who is 91, is alarmed by how the money donated to charity by the very wealthy usually ends up. Locked, he tells me, in private grant-making foundations that may only release a trickle of the billions of dollars squirreled away inside.

Mr. Cullman's argument gets to the heart of the different ways Americans donate to charity. Most of us write donation checks directly to needy causes. Those with greater means set up private grant-making foundations, which hold nearly tax-free assets in endowments—and often give away as little as the government allows.

Under current tax law, private foundations are only required to spend 5% of their endowment per year. Twenty percent of that may go to operating expenses. Since endowment investments historically earn more than what they must give out, foundations may never need to dip into their principal assets, yet are able to feed their own administrative bloat in perpetuity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435481403466748.html

PS: Since 20% of the 5% can be spent on overhead/administration rather than charity, that means you really only have to give away 4% of the foundation assets every year, and can spend 1% on your kid's salaries, for example.

Foundations are about big pools of tax-free dark money that can be used to manipulate politics, economics, and society. Via investment & other shadowy uses of the foundation's principal.

And since blocs of foundations are also aligned, huge pools of capital can act in concert -- for example, to boost or take down a stock, fund a particular line of business (genetic engineering, anyone?), etc.

[joeglow3]

106. Wow, you are all over the place there

First, what the hell does grammar have to do with tax law? Second, the argument of salaries was made by someone else. I simply said they owe taxes on that income and there is no tax evasion. However, the fact that you think that shows my lack of knowledge makes it clear how far you are stretching. And yet, within your SAME post, you go back to claiming salaries paid to kids. You can't even keep your own shit straight.

[HiPointDem]

107. 1. the grammar is just an aside. 2. you weren't talking to 'someone else'. 3. 'tax evasion'

is a legal charge. foundations evade taxes legally. 4. that you are willfully blurring salaries for TRUSTEES (your original claim) & salaries for foundation staff & management (where you will typically find heirs) tells me you're just throwing stuff up & have no particular expertise in this area. 5. still ignoring the issue of retention & growth of the principal, i see.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. I who never agree with Kitty most certainly do, your post is disgusting and

your assertions are assumptions. A continued fraud? A man gives away everything he has earned and will earn after his death and you call that fraud upon the public? Vile, repugnant stupidity posing as cynicism.
He's not preserving his fortune, he is giving it all away. He has no heirs. No heirs. All the money gets given away. All of it.
You are making up libels and should be ashamed of yourself.

[Safetykitten]

71. Why is his post disgusting? The only ever time I contacted a charity for help...for my dog,

from a dog based helping charity. There was no help.

Pretty basic.

[HiPointDem]

78. i call foundations a fraud on the public, and every one of these PR releases about rich people

who are supposedly "giving away all their money" a fraud on the public, yes. It's a fraud.

[cui bono]

89. How/why does he continue to make money off his past work if he's dead?

I don't understand that.

[AngryOldDem]

91. He -- or more accurately his estate -- will continue to receive royalties.

And given that The Simpsons will most likely be seen in perpetuity, that will add up to a nice chunk of change.

[cui bono]

95. Really? That seems so weird to me. I would have thought after one's death they no longer

receive anything.

[HiPointDem]

105. Part of the reason he set up a foundation was so that the foundation could be 'heir' to those

intellectual property rights.

[Safetykitten]

43. Well in my case, I asked for help. I have never asked for help in anything ever from charity...

or the government. But this is my dog, and I would take a bullet for him. But they would not help. So, I can see this. I would think that a charity would help.

Stupid me.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. They have a mobile free vet clinic in Los Angeles but the emphasis is on rescue

of shelter animals and training them as companion animals for Veterans and people with hearing impairments. One assumes the scope and breadth of activities will expand when the funding goes from about 20 million to who knows how much, 200 million or more....
http://ssfmobileclinic.org/wp-content/uploads/ssf_flyers/SpayNeuter_Current.pdf

http://www.samsimonfoundation.com/

http://www.samsimonfoundation.com/visitations.asp

[Safetykitten]

69. I wrote and contacted them after the broadcast on 60 minutes.

The broadcast implied a different scope, so I thought I would try to get help from a charity that specifically helped dogs.

[SidDithers]

58. It's called "preservation of capital"...

And it's done so a foundation can continue to do good works in perpetuity.

University endowments are set up this way.

Sid

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

20. Hope he tries eating cannibus, it's helped some folks.

there was a study in Spain reported here just a few days ago.

[wundermaus]

23. The cure for cancer is out there...

Seems that the medical industry is not interested in a cancer cure.
Too much money to be made from the sick and dying.
We have to find those cures ourselves.

Paul Stamets at TEDMED 2011

Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer

[DeSwiss]

32. +1000

[WheelWalker]

38. +1 for Stamets

[Egalitarian Thug]

81. Bingo! +1 for you & K&R for the thread.

The pharmacological cornucopia is to make cancers chronic, and that's were the industry focus lies.

Salk nearly ruined the "charity industry" when he went and gave away his cure, that's never going to be allowed to happen again.

Dr. Salk; "Would you patent the sun?"

The Medical Industry; "Can you tell us how?"

[SunSeeker]

87. Cool. Strawberry smoothies for me from now on!

But where do I get turkey tail mushrooms?

[matthews]

24. And every now and then you hear about a 1%er who's a real good guy.

This guy is at the head of that list.

[calimary]

25. Damn. Sorry to hear of his illness.

He was always available to speak to us reporters whenever we'd need a comment or reaction about something from the "Simpsons" department. Always friendly and cooperative. And now leaving a legacy for the Least of These.

[blackspade]

27. A true humanitarian.

It's a shame folks like him die and fucks like Cheney continue to plague the world...

[tofuandbeer]

46. and that bastard was given a new life with some poor soul's heart.

I can't help but wonder how many were pushed to the back of the line for that wretched freak.

[Fearless]

29. What else is there to say but...

[DeSwiss]

30. Came with no baggage, leaves with no baggage.

- Good on ya.

K&R






Resource-based Economy

[JohnnyRingo]

33. "Drew Carey Show" postdates "The Simpsons" ?

I know the Simpsons have been around a long time, but The Drew Show seemed like eons ago. I had no idea the same genius was behind both

Good health to you Mr Simon, and thanks for your generous legacy, both in your bequest and your brilliant production.

[nomorenomore08]

52. "The Simpsons" has been on the air since 1989. "Drew Carey" didn't premiere till '95.

[spooky3]

65. And Simpsons segments were on Tracey Ullman show before that

[cliffordu]

34. God Bless you, sir.

I wish I could measure by half.

[hifiguy]

35. I take my hat off to you, Sam Simon.

You are a mensch from the navel out in every direction. Pass easily when the time comes, sir.

[Safetykitten]

36. Odd. They seem not to care at all about dogs, well...certain dogs.

I wrote a letter to them about two years ago to ask if they could help me with my dog and his leg. They emailed me back that they would not.

I then called them and the person there said they were not "set up" to help just any dog, only dogs that were, well, under certain guidelines that she would not discuss.

Sad that he is dying. Maybe he should have different people run the dog charity part.

[HiPointDem]

42. Foundation capital is directed at particular charities that big capital uses to direct social

mobilizing. It does not exist to help 'the general public'. It's used to shape & mold society, i.e. it's a tool of social control.

[Safetykitten]

44. True. As I found out.

[greiner3]

62. I'd reply to your post;

But I treasure my ability to post, in general, on this site.

Have a nicer day.

[HiPointDem]

86. you don't think you can critique my post without putting your posting right on this site in

jeopardy?

sorry about that.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. They rescue dogs to become assitant animals to Veterans and those with hearing

impairments. Are you a Veteran in need or a deaf person? Why you'd claim they don't discuss their objectives is questionable, as it is all public as can be.
http://www.samsimonfoundation.com/

People reading your posts should read their website and think about it.

[Safetykitten]

72. As I remember the website then was different than the one now.

[joeglow3]

67. So, because they did not give money to random person who sent them a letter they aren't charitable?

[Safetykitten]

70. No they are not. Not for me.

[joeglow3]

73. Ahhhh.

Like the joke about the women who will have sex with everyone but me.

[LeftyMom]

108. Kind of like the poster who hated Habitat for not giving her a house.

I wish I were making that up.

[Beaverhausen]

39. He has no children

The tone of this piece pisses me off. Many in Hollywood are very generous with their fortunes. Simon is among the many philanthropic members of the entertainment industry. He deserves the kudos but he is hardly "rare. ". http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bill-clinton-casey-wasserman-reveal-590405

[bearssoapbox]

49. Good for Mr. Simon.

It's to bad, that almost no matter how good someone tries to be, or tries make the world even one iota better, there is always someone that will kick dirt on what they try to do.

Maybe he should take all his money and put in in a pile and burn it. Have a weenie roast for the rich. Then every year have a money burning party to take care of all the royalties and other types of revenue that comes in.

You know...Instead of helping any person or dog that needs it.

I just hope that Mr. Simon doesn't suffer and I'm glad for his contributions to making the world a little brighter and funnier over the years.

I don't think I have missed an episode of the Simpson's since 'The Tracy Ullman Show'.

[renate]

53. I know...it makes me sad when someone does good, but just not in the way other people would do it...

... and then the goodness and genuine good intentions are met with criticism. Something that should be beautiful is smeared with ingratitude. It's not as though the world is crawling with good people doing good things--people like him should be celebrated.

Like you do, I hope his passing is a gentle one. Certainly his mind should be at ease. It must be a wonderful thing to leave the world better than he found it.

[kelliekat44]

56. Wish he could leave it to Head Start. nt

[tclambert]

57. Changing my name to Charity in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

[TBF]

68. PETA is the last group I'd give money to -

serious animal rescue folks know they kill more animals than anyone else.

But I do applaud his efforts.

[They_Live]

74. How does PETA kill more animals than anyone else?

That's the first time I've heard that statement. Just curious...

[TBF]

79. Article from HuffPost (graphic warning)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

[They_Live]

92. That is messed up

Thanks for the link. I can't take them seriously ever again.

[Downtown Hound]

75. PETA kills more animals than factory farms?

Strange logic you have there.

[TBF]

80. Good point - but yes they are killing

many more animals than you would expect from a "humane" and "charitable" organization. I look for local groups to give money to (which is easy because I've adopted dogs myself and assisted w/some rescue efforts locally) and also some of the larger organizations. But there is too much press out there about PETA's questionable tactics for me to support them.

Graphic warning - Huffpost article is helpful: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

[duffyduff]

90. Of course they do. If you don't believe in animal domestication, it makes sense

to kill domesticated animals.

PETA will NEVER tell the public the truth about their nutball, extremist agenda.

[Rebellious Republican]

76. Wow, just fuckin WOW.

[Liberal_in_LA]

82. a great man

[G_j]

85. right on bro!

[totodeinhere]

88. This just goes to show once again that not all rich people are evil. n/t

[raging moderate]

93. Thank you, Sam Simon!

You will live on in the many lives you bless!

[LittleBlue]

94. Very sad

What a generous man.

[Raine]

96. Wow what a TERRIFIC guy so sad that his life is

being cut so short.

[Redford]

97. What a good man

[defacto7]

98. K&R