Cheapskate Billionaires

[maxrandb]

Found this interesting

http://www.brookings.org/views/op-ed/easterbrook/20070318.htm

"Last year, for the first time, everyone in the Forbes 400 index of the super-wealthy was a billionaire. Sales of 200-foot-plus yachts and other indulgences of extreme wealth are at record highs. Income for the top 1% of Americans has more than doubled in the last quarter of a century, while that of the bottom fifth barely budged. The rich, in short, are getting steadily richer, both in absolute terms and compared with the rest of society.

Yet with the sainted exception of Warren Buffett and maybe Bill Gates, virtually all of them refuse to give any meaningful fraction of their wealth to the less fortunate—or even to give a decent fraction to such endeavors as art or medical research, which they'd benefit from.

Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, net worth $16 billion, gave away $53 million in 2006, according to Slate—one-third of 1% of his fortune. Software magnate Lawrence Ellison, net worth $20 billion, gave away $100 million—half of 1%. Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay, net worth $7.7 billion, gave away $67 million—less than 1%. Nike tycoon Philip Knight, net worth $7.9 billion, gave away $105 million—slightly more than 1%.

Converting to today's dollars, during his lifetime the industrialist Andrew Carnegie gave away $8 billion of his $10.3 billion net worth, or 78%, according to Carnegie Corp. figures. Suppose Gates followed suit: He would have to give away an additional $36 billion and go from being the world's richest man to exceeding Buffett as the world's greatest benefactor—and he would still have $17 billion. Conservatively invested, $17 billion would yield, after taxes, about $700 million a year for life. So Gates could show history-making generosity and still remain richer than Croesus. Instead, it's mine, mine, mine."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm middle class, and I give more than 1% of my net worth to charity. The article goes on to state that someone like Gates would have to spend $6,000,000 a day for the rest of his life to ever use up his net worth. You couldn't spend $6,000,000 a day for the rest of your life if you tried.

This is not jealously, or class-warfare, or envy on my part. I'm just pointing out that having a couple hundred more Andrew Carnegie's in this world would be nice.

If something is not done about the widening gap between the rich and the middle class/poor in this country, there is going to be a revolution.

[Lost4words]

1. Great Post! they got theirs, to hell with everybody else!

Traitors Imo!

8643

[electron_blue]

2. One could build a heckuva legacy by giving away most of it (or evey 10%). Maybe their ego will spur

them into giving more?

What's the status of the estate tax these days? Couldn't we pass something that says the most you can pass on to your family after you die is, oh, 1 billion? And the rest gets split evenly amongst all the other taxpayers? Or ....

[Little Wing]

3. Imagine what one billion could do for the workers making all those crap nike shoes

Sad

[CrispyQ]

4. Some of these figures are astounding & not in a good way!

One third of 1% of $16 BILLION! ~Gasp. What a greedy jerk.

Since I happen to have a copy of my taxes in front of me, let me do a quick calculation -- we gave away 5.1% last year. Of course, 5.1% of my income isn't much, but the organizations on my receiving list are very grateful.

There is not much kindness of spirit or generosity in America anymore. Is it a myth that there ever was?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Anytime anyone brings up $400 haircuts or 30,000 sf homes...

I try to fight back with Andrew Carnegie, a man of tremendous wealth who we all know lived quite comfortably, yet gave back to "the masses." (Well, besides flooding Johnstown, PA, but at least he had a new library built afterward.) The Kennedy/Shriver clan is another example of those with insane wealth working for those less fortunate--the Peace Corps and Special Olympics immediately come to mind. It seems that the wingnuts have succeeded yet again with their mutually exclusive "reasoning": you can't have a strong economy and environmental protection; you can't be rich and care for the poor, etc. It's mind-boggling that people actually buy in to this crap and are so quick to hurl "hypocrites." I'm sure many of us on this board own homes, yet volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. We certainly can read, yet volunteer with literacy programs. We may not have the same intellectual disabilities as someone benefiting from Special Olympics, but we volunteer. Does that make us hypocrites? Hell no. Sorry, this was a bit off-topic but the $400 haircut "issue" is really bugging me! I'd love to know what percentage of the Edwards' wealth is donated to charity. And for that matter, what percentage of Bush wealth (yeah, right...).

Bring on the revolution.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. I just ask them

Why is being successful and wealthy a bad thing to you all of a sudden?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. How do they respond?

My experience is that they're wired to think you can't be successful and wealthy and care for the poor. Or wired to think I've got mine, the hell with everyone else. Wealth was used successfully against the Kerry's in 2004 and the wingnuts are trying to do the same to the Edwards' in 2008. Hopefully voters will be a little wiser in 2008, but hope springs eternal.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Oh they just repeat the talking points. What else would they do?

Surely you don't think that logic and rational argumentation are going to cut through the Rush hypnosis?

When it comes to liberals with money, how they made it and how they spend it is of paramount importance. But every other rich person is a hero, without question. No amount of pointing out uscrupulous business and labor practices will dissuade them from crying in their beers over how much taxes their beloved titans of industry are paying. No amount of pointing out how GOP economic policies hurt them will stop them from defending Bill Gates from the rapacious tax collectors who are trying to deprive him of his paltry fortune.

I work with a lot of wingnut guys. (sigh)

[maxrandb]

12. I love the example in the article

that if Bill Gates followed Carnegie's example and gave away 78% of his net worth, he would still have $17 Billion dollars, that, if invested conservatively, would yield AFTER TAXES, $700 Million a year.

You think if I wrote to him, he'd give me the $60K it's going to cost my daughter to attend college?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

14. Yeah, $6,000,000 a day was rather staggering.

I had to laugh--leaving out charitable contributions/savings/investments, my daily costs are about $77.50. What in the world would I do with the other $5,999,922.50?! That would be a helluva lot of travel.

[maxrandb]

21. The article points out that even if you

did nothing but buy fine art and waterfront property for the rest of your life, you still could not spend $6,000,000 a day.

[bleedingheart]

16. I have a problem with Carnegie- The bastard was trying to buy his way out of hell

he and Frick (his partner in crime)...were bastards.

They made their fortune on the backs of their workers. They were merciless strike breakers and they thought nothing of putting out families on the street.

If you worked in a Frick mine and you got killed...your family would be put out of company housing in a heartbeat...to make room for another person.

Both were avid Social Darwinists. Meanwhile it wasn't their fitness that made them superior...it was their underhanded dealings.

If there is a hell, Carnegie and Frick are stoking its furnaces with demons whipping them the entire time...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

19. I wasn't suggesting that he was a saint...

but rather acknowledge that he was someone of massive wealth who gave back (for whatever the reasons), particularly to education and the arts. In contrast, Cornelius Vanderbilt was supposedly a ruthless prick who gave away very little of his fortune. He comes to mind because I recently toured The Biltmore and while I was hearing spin about how "progressive" grandson George was, all I could think of was "exploited railroad workers."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. But...but....

Conservatives told me that private charity was much better than social programs and that if the very wealthy got tax cuts, they would have more money to donate! What about the Thousand Points Of Light?

[SmokingJacket]

8. That's how many of them got rich: clinging to every penny.

And of course doing things the rest of us would rather not do, some good (working hard), some not good (exploiting people). You pretty much only get rich because you really, really, really want to get rich, or inherit it and really really want to keep it.

Bill Gates is something of an exception, I think. His career was about making new technology first, making money second, and that's partly why he's a philanthropist -- but your point is well-made. It's a drop in an almost infinte bucket.

[VP505]

9. Having been

around and worked with some millionaires, I can tell ya from personal experience that many are very much cheep skates, especially in areas that one would think it wouldn't be necessary. I have seen some go ballistic over a $50,00 item yet think nothing of pissing away thousands for nothing. I don't know about billionaires as I haven't had the pleasure of knowing any.

[maxrandb]

11. Meanwhile, I and I'm sure most Americans, am about to go in debt up to my eyeballs

Just to help my kids pay for college.

I've busted my ass in the Navy, starting as an "E-Nothing" and earning a commission through the Limited Duty Officer/Chief Warrant Officer Program, and even though I've busted my ass to give the best to my family, we're not getting ahead. My daughter has been accepted to a great college, and even with some scholarship money that she will get, I'm going to have to mortgage the house and drive a 15 year old car until it dies, just to "barely" afford tuition and room and board. In four more years, I'll face the same situation with my other daughter. Believe me, the paltry $600 tax-cut George and his wing-nut friends gave me IS NOT HELPING.

We filled out the FASFA (Federal Financial Aid) Form - you file this form, and the government then comes back to you with what they think your "expected contribution to your child's tuition" should be. My wife and I looked at that number and thought, "sure, we could afford that if we lived in a shack, sold our vehicle and replaced it with a bicycle, and ate nothing but tuna-fish sandwiches". We've played by the rules, we've worked hard, we've sacrificed and done without to try to save some money, we have some equity in our home, but now, to give my children a better future, I'm going to have to go into debt up to my eyeballs. Most of us in the middle class just hope that we can work long enough and pay down the debt we've accumulated so that when we pass on, we'll give our children something other than our debt and a little bit of money to pay for a funeral.

We in the middle class need help! That's the bottom line. While I was getting a $50 a month tax-cut, Dick Cheney was getting a $50,000 a month tax-cut. Wouldn't it be better if just a small percentage of Dick's tax-cut were used to make college more affordable for average Americans? Couldn't Dick's tax-cut have been used to hire 12 full time staff personnel for VA Hospitals?

We are drowning under the weight of supporting the upper-class, and if things don't change soon, there is going to be a revolution in this country.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Get real. The trickle down effect is only expected to take effect when they

make 2 Billion, or when they have one foot in the grave and want to piss off their beneficiaries.

[gratuitous]

15. Well now, in fairness

Net worth and annual income are two very different things. Taking into account my house, car, possessions, and so forth, my net worth is probably in the low six figures. But I only earn about $50,000 a year, and out of that give away between $10,000 and $14,000. As a percentage of my net worth, it looks kind of puny. As a percentage of my annual income, it's quite a bit more robust. Someone with a net worth of a billion dollars isn't "earning" a billion dollars every year, so giving them grief over donations that seem like a paltry percentage is a bit disingenuous.

But the fact of the matter remains that so much wealth concentrated into the hands of so few people skews our society and its systems, even when the small number of people with all that wealth are good-hearted folks who want to do well and do good. And let's face it, not all of them are good-hearted folks.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Suberb Point

It's kind of hard to criticize someone who gives $105 million to charity, no matter how much more they have. It's still $105 million!
The Professor

[maxrandb]

20. I can understand how some might see my post as criticism

but I really do think it is great that someone could give $105 Million dollars. I was more interested in pointing out the huge disparity and widening gap between the mega-wealthy and the middle class/poor.

We're constantly told that if we just cut the taxes on the wealthiest individuals, eliminate the estate tax, eliminate corporate taxes, eyt - the rich will then shower us with "manna from heaven". This article proves that is not correct.

This guy giving $105 million, is the equivalent of me giving a homeless person a dime.

[gravity]

22. Exactly

Wealth is not the amount of cash you have to spend. It is the value of all the assets you own, which many are illiquid, so you can't just convert them all to cash easily if you wanted to.