Remix.run Logo
yuuu 5 hours ago

I thought he was giving away 99% of his wealth?

Zaraif13 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think his son becoming Chairman has anything to do with how much of his wealth he's giving away.

crossroadsguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Rich people donate for tax and the ultra-rich donate without actually donating it :)

sarjann 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably in a charitable trust that will be managed by the family. With the trust owning the shares.

nostrademons 2 hours ago | parent [-]

He was giving it to the Gates Foundation for Bill & Melinda Gates to manage, but that deal went into limbo when Bill showed up in the Epstein files and Melinda divorced him.

csdreamer7 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The money he is giving away is going to foundations managed by his children (last I read).

nostrademons 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's recent, just as of the last couple months. Historically the children's foundations have been a sideshow and he's given the bulk of his wealth away to the Gates Foundation. You can see that from the dollar amounts: this year's gift to the children's foundations was 1M BRK-B shares (the equivalent of about $500M) to each, while he's given away a total of $66B, over 120x as much.

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Though unlikely the case here, family foundations should always be looked at as a likely source of corruption.

You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will.

Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.

aetherson an hour ago | parent [-]

Even very large salaries are probably not a very significant amount of wealth for these people. I think this is a case where "all large numbers look the same."

If Warren just directly gave his money to his three children equally, and paid 40% inheritance tax on that money, and then the children each just used 1% of that wealth per year, then they'd each get:

144000000000 * 0.6 / 3 / 100 = $288 million each year.

No foundation pays its CEO 10% of that much money. I think we may have to accept that in fact this is a way to give money to charitable causes, not just horde it.

bluGill an hour ago | parent [-]

In this case yes. However that is not the case for all charities and so you need to look.

al_borland 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s now in limbo

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-...

DennisP 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.

apothegm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Still leaves an absurd amount of wealth to manage.

bragr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well he's not dead yet.

Betelbuddy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That is what I told the tax man...they did not buy it...

JauntTrooper 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1% of $140 billion is still $1.4 billion.

Waterluvian 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.

toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What's interesting is they cannot, but their ex partners go much further in their giving (Melinda French, MacKenzie Scott, for example).

Waterluvian 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder if there's a survivorship bias there: those who can and do reject the status quo.

toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

My hot take is that men with extreme wealth and power are desperate to keep it as part of their identity, where the women I mentioned do not have the same character and personality flaws, and therefore use it as a tool to do good because they are not optimizing for status, power, and wealth: they are optimizing to do good. Doesn't always hold, there are exceptions.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." -- Lord Action

DennisP 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One giant exception was Chuck Feeney, who made $8 billion on duty free shops and gave almost all of it away, much of it anonymously. By the end of his life he and his wife had a couple million and lived in a rented apartment.

idiotsecant 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Giving away your fortune in secret is so much more virtuous than doing it with a giant foundation with your name on it. Much respect.

fuzzfactor 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

When they agreed in Nashville to rename the airport after Dolly Parton, all of the people commenting on the TV clip said it was well-deserved.

Some were more emotional than others, but one of the proponents was very touched, she admired Parton so much because Dolly set an example of how to be as successful as a person can be, and not keep a billion for yourself.

I can't find the clip now, but it was from the heart.

toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Philanthropies

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Great human, thanks for mentioning.

seki285 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a difference in men and women... until there's not. Very convenient.

fuzzfactor 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I know what you mean, nobody in North America understands vive la différence outside of French Canadians and Louisiana Cajuns.

And some of them only at their own convenience.

I wouldn't let it bother me, son of a gun I'm gonna have big fun on the bayou :)

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a large body of medical research around women having more empathy than men, specifically around brain volume in the inferior frontal gyrus. Does it always hold? There are always exceptions. Broadly speaking, in most cases, it is a function of brain structure, per person. Do you have many examples of exceptional wealthy and powerful women who are monsters? I do not. I welcome corrections and citations, and am happy to be proven wrong on this.

TLDR Show me the brain fMRI and I will show you the soul. In some cases, facial structure is enough for weak but meaningful signal (as a proxy for brain structure).

(politics are also brain structure, citations in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48634883)

IncreasePosts 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think more likely is that bill and Jeff built their wealth through their businesses, which they are still directly involved in. Giving away their wealth would be equivalent to giving away the business they built from the ground up

I think there's also a question of efficacy. Bill and Jeff are really good at turning $1 into $10. Melinda and Mackenzie? Not so much. If bill or Jeff wanted to maximize the amount they can give, the best strategy would be for them to continually earn until they die, and then donate it.

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree that Bill and Jeff are better at exploitation at scale. That’s how you become that wealthy. We are lucky they’re divorced and the wealth is in the hands of better stewards to distribute it to do good.

u1hcw9nx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He has. His family manages the foundation that owns BRK stock.

infecto 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn’t that the usual loophole though? He definitely continues to donate large amounts but I always question setting up a trust that the kids run.

traviswingo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not really a “loophole,” it’s a standard way to give away absurd sums of money.

Have you ever tried to donate billions of dollars? It’s actually extremely difficult.

You have to find causes you’re passionate about/things that society needs, find the correct charities to give the money to, make sure your money actually goes towards the thing they say it will (this is difficult), and then figure out how much you can actually donate (you can’t just give N dollars to company Y. They’ve got zero experience managing that much money, and no way to scale into doing it efficiently.)

What happens then is you have $100b to donate, and mostly only do it $10m at a time or less.

Warren’s kids are old now. They’ve all been donating money for YEARS (it’s a mandatory part of their trust).

So yeah, you receive tax benefits by transferring shares to a foundation you also control, but that money is now earmarked for charity. It doesn’t flow both ways, and the laws on this are very tight (bad actors will find a way, but what’s new?).

infecto 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure that is the typical way to donate your wealth but there are many other ways than giving it with control to your children. I have no judgement but doing it this way is a nice way to move money within your family.

Everyone does it different and I have no judgement but you could just as easily pick a quorum of folks to do the job with a very explicit timeline. Charitable donations are quite broad in the US. So sure lots of wealthy folk don’t this way but not everyone!

ndriscoll an hour ago | parent [-]

Can you just as easily pick a quorum of folks? It seems to me that no matter what, you're going to have to choose people you know and be accused of nepotism because those are the people you can actually assess, and in the case of children, hopefully raise/influence to be on the same page as you.

You could always donate it to the US government, but then it'll be used to go start some wars, so that won't work. You could put it in some weird trust where random people can democratically decide what to do with it, but all you have to do is look at the government to see how good of decisions that leads to. So truly what's the alternative?

infecto 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

Easy is relative but someone in his position with decades of experience working with talented individuals, yes. Nothing is perfect but I have seen other foundations structured where it’s a mixture of descendants and leaders that worked with the individuals. We are going to be picking at hairs though since this is all anecdotal and we don’t know how it will play out. Some of kids foundation work has been a bit self-serving but it’s there money to spend. It could also just as easily be that the 3 kids are different enough that requiring all three to agree prevents most of the opportunity.

mvc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it's so difficult, maybe they could take the easy option and, you know, properly fund the government to build the shared infrastructure on which we all rely by paying tax proportional to their wealth.

macintux 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.investopedia.com/warren-buffett-paid-billions-to...

dsl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Warren Buffet made the largest single tax payment in US history last year. He doesn't play any games.

Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, donating your present wealth because you expect to continue receiving an astronomical amount of wealth in perpetuity through your company ownership is not all that grand of a gesture.

Certainly better than many alternatives, but it’s not a gesture that should make the median income person feel like existing as an excessively wealthy person should be okay/legal.

In my opinion, personal wealth/asset control above a certain level deemed excessive (perhaps $100 million then adjusted for inflation moving forward) should be taxed at 100% and put into a special fund intended to help pay for social services, healthcare, housing the homeless, etc. In the case of asset control perhaps a good method would be to distribute excessively valued ownership stakes to employees or random members of the public (e.g., many of Elon Musk’s shares in his companies forfeited and distributed to others).

idiotsecant 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This makes sense as long as public control makes the outcome of that money better than letting the bazillionare control it. I'm not sure which way the actual truth tilts, but I suspect it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.

mrlonglong 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can he give me a few million then?

ozim 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Few million?

I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k.

Currently I am pondering how absurd amount of money a billion of dollars is. When loads of people can only -earn and eat through/spend not save- $1 million; working their asses off for something like 20 years.

david-gpu 3 hours ago | parent [-]

For what it is worth, if you want your withdrawals to last for decades, then you are limited to around a yearly inflation-adjusted cap of around 3% of the original principal per year, gross of taxes, if you invest in low-cost passive index funds. That is a budget of $30K/year for every million you have invested in the market.

If you are interested, the /r/fire and /r/financialindependence subreddits are useful.

andrewstuart 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And me please. 2 mill.

iso1631 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Still leaves $1.5b, that's a hell of an income if you stick it in any widespread passive fund, and still 100 times more than even the 1% mark in the US.

Betelbuddy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes the Billionaires pledge...a masterpiece of public relations...or he could have have paid more taxes than his Secretary...but he never did...

hshdjdjdif 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

he is giving 99% to the buffet family foundation ofc