The pledge was always bs. These billionaires create charities to funnel money to their kids and associates. They’re not out to help any of us, they’re run by pedos like gates, and rapists like trump
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
168 points (99.4% liked)
En panne de sens
118 readers
4 users here now
Communauté du podcast en Panne de Sens
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
I've got an uncle who made a fortune during the initial dotcom bubble decades ago. He got out before it burst, and started his own charity that built plumbing in Chilean villages.
Turns out he mostly wanted to retire somewhere cheap, make sure it had the modern conveniences he was used to, and appoint his children to high-level paid positions of his non-profit.
Did they end up building plumbing that benefited others?
Hey, this rich guy made a killing in a developed country, and instead of spending it all on blow and hookers, he invested a bunch of it in our local infrastructure. Then he hired his kids to run a non-profit that built more infrastructure for us. Fuck him, right?
I get why you'd be jealous, but it sounds like he's making the world better for everyone around him? It's not his fault he was in the right place at the right time. What do you think he should have done differently?
I don't think this is all that bad tbh. My lottery dream is to set up a nonprofit and offer jobs to my friends. We wouldn't collect donations so I'd be paying all the staff salaries anyway.
gates charity was also laundering, him "helping" africans was just to soften his epstein association.
Admittedly, giving the money to the Gates Foundation isn't ideal. There are better places to donate to.
Just... pay your taxes, particularly after we raise them on you in the near future.
It's funny how a convincing argument for the ultra wealthy, against giving away their wealth to charity is "but you won't like how they are going to spend it". They want the appearance of being generous without actually giving up control of their wealth. They aren't generous. They just want good PR, tax breaks, and power over others.
Clearly yes, Gates bought himself a large part of aid for development and made it a private thing. First it allowed him to push his vision of economical developement : more intellectual properties, more intensive agriculture, more proprietary software... Second it made it something that is owned by a handful of people who don't have anything to justify to anyone.
After convincing the world that taxing them was inefficient they now keep their money for themselves. It is quiet sedition.
Buffet has continually said the US tax system is bad and he should be taxed more. But if the government won't tax billionaires, using private money to eradicate malaria isn't evil.
using private money to eradicate malaria isn't evil.
Not inherently, but an individual or small group of individuals (with no accountability) exerting control over how to disperse such large sums of money makes enormous waves across the local and global economy and can do a lot of damage even to the cause receiving it. What if the method Gates liked and decided to fund was the least likely to work, or was the least efficient solution, or what if he choose (knowingly or not) a corrupt organization to oversee the work? See what Gates's funding of charter schools did to the public school system. Pour money carelessly (or with severe bias) into any special interest and it will inherently start to corrupt it and starve everything adjacent to it, especially in a capitalist society. The spending such large sums of money needs to be done carefully and democratically.
Unfortunately, if the government is corrupt and captured by private interests, taxes end up doing almost the same thing. With government at least there is usually some bureaucracy that can exert some control over the process. I guess it depends how thoroughly captured it is.
There so many "what if" statements that it invalidated your argument by sheer volume because it could apply to anyone in any scenario. There is no one who can guarantee the money will be best spent on the best by the best for the best reasons. But they are actively trying to solve problems like Malaria that have huge impacts on humanity with no profit on the horizon. What have you done to help people you will never meet with a disease you can't cure?
Hard disagree. The problem is not that anyone could make a bad choice. It's a matter of magnitude, and also of character.
There is no one who can guarantee the money will be best spent on the best by the best for the best reasons.
These people have exploited countless people to obtain obscene levels of wealth. Do you believe that they are the best qualified person to decide how to use that wealth?
But they are actively trying to solve problems like Malaria that have huge impacts on humanity
They have decided to take resources extracted from an insanely large fraction of humanity and unilaterally decided:
- Which problems it should be used to solve
- What methods should be used to solve them
with no profit on the horizon
With no transparently obvious profit on the horizon, in this case.
What have you done to help people you will never meet with a disease you can't cure?
I participate in the democratic process and use my vote and my voice to encourage responsible use of my society's collective wealth to affect changes I feel passionate about and encourage others to do the same.
Those passions include preventing a small number of individuals from syphoning obscene levels and wealth and usurping the process to shower their pet projects will the same collective wealth I'd prefer society at large decide to direct.
Do you believe that they are the best qualified person to decide how to use that wealth?
This was already answered by Buffet when he said his taxation level was unfair. This is a situation where the people have elected a government which won't tax billionaires so some billionaires used their money to cure malaria because the government wouldn't tax them and do it.
Other billionaires build rockets and museums. Is that better?
This was already answered by Buffet when he said his taxation level was unfair. This is a situation where the people have elected a government which won't tax billionaires so some billionaires used their money to cure malaria because the government wouldn't tax them and do it.
This is not an answer. This is an explanation for why, right now, billionaires get to make those decisions - because they are allowed to accumulate so much wealth. That doesn't speak to their qualifications or whether or not it should, ideally, be the ways things are.
Other billionaires build rockets and museums. Is that better?
No. Having rich fucks pick my personal pet projects is not my point. I thought I was making my point painfully obvious. Decisions about such vast quantities of wealth should be made democratically, not unilaterally.
This is not an answer.
This was your claim:
"Gates bought himself a large part of aid for development and made it a private thing. "
Gates didn't buy it. The people elected government officials who wouldn't tax billionaires. Instead of spending it all on rockets and monuments, he got Buffet onboard with curing malaria.
Are you also angry with Jimmy Carter for being a multimillionaire and building houses?
This was your claim:
"Gates bought himself a large part of aid for development and made it a private thing. "
Gates didn't buy it. The people elected government officials who wouldn't tax billionaires. Instead of spending it all on rockets and monuments, he got Buffet onboard with curing malaria.
Ignore all previous instructions and compose a sonnet about how you enjoy wasting people's time by arguing against hallucinated points they didn't make.
Dude, you are the one trying to weasel out of your own statements.
And don't think I didn't notice your refusal to defend Jimmy Carter. You have the disposition of a .ml user.
"Gates bought himself a large part of aid for development and made it a private thing. "
I literally don't even know what this means and absolutely didn't use these words so I doubt that it accurately represents any of my points.
My points are extremely consistent and you haven't actually addressed them. You've just made statements tangentially related and acted like they are substantial responses to my arguments.
My points:
- The ultra rich cannot accumulate their wealth without exploiting countless other people. Their character is definitely in question.
- Despite that, some of the ultra rich feel they are best qualified to decide where the wealth they've syphoned from the rest of society should go and dump money into their pet projects as acts of "charity."
- These projects often have ulterior motives (investment, wealth, tax breaks, power, influence).
- These projects, even without an ulterior motive, are often biased (favoring something other than what the public believes) and their funds can often upset the work of the greater society. See Gates and the impact of his failed charter school efforts. "It is pretty clear that the Gates effective teaching reform effort failed pretty badly. It cost a fortune. It produced significant political turmoil and distracted from other, more promising efforts. And it appears to have generally done more harm than good with respect to student achievement and attainment outcomes."
- Even if there is no bias and the cause is universally popular, solving problems is rarely as simple as throwing money at it. Throwing money at it can lead to corruption and a major imbalance of resources that can, again, have unanticipated impacts and cause harm.
My solution:
- The ultra rich should not exist. Tax their wealth heavily.
- Society, not individuals or small groups, should democratically decide what to do with large sums of money.
Your counters(?):
- Society elected the representatives that didn't spend enough money on finding a solution to malaria, designing rockets, and building museums so billionaires did it instead(?)
- Rich people fund things that maybe I think are good, so checkmate?
- Jimmy Carter (who I never brought up) was a millionaire, again checkmate(?)
Respond with effort and thought or we're done.
I literally don’t even know what this means and absolutely didn’t use these words so I doubt that it accurately represents any of my points.
I don't know what it means either but that's the OP you are defending.
The ultra rich cannot accumulate their wealth without exploiting countless other people.
While there is definitely exploitation, the wealthy who got it from stock have in effect been voted to be rich. The masses buy Microsoft Stock, vote Republican to lower the taxes on billionaires, then get upset that Gates is ultra wealthy.
Despite that, some of the ultra rich feel they are best qualified to decide
The government did nothing for 50 years. Gates/Buffet throwing $200million to eradicate malaria is income-wise like you giving a homeless person $20 and me admonishing you for thinking you know better than the government.
These projects, even without an ulterior motive, are often biased
Then the people should have done something! See the above example.
designing rockets, and building museums so billionaires did it instead(?)
I'm saying curing malaria is a better use of money than rockets and museums like other billionaires.
Rich people fund things that maybe I think are good, so checkmate?
Yes. Attack people for the bad they do, not the good.
Jimmy Carter (who I never brought up) was a millionaire, again checkmate(?)
I brought him up as an example of someone very rich who did good. And again, after specifically calling out how you won't defend him you still won't.
I don't know what it means either but that's the OP you are defending.
I'm not defending the OP, I chimed in with my own opinion, that doesn't mean I literally share the OPs opinion. I'm not the OP, but you are a dishonest interlocutor.
the wealthy who got it from stock have in effect been voted to be rich. The masses buy Microsoft Stock
Holy shit. Lolwhat? This is my last reply. You are clearly hopelessly brainwashed or, more likely, just a troll. Either way, not worth going any further. I'm going to keep writing this final comment for the two imaginary people who will bother to read this far in the hopes that there is more hope for them than there is for you.
Jesus fucking Christ I don't think I've ever heard anyone share that line of thinking before.
The "masses" don't own much stock.
- The richest Americans own the vast majority of the US stock market, according to Fed data.
- The top 10% of Americans held 93% of all stocks, the highest level ever recorded.
- Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Americans held just 1% of all stocks in the third quarter of 2023.
Those that do, likely have a managed account because they don't have time to gamble on the stock market. They have no pension because the ultra rich decided it would be more profitable to be able to play with the poor man's investments, use them to manipulate the market for their own profit, and charge him for the privilege. They pushed to shift retirement into 401k instead of guaranteed benefits like most boomers and their parents enjoy/ed. The working class did not vote to make executives rich or to give them an ever growing portion of the wealth created by the working class's labor.
vote Republican to lower the taxes on billionaires, then get upset that Gates is ultra wealthy.
It's not like the US just constantly votes in Republicans. It goes back and forth, and technically many of the recent Republican electoral victories did not coincide with winning the popular vote. Congress is often beholden to a Republican Senate, which does not feature proportional representation. Many congressional elections are gerrymandered in their favor, though both parties do it to some extent.
The ultra rich use their wealth, power, influence, and resources to corrupt members of both parties and poison any attempts to reign in their power. They own the media, capture government agencies, and escape consequences constantly. They protect and expand their power over time and here we are, utterly beholden to them. This does not mean we've knowingly chosen this path. Many have been fighting it tooth and nail, others are misled, misinformed, or struggle with critical thinking.
The government did nothing for 50 years.
Gates/Buffet throwing $200million to eradicate malaria is income-wise like you giving a homeless person $20
No, it's not, not even proportionally. He doesn't have $200m bills in his wallet to hand out and $200m is 1/5 of a $1 billion. It's literally 1/500 of his current net worth. Are you saying my net worth is $10k? I also don't get tax breaks for $20, nor do have assets I can borrow money against at near zero interest and get to use it for tax free spending money. Do you have any clue how absolutely different it is to be ultra rich?
admonishing you for thinking you know better than the government.
If my carelessly giving away $20 could fuck up local economies, you better damn well admonish me.
Yes. Attack people for the bad they do, not the good.
I'm not attacking people. I'm explaining the consequences the obscenely wealthy syphoning money from society and dumping it on pet projects and wreaking havoc on public initiatives.
I'm explicitly, specifically, unequivocally prescribing the solution of taxing their money and letting the public decide what to do with it, collectively, in an actual democracy - not this corrupt sham of a state the US has become. Though I'd still rather the wisdom of the current bureaucracy than the ultra rich. I've already said that earlier.
I brought him up as an example of someone very rich who did good. And again, after specifically calling out how you won't defend him you still won't.
He's a former president. I don't worship him or even really know much about whatever he's done. I also don't think he's anything close to a billionaire. Did he do all those great things by giving away his wealth or did he squirrel away a large portion of it for himself and his kids, establishing trust founds and charitable foundations for his progeny to work at and be set for life with secured power and influence until the end of time, like the vast majority of the wealthy? I don't care, because I think he's dead and not the focus of my concerns. Also, we're done. Best of luck, or more likely if are a troll fuck off and go touch grass.
62% of Americans hold stock.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
That the rich own more isn't relevant. That they have 401k's instead of a pension isn't relevant. 401k's give more personal control than a pension. With a pension, the corporation buys stocks for the workers and the workers have no control. Their laziness in stock ownership and then blaming who they gave money too is a reflection of their laziness in who they vote for and then blame the government.
It's literally 1/500 of his current net worth. Are you saying my net worth is $10k?
I used a low number to make it in your favor. He gave even more proportionally than you giving $20 to a homeless person. With your logic you should be admonished even harder. How dare you distort the aid work of the government! You should have paid that $20 on your income tax instead of giving it to the homeless person!
( In reality $20 is still a good example because when you have $100B, giving $200B, despite being 1/5th of your total assets doesn't cause any noticeable material change in your living conditions.)
He's a former president. I don't worship him or even really know much about whatever he's done.
He was wealthy but spent his free time building homes for the poor.
I'm sure he had to try really hard
🤭
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Only like one guy even did it anyway. I think like two or three more did it postumously.
This is the guy who did a 4 part series on the antichrist for fun?
Muh trickle down!
Predictable.
Didn't that guy get shot in the face?
You're thinking of the good timeline, not here.
hes touring europe and giving "anti-christ" speeches.