If Bill Gates donated half of his money to....

[vinnys025]

If Bill Gates donated half of what he's worth, how much of a difference could he possibly make in the homeless department? How many Americans could this man feed and house just based on HALF of what he's worth. We are talking billions of course. We can do the same with Warren Buffet as well. I'm not picking on anyone, I just want some accurate numbers and possible costs to fix such a large problem.

Please don't get political, this is just a hypothetical question, not a anti-capitalism thread or anything like that. It's thanksgiving, and it's just hard for me not to think of all the less fortunate out there who don't get to eat turkey today. I used to be one of them...

So how much would it take to put a sizable dent in the homeless problem in the US, and do these men have the power to make this dent if they so chose to.... ?

[Jbro22]

Yeah man, its Bill Gates' fault.

[Greenranger]

Damn rich people, stealing all of that money.

[RutgersJetFan]

If Bill Gates donated half of what he's worth...

He has. Mostly towards education and information technology in poverty stricken areas. In theory he's actually doing exactly what you're asking. Other things as well; i.e. The Gates Foundation was largely responsible for the public library system in the Gulf recovering after Katrina.

We can do the same with Warren Buffet as well.

I think Buffet's actually donated more than half his worth. Both are two of the top philanthropists in the world.

So how much would it take to put a sizable dent in the homeless problem in the US, and do these men have the power to make this dent if they so chose to.... ?

If by sizable dent, you mean money filtered straight to the homeless for the purpose of not being homeless for a period of time. Then no.

Edited November 26, 2010 by RutgersJetFan

[villain_the_foe]

He has. Mostly towards education and information technology in poverty stricken areas. In theory he's actually doing exactly what you're asking. Other things as well; i.e. The Gates Foundation was largely responsible for the public library system in the Gulf recovering after Katrina.

No wonder why these striken areas learn nothing. He also helps in placing planned parenthood in these areas as well. I call them "the vacuum rooms".

I think Buffet's actually donated more than half his worth. Both are two of the top philanthropists in the world.

I guess you can do that when you make a great portion on your wealth via stock & accounting fraud and "leasing" silver to the Comex/LBMA to maintain derivitive selling and naked shorting...which is again, fraud. But he's a top philanthropist no doubt. Serves him well giving back some of what he stole.

If by sizable dent, you mean money filtered straight to the homeless for the purpose of not being homeless for a period of time. Then no.

Maybe it wouldnt have been "homeless for a period of time" maybe it could have been I purchased this house outright so I dont have to deal with adjusted rates on mortgages while the equity value on the home is depreciating, or with titles lost in the system via fruadclosuregate. Or a better one, stop hoarding the wealth of the world and maybe the poor can get some. Then they dont have to be given credit for being philanthropist as if they've done a great service somehow. Simply a tax write-off.

Not to debate though, Im just saying that there's alot of poor people for a few wealthy reasons. So I tend to shed light on the realities when people suggest that these type of people are a benefit to humanity.

How was your turkey day Rutgers?

Edited November 27, 2010 by villain_the_foe

[war ensemble]

Bill Gates has given more than 30% of what he's worth, and Warren Buffett has given much more than half. Check out Peter Singer's article in the Times magazine from like 06 if you have access to it.

By the way, he points out that the tax write-off/good publicity argument is absurd. That would be much more than their taxes and the advertising costs that would benefit themselves or their companies if that was their only goal.

[#27TheDominator]

I think Gates Dad is trying to institute an inome tax on those making over $200 in Washington state. Gates favors it, but the other microsoft guys are against. I'm not sure who gave how much money. Maybe it's just amounts to a publicity stunt since they cancel each other out and Gates name is the one with the major recognition.

[RutgersJetFan]

Bill Gates has given more than 30% of what he's worth, and Warren Buffett has given much more than half. Check out Peter Singer's article in the Times magazine from like 06 if you have access to it.

By the way, he points out that the tax write-off/good publicity argument is absurd. That would be much more than their taxes and the advertising costs that would benefit themselves or their companies if that was their only goal.

Both of their initiatives with the Giving Pledge over the past year erase that myth regardless. Carlos Helu rebuffed them, but I think that illustrates the general problem with the entire ideal. Without a unified mission in terms of attacking the problems from national and international angles, the money and brainpower are too thinly saturated across the board given they're encouraged to give to the charities of their choice. It's still selective action rather than collective action.

There was a professor from Columbia (his name escapes me) who wrote a fascinating essay several years ago. He theorized that if all the world's billionaires pooled their wealth for the purpose of using the interest (and none of the principal), there'd be more than enough to fund human needs and combat human rights problems. The numbers were pretty staggering. I think that's the type of notion that Buffet and Gates are getting at given that Buffet's started pushing his pledges more and more towards The Gates Foundation as of recently, and with Gates donating entire years' worth of dividends to the foundation itself.

Edited November 27, 2010 by RutgersJetFan

[villain_the_foe]

Bill Gates has given more than 30% of what he's worth, and Warren Buffett has given much more than half. Check out Peter Singer's article in the Times magazine from like 06 if you have access to it.

By the way, he points out that the tax write-off/good publicity argument is absurd. That would be much more than their taxes and the advertising costs that would benefit themselves or their companies if that was their only goal.

That is true, if that was their only goal. Influence of perception is the overall goal, just look at how well it works. I'll check out that article though.

[war ensemble]

That is true, if that was their only goal. Influence of perception is the overall goal, just look at how well it works. I'll check out that article though.

What does their image do for them? It has no effect on people buying their products or in any way come close to creating them as much money as they have given. If they had some ulterior motive that involved getting more money they would not give such large amounts...

[villain_the_foe]

What does their image do for them? It has no effect on people buying their products or in any way come close to creating them as much money as they have given. If they had some ulterior motive that involved getting more money they would not give such large amounts...

Its so not about the money anymore, or the products or company shares for that matter....not to these type of billionaires. Its about influencing perception to further consolidate power, not about the money. Their Money is simply the tool that they use.

I'd further explain, but it would be a lost effort. If I was talking about the Patriots cheating to championships it would be taken more seriously.

Bottomline is that there's enough info to digest and outcomes to look at to know that thats the case. And those large amounts are only large amounts to us thousandaires.

How was your thanksgiving Ensemble?

[war ensemble]

Its so not about the money anymore, or the products or company shares for that matter....not to these type of billionaires. Its about influencing perception to further consolidate power, not about the money. Their Money is simply the tool that they use.

I'd further explain, but it would be a lost effort. If I was talking about the Patriots cheating to championships it would be taken more seriously.

Bottomline is that there's enough info to digest and outcomes to look at to know that thats the case. And those large amounts are only large amounts to us thousandaires.

How was your thanksgiving Ensemble?

Pretty good, you? I think that money would be better served lobbying for whatever, etc. instead of giving to charity if they were simply doing it to consolidate power. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to a degree.

[villain_the_foe]

Pretty good, you? I think that money would be better served lobbying for whatever, etc. instead of giving to charity if they were simply doing it to consolidate power. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to a degree.

It was pretty good man. Wasnt really big, just me and the wife. I was supposed to head out to Jersey but plans changed last minute. Got to watch the Jets do their thing though.

The charities is exactly there to support the benefit of the doubt It's kinda like when the big drug dealers in the neighborhood would give block parties in the summer, give out turkeys on thanksgiving and gifts to the children on christmas. These charities lends itself to a perception that people feed into in order to give the benefit of the doubt to criminals that outside of one summer party, thanksgiving and christmas they're destroying their community for profit & power.

However, these guys do it on a much much larger scale.

Edited November 27, 2010 by villain_the_foe

[Blackout]

i hear he wants a mass-decrease of the world population.

[villain_the_foe]

i hear he wants a mass-decrease of the world population.

He gives billions to charity so you cant hold him to that...

[villain_the_foe]

edit

Edited November 28, 2010 by villain_the_foe

[JerryK]

I'll answer with no politics, and try to stick to math.

If people were in a pyramid, with most of us at the bottom, there are simply too many of us to be directly affected if his peers just dole out their cash.

The smartest thing he could do is find ways to setup institutions that might help more than his money alone can touch. As an example, Andrew Carnegies's money was long gone when my mom took me as a kid to story-hour at our (Carnegie) Public Library. All the times I went there digging up information were an important piece of my growing up.

Berkely has a 'big ideas' site (and others are coming) that have promise. The sites allow grad students to post 'unique' ideas that might help society and the world, and attract philanthropical capital. This might give billionaires options beyond just dumping it all on "same-ol same-ol" charities.

[bitonti]

vinny mentions the homeless... while there are many many homeless people who legitimately don't want to be homeless... i think there are some people, you could give em a house and everything and they'd be back under a bridge the next day. Call it mental illness or personal preference but there's alot of people that opt out of life and don't necessarily want back in.

[#27TheDominator]

vinny mentions the homeless... while there are many many homeless people who legitimately don't want to be homeless... i think there are some people, you could give em a house and everything and they'd be back under a bridge the next day. Call it mental illness or personal preference but there's alot of people that opt out of life and don't necessarily want back in.

Usually it's substance abuse.

[war ensemble]

Usually it's substance abuse.

Which can be controlled, at least to a degree, via money (rehab, drug prevention centers, etc.).

Jerry, I think the idea behind large sums of money things is to establish institutions to prevent disease, poverty, etc. through education, hospitals, etc. rather than straight up food or lump sums. Peter Singer makes the argument, and I don't feel like doing the math, that because there is so much money concentrated at the top of that pyramid, if they gave away a certain percentage of that each they would be able to (theoretically) provide for institutions to reach the UN Millennium Goals or whatever that's called.