If Charity Is Their Goal, Bill Gates And Warren Buffett Should Hoard Their Wealth

Forbes ^ | 06/18/2010 | John Tamny

[SeekAndFind]

The two billionaires' request that the rich give 50% of their net worth to charity is misguided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its latest issue, Fortune magazine reports that "Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett are asking the nation's billionaires to pledge at least half their net worth to charity, in their lifetime or at death." Gates told Fortune that 50% of one's wealth would constitute the "low bar" for giving, while Buffett has pledged to give 99% of his wealth away.

At first glance this is something to celebrate, for it rightly confirms that capitalism is, at its core, quite compassionate. The charitable ways of Gates and Buffett also provide living proof that the "trickle-down theory" is in fact reality.

And when we consider that the greedy hand of government will help itself to half of Gates' and Buffett's money upon death anyway, the idea of them depriving our federal masters while supporting good causes becomes even more appealing.

But while it's exciting to contemplate the giving nature of Gates and Buffett, if their true desire is to help their fellow man, they should hoard every penny of their significant wealth. For the two richest men in the U.S. to monetize their wealth in order to support charities is for them to oversee the conversion of production goods to consumption goods. Some will no doubt benefit in the near term, but the removal of limited capital from the productive parts of the economy will ultimately reduce our standard of living, drive up unemployment and make individuals more--as opposed to less--needful of charity.

Conversely, money saved and invested constitutes capital offered to today's and tomorrow's businesses. When individuals save, they're by definition providing capital to entrepreneurs, and the capital formation that results from saving naturally stimulates job creation.

[griswold3]

There are two ways out of this crisis for the Fed. Inflate our way out or Default. Prices are still falling. Soooo....
I’m betting on ‘default’. It will not be pretty but just consider the amount of taxes that will be necessary just to service the debt. ($20T by 2015 -CBO)
What seems to be overlooked by DC is that the ‘small people’ out here know what happens when the party’s over. The bill is due. You cannot continually put the balance on another credit card.
Our taxes have already gone up without any action from DC.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

[precisionshootist]

“See the second part of my reply. What do the charities do with the money? They go out and spend it!”

Buying a billion dollars worth of food or consumer goods does not have the same effect as using the billion dollars in a capital investment which in turn generates MORE wealth.

There is a big differance between the two. One is spending the other is saving just as the article says.

[VRWCmember]

(albeit invisible since the government only counts jobs actually created as opposed to jobs that could have been created).

No, they count jobs actually created PLUS imaginary phantom jobs saved when they need to.

[Skepolitic]

The disposition of Gates’ and Buffet’s wealth should be entirely at the discretion of Gates and Buffet. It’s really none of my business — or that of Forbes magazine — what they do with it.

From what I’ve read, Gates’ money is dedicated to proposition that “the principle that every human life has equal worth” and most is directed at education and 3rd world disease treatment and prevention.. This doesn’t seem so bad to me. He’s also reportedly set up the Gates Foundation to liquidate so that it does not become a perpetual foundation run by effete dilettantes.

Buffet is a pro-abortion and is giving much of his wealth to the Gates Foundation. This almost certainly influences the Foundation’s activiities. I’m not happy about this, but it’s their money and none of my business.

[DrC]

“Instead of one person owning 2 billion shares, 2 billion persons would own one share each.”

If Bill Gates wants to give away his shares, I have no problem with that. But that’s not what he’s doing. Instead, he’s essentially taking $50B that he COULD have used to provide capital to Microsoft or any other firm he wanted and instead giving that money away to save lives in Africa and elsewhere.

Someone else pointed out that when Gates sells his stock, someone else purchases it, so there’s no net capital loss to Microsoft. I was merely pointing out that there IS a capital loss to the economy overall because a dollar spent on consumption is not the same as a dollar invested in innovation etc. ESPECIALLY if the consumption being subsidized is overseas.

The essential point of the original article is that from the standpoint of improving welfare, Bill Gates would be wiser to invest his $50B in capital (either in U.S. or other countries), as this will grow the economy/create jobs/raise living standards far more than the temporary boost that comes from feeding today’s hungry children. Capitalism has repeatedly been demonstrated to be the single most potent approach to poverty reduction ever devised. It’s too bad that people like Gates feel the need to apologize for their wealth or “atone” for it by giving it away. Investing it back into the economy is arguably the best possible use of his wealth in terms of welfare improvement.

[precisionshootist]

I Agree.

This discussion is very much like the old saying. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.

Warren and Bill are giving a bunch of men a fish, not teaching them.

[TopQuark]

"It may be new rich people rather than old billionaires, but it will still be rich people."

That is a very good point that many people miss.

But you too miss a point, I think. The above millionaires have not just stakes but very major stakes in their companies. It is their vision that has built those companies. When the shares go to "regular" "rich" people, that vision may no longer be there. In sum, it is better when capital is controlled by visionaries rather than government or less visionary private owners. That is exactly their problem: they may be visionaries in their respective fields but remain quite myopic when it come to social issues.

A side note: how much do Buffet's and Gates' charities spend in the U.S. -- one hundred dollars or two hundred?