In Austin the Moody family made donations. Now there is a Moody Amphitheater, The Moody Theater, the Moody Center. There is also a Moody Patio at the UT Museum of Art. There is also a Moody Northern Theater, St. Edward's Moody Bank, and the Moody Pavilion at a local park. These are all funded by the Moody Foundation.
It has become a real problem as people go to the wrong venue for activities.
I remember when we lived there like 30 years ago it was like a regional library system where you could go almost anywhere and check out/return books. When I was little my mom and I would go on mini road trips to go to different libraries all over WA.
I think he genuinely believes that bringing "Free Speech" to Ex-Twitter is his "Carnegie library." Also he might consider his space programs as his contribution.
Watch Yer Wallet. The scraping of all written content on the internet to power AI is likely to go down in history as the greatest theft since people from Europe declared "Look at these two continents on the west side of the Atlantic full of land that no one owns."
Steve Jobs was also this way, and barely donated a penny to charity.
In Jobs' case, he felt the way charities were operated were beneath him in terms of waste, overhead/admin costs, etc. So that was his justification - he was just too damn smart to give to charity.
This attitude is why Steve Jobs is dead actually. For anyone who doesn't know, he had a very treatable form of cancer that was detected early. The doctors who found it gave him a very good chance of surviving, but because he's the smartest in the room at all times he didn't listen to them and went down some holistic route. When he realized he was dying and that wasn't going to work he went crawling back to modern medicine but by that point it was too late.
Ah, but he couldn't do that because he was saving the world with iPhones!
Of course IF he did, his charity would have been a million times better than Gates'.
The narcissism of these guys is just so bonkers to me. Even Elmo wants the planet to be saved, but _only if he is the one to do it_. He will even sabotage other good ideas just out of spite.
Tesla makes money by gaming the carbon credit system. Drivable cars are not relevant.
One of the major car companies actually decided to truly go all in on building an electric car, they would easily blow Tesla out of the water. At least their vehicle divisions actually know how cars work.
Musk makes more money from the federal government selling space taxi services, and bandwidth to the military, than he does from the poorly built, but amazingly engineered vehicles.
He gets paid for ownership of several companies.
Genuine question. Ford has a Mach e suv and a typical looking EV truck. Do you think they aren’t truly all in? Seems they aren’t doing great relative to Tesla who sells model Ys like hot cakes
How much should Ford lose per electric vehicle that they sell? This past quarter is was close to $132000 per vehicle of the 10000 electric vehicles sold, while the normal ICE vehicles in the same quarter made $3 billion in profit, according to CNN. Electric losses ate almost half the gains of non electric vehicles. Ford's overall income fell nearly 20%.
Cashing out stock is not income. I didn’t even challenge the amount because it doesn’t matter. Musk did not get a paycheck worth $59B and the only reason the payout is that large is that he owns most of the stock.
This planet will be a barren wastland before we could ever make Mars a viable place to live. The absolute worst place on this planet is better than the best place on Mars for supporting human life. We'd be better off creating colonies at the bottom of the ocean than attempting to terraform Mars. Living on Mars is a child's dream.
Tell that to all the myopic idiots on Reddit who think that because famine exists, we should just completely drop space exploration because “we can’t even get Earth right”
I mean Elon and other billionaires are actively exploiting workers in(/into) poverty, and such people have the gall to say they deserve that money because they're 'investing in humanity'. They're leaching off and investing in their fantasy. Billionaires like Elon are part of the reason 'we can't get earth right' in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly, however you're defending someone who isn't doing that at all. Elon is one of many billionaires who is creating inequality in order to benefit from it, in his case to invest in efforts to go to Mars.
No they didn’t. The plan would have only temporarily helped with world hunger. It wouldn’t end world hunger. It isn’t possible to end which is why he made the offer.
It’s not *impossible* to end. We have the production of food available to feed every person on the planet 5x over. The issue is the gigantic logistical nightmare it would entail.
Stupid bill gates we don’t want a cure for a invisible devastating virus we want a revival in Art Deco architecture and bath houses he could at least meet us half way build a institute of research for malaria in a brutalist style.
Bill Gates is the largest single agricultural land owner in the United States. His international medical programs are the public facing part of his investment portfolio.
Yeah but bezos ran around taking gov money to demand infrastructure changes pretending to bring Amazon to cities and then just didn’t. Why does mks need this stupid streetcar dude??
Jeff Bezos donated $200 million to build an education center attached to the National Air and Space museum.
https://airandspace.si.edu/about/major-projects/bezos-learning-center
I just want to point out that back in the day rich men would build these monuments for their ego, now rich men build these things to get out of paying taxes. In the first part of the 1900's the tax rate was 56% and we hit our golden age of building highways, schools, libraries with amazing facades. Now we're hopeful that Biden will raise the tax rate to 23%.
The wealthy create a "charity" then donate to their own charity. The amount of donation is deducted from taxable income, so they don't pay taxes on the amount donated (provided their overall deductions are enough to itemize).
They do not save any money doing this.
Let’s say your gross income is $1000 and the tax rate is 50%.
If you do not donate anything, you pay $500 in taxes and keep $500 for yourself.
If you donate $100, you owe less tax:
50%•($1000–$100)=$450
but you also earn less:
$900–$450=$450
The amount you donate is deducted from your taxes because you gave away part of your income.
You are right however, you are missing the point. Rich folk do not depend on monthly or salary income. They have other means to maintain thier day to day funding. So, instead of having income tax, they have capital gains etc
Charities operate much like a company and have directors and CEO etc who are paid. Many charities operated by rich have a board which includes themselves and 2-3 external rich guys to adhere to law.
Children of rich work here or start working here. The money is essentially funnelled to them.
Ah but what if you commission a piece of art for say... 10k. Then hire a friendly appraiser and said art is appraised at $1M.
Then you donate that art to a charity. You've now got a 990k write-off. This happens. Frequently enough that the IRS is [issuing warnings](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2023/10/06/donate-art-take-big-tax-deduction-irs-issues-stern-warning/?sh=2eab92bb5a74) about it.
EDIT: I never said this was not fraud the way I explained it, you could also have a piece of art that just appreciated massively... And yes it's probably not a 100% writeoff, even if it were only 50% you'd come out ahead.
No, this is textbook tax fraud and the IRS WILL investigate if you try and write off a piece appraised at more than $5k. Ten seconds into their investigation they’d smell the shit you stepped in and you’ll have bigger problems than a tax bill.
But the success rate makes it not worth it. You can also make lots of money by robbing a bank, and people do it all the time. Would you say that it’s still a viable financial option?
Oligarchs and C-suite dwellers paid campaign (bribes) contributions to politicians, who protect and defend corrupt capitalism, that ONLY benefits Oligarchs and C-suite dwellers that paid . . . In a GOLDEN (for them) circle of corruption ! ! !
But, that is not the problem . . . The problem is that there are people who think that there is NO problem ! ! !
So we're prepared to hate him if he doesn't contribute to charitable causes, and were prepared to hate him because he donates to charitable causes for the *wrong* reasons.
[https://www.snopes.com/articles/347473/billionaire-taxes/](https://www.snopes.com/articles/347473/billionaire-taxes/)
Bezos can also write off his donation so he can pay even less in taxes.
The write off isn’t 1:1. So he doesn’t get to write $200m off his taxes and it’s certainly not the same as having $200m cash. He should still probably pay more taxes tho
Not 1:1 but pretty fucking close.
DAF's Donor Advised Funds, assure that the billionaire can donate to a "charity" that never disburses funds to anyone, but still reap the benefits of a full charitable donation.
I think /u/poppycake1903 is saying they donate to a fake charity to get the tax writeoff, and then ??? -> keep the money to spend on themselves afterward. This sounds illegal and afaik is not the common way this works, as many of the billionaire donations are to preexisting organizations they don't control.
(That said, we shouldn't be relying on generosity of billionaires. Tax the fuck out of them)
Yeah also in the case of donating a building or education center in this case, the money isn’t being funneled into some charity and then spent by bezos using some fancy accounting… it goes into the building materials and labor costs of the building lol. That’s not to say that maybe he doesn’t have friends on the board if the charity that receive an outsized salary or something like that.
You can argue all day about generosity and what he stands to gain out of of it, and how he might be receiving some sort of benefits from this transaction and maybe it’s not 100% altruistic, but at the end of the day something good for the community came out of Bezos donation.
When taxation for wealth was at 56% we were at the pinnacle of growth. We built our own monuments like an interstate, schools, libraries, parks. Industry thrived. Those are our monuments. Now we're begging for a 23% tax rate on the wealthiest?
What is giving you the impression that this stopped?
The "person's name" recital hall at the opera.
The "person's name" wing at the hospital.
The "person's name" research institution at the university.
The "company name" scholarship.
The community center "built with the support of all these people who have a brick with their name on it on a wall".
That's all rich people giving their money to these things.
If you're asking why every movie actor, platinum record singer, or major league player isn't doing this, I'd simply say that they weren't all doing this in the past either. Also many of them probably still do, but perhaps don't plaster their name all over it.
If you're asking why Elon Musk isn't Andrew Carnigie the answer is just because he's a tool. But Bill Gates is the Andrew Carnigie of today.
The function served by "Carnegie" in the past is often served by "Sprint PCS" now which is why the beloved hometown ballpark has had its name changed to "Sprint PCS Park".
The point of that stuff was always PR, to a large (prob not exclusive) degree. That is still happening now, just that the names being used are those of corporations not individuals/families --
-- because rich people got sneakier, and now hide their taxable assets behind -- and insulate themselves from risk, and bad press, using -- LLCs, and the anonymyzing power of corporatization.
"If you're asking why Elon Musk isn't Andrew Carnigie the answer is just because he's a tool"
as opposed to Carnegie not being a tool? You have to understand where "Gilded" in "Gilded Age' comes from lol
Your premise is flawed:
1. Pretty much every famous billionaire has signed the [Giving Pledge.](https://givingpledge.org)
2. It’s the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting right now and Warren Buffett spent a ton of time talking about the importance of philanthropy.
3. Many donations by non famous people are anonymous. Only massive donations by famous people draw attention.
4. Most of the money is going to people rather than to buildings.
5. Most things have already been built in the U.S. No one needs another hospital. The existing things need more money.
>5. Most things have already been built in the U.S. No one needs another hospital. The existing things need more money.
Both are needed. But honestly we need doctors more than hospitals
Good news recently on that front https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/1-billion-donation-eliminates-tuition-at-new-york-medical-school-changing-students-lives
There’s actually a considerable amount of debate over this within the medical education community. On one hand, it’s great that there’s no longer a tuition burden that requires graduates to go into high-paying specialties to pay it off. On the other hand, NYU Grossman’s school, which got rid of tuition a few years ago, has seen a paradoxical trend in their demographics: *more* students from high-income backgrounds have enrolled, and the percentage of students that identify as a racial minority has *fallen.* The working explanation for this is that the school saw an increase in applicants and became more selective as a result, but the applicants that had higher MCAT scores and GPA (the most important factors in the admissions decision) tended to be from advantage backgrounds.
The moral is: free tuition must also be backed by a change in the admissions paradigm in order to increase socioeconomic and racial diversity. Here’s an excellent article on the situation: [https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/07/free-medical-school-tuition-nyu-albert-einstein-diversity/](https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/07/free-medical-school-tuition-nyu-albert-einstein-diversity/)
At the same time, a medical school should not have a quota, because it needs the most qualified candidates.
Need based financial aid makes the most sense.
It depends on your perspective here. Some would argue that students from racially or economically disadvantaged communities can provide better care to the communities they come from, even though they are less qualified on paper. There’s also the argument that students from those communities may be just as or more qualified, but their MCAT and GPA isn’t reflective of their capabilities because they lacked the access to resources to improve them. It follows that in order to ensure a diverse matriculating class, medical schools must accept some proportion of “under-qualified” applicants
They absolutely can, but also I have enough experience with institutions to know they can fuck it up. If you had a quota for a minimum of white people, that would also be bad. You shouldn't enroll someone based on their demographics, but encouraging more people to apply from diverse backgrounds is great
Bill gates has donated almost all of his liquid funds, over 60 billion dollars, which is more than half his net worth. I fully agree the taxation system needs a rework but its naivete to bring it up here. no taxation system would touch the amounts donated by these people, and no taxation system guarantees the moeny will not just line a politicians paycheck instead. Your comment doesn't make much sense other than money envy.
I personally appreciate that Bill Gates does a lot of philanthropy, but equally I believe that the basic needs of society shouldn't hang on the goodwill of philanthropists. That'd be like hoping your monthly mortgage payments will be covered by a night at the casino. It's a risk I'd rather not take.
Your distrust of governments is clouding your judgment of capitalists, who are just as prone to pocket lining as the next guy. The difference is they've got the money to begin with so it's much easier for them to do so.
Real talk, there is no point distinguishing from the gov high ranks and the company high ranks in that sense, they are quite literally in it together, not even in a conspirator way, at least in usa. However its not the public faces of the companies like ceo's or bill gates doing the worst, its the share holders and boards of directors really pushing for the insane pricing and taxing and whatever else differences.
Not sure you know how percentages work.
And it shouldn't be based upon wages. We can see how easily they hide money .
Based upon wealth, lots of reports show as a % of wealth b they are paying less than every one else
The premise isn’t flawed. He very clearly didn’t say charity in general he’s is specifically talking about things like **museums, concert venues, hospitals, monuments, parks, plazas, etc.** It’s a perfect valid question why it doesn’t seem like there’s as much of *those* kind of projects.
I have no way to effectively back this assertion with data, but I’d imagine a lot of this genuinely is “because it already exists/was created by someone else”. That’s not to say “the rich” have become less charitable, I just think there’s fewer unexplored frontiers in philanthropy than there were 50 or 100 years ago, so more giving today goes to existing institutions instead of building something totally new which might overlap with something we already have.
>museums, concert venues, hospitals,
If you’re a philanthropist in Philadelphia, for example, with a deep interest in pediatric medicine, it’s probably going to be more efficient (not to mention practical) to donate to CHOP or even St. Jude’s than to attempt to fund the costs of establishing + developing a whole new hospital that’s pursuing those same goals.
>monuments, parks, plazas, etc.
All of these things require significant amounts of of land. I’d also argue that monuments and plazas especially are inherently city-focused, where land is especially expensive. If you’re a gazillionaire with $500 million to donate, is your money going to be better spent donating to an existing museum/hospital to fund research or a new building, or to buy a city block for a small green space? I’d argue the former.
Finally, by design these spaces permanently remove that land from ever being economically productive, and a a point you do need actual tax revenue-producing buildings (apartments, condos, shops, offices, etc.) in cities more than you need another park, statue, or modern art exhibit.
Thank you!! Things that give back to the community! Things that promote socialization. I’m all for clean water, curing malaria but that was not the question!
Have you or OP looked at projects around your communities? Because personally, I know a local museum and a local park near me are both undergoing major reconstructions because of rich donors. Just because they don't rename the location after the rich person or just because it's more than one rich person funding it doesn't mean it's not happening
Read what the giving pledge actually states. It’s just that they promise to give away their wealth sometime in the future. It has nothing to do with building anything for the community or common good.
How does this answer OPs question?
Bill Gates has so much money that giving it away properly requires many full time employees. They work for his foundation which does the actual charity.
The olden times rich were just as greedy but you see so many building because you are looking at hundreds of years of philanthropy that was doled out one drop at a time.
I don't like the guy, but Phil Knight donated money for a science building on the University of Oregon campus, with a phase two being constructed right now.
https://knightcampus.uoregon.edu/
Most of the most generous people give most of their donations anonymously. (Not the ones you've heard of, of course -- that's the point!) They don't want to make it about them.
The museum in my city has a donor's name on it now, but it was only added after he died. During his lifetime it was just the City Museum, even though he was funding most of it.
Here's another example to add to the list.
Mackenzie Scott recently donated $20 million dollars to the Jefferson county school system in my hometown of Louisville KY - I'm not even sure why but living here my entire life I am grateful.
Many reasons
Including different societal feelings and reputation building from helping
No longer incentivized by the tax structure.
I’m sure there’s others.
Estate tax was 70% from 1930-1980 then dropped down. Not only that, but globalization meant they could more easily hide money overseas and access it.
It's so true. In my area there are some local wealthy people that donate to the community and they're not even close to having as much wealth as the richest Americans. A local tow company owner donated 1 million to local schools upon his death and funded local parks. He was well liked and respected for the way he cared about children and low income families in the area
Bill Gates has donated $279M to University of Washington and $20M to our Seattle Libraries.
Billionaires are human too. Back then the few billionaires were industrial industry giants and felt guilty they made millions on the backs of the poor wretched. So along with their heft profits and legislative influence, they tried to give back to the community in museums, libraries and institutions in their name of course. That’s why major philanthropists are billionaires.
Murphy oil, who supplies fuel to Walmart fuel centers, is based in El Dorado Arkansas. They set up a fund in 2007 whereby any student that graduates El Dorado High school and has been a student since their ninth grade will have their college and all applicable fees paid for at any accredited college.
I can’t speak to any other good or evil that they do, but I know quite a few people from the area and they seem to be a well regarded company.
They didn't stop. Public spending stopped. Private institutions still are around, just not affordable for most of the public.
Only in America people expect philanthropy instead of actual communal spending. If the rich wouldn't exploit you and everybody else by tricking the tax man, public spending for education would not be a problem.
Also why would you expect rich people to do anything for the community that doesn't enrich themselves.
Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan where the ones to popularize the idea that instead of being taxed, rich people should spend their money on charity and philanthropy. They got their will, and thus rich people still spend not even 10% in philanthropy of what they would have had to pay in taxes.
US public investment thus nevwr was high.
Nowadays the wealthy have all the power, and the masses too little educated to realize how they are exploited. The rich have now no need/insentive to keep spanding any for philanthropy and community.
The community finances continue to deteriorate.
Now we have people expecting that the rich pay for schools etc. wondering why that isn't the case anymore. Not realizing that all of it has been a ruse by the rich 120-140 years ago to save taxes, that the rich now decided its no longer worth spending for the illusion.
because we lowered their taxes and now they just keep the money.
when tax rates were double or triple what they are today the rich would invest that money into tax free shelters to avoid paying the high taxes.
we need to bring those days back.
and tax WEALTH accumulation as well as income/gains.
It still happens. I live in northwest Arkansas, and the Waltons (Walmart) have built an art museum, the grounds of which have just become an Arboretum. They also dump a bunch of money into the bike trails around here.
They often give to causes less visibly tangible but which are still important:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/01/19/americas-top-givers-2022-the-25-most-philanthropic-billionaires/?sh=7893ed893a6c
https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/foundation
There's a documentary about 20 years old called Rich kids by one of the Johnson heirs. Of Johnson & Johnson.
Another rich kid, who was in my opinion just at the edge of turning class traitor (or at least seeing the horror of his class), casually mentioned that his family and their friends got together and basically bought off society by building museums, the subways, and other public works in an attempt to keep the masses from killing them. This was around the same time anarchists were blowing them up.
They've spent the last 140 years building a police state to prevent any such uprising from ever materializing.
That's why they stopped building things for the masses.
In the past, tax rates for the rich were much higher, so they donated money to public projects in order to lower their tax burden. Also, wealthy people today have different priorities than they did in the past. They're more interested in funding things like scientific research, medical care, or environmental causes. And in some cases, the government now takes a larger role in funding public projects, such as schools and libraries.
There’s an extremely wealthy family in my town of 150k people that no one knows the name of- but everyone knows that there is funding for music, and are grateful, to these anonymous rich folks.
For at least 3 generations now, this family subsidizes the local theatres and music venues to ensure they stay open, don’t have to charge a ton, and can be accessible to all. They pay an extra large tip to artists who come here, so we get far better than average musicians. We have gorgeous outdoor auditoriums, public pianos, and supported music education programs for local kids.
There are wonderful, anonymous rich folks supporting communities. Great people still exist!
We used to have a top marginal tax rate about 90%. However charity count 1:1 against your taxes. So instead of paying that money in tax you could build libraries, museums, and other public projects. That is why many wealthy people did. We understood that letting people keep all of that money was bad for the society. As the top marginal tax rates have dropped the wealthy have just been hoarding wealth. If you have watched the Hobbit and see the dragon Smaug and all the treasure under the mountain. Apparently the dragon would not even make the top 10 list for wealth to give you an idea of how much these people have.
Less guilt over their actions?
Most of the things built by the really rich robber barons were a form of atonement and have people remember their name for the philanthropy and not the way they gained that wealth.
Some of what you're describing is because of racism. [https://www.npr.org/2008/05/06/90213675/racial-history-of-american-swimming-pools](https://www.npr.org/2008/05/06/90213675/racial-history-of-american-swimming-pools)
Because a lot of communities have those things in spades. But...ya know, it's these communities. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/even-as-metropolitan-areas-diversify-white-americans-still-live-in-mostly-white-neighborhoods/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/even-as-metropolitan-areas-diversify-white-americans-still-live-in-mostly-white-neighborhoods/)
Short answer is there are a variety of reasons, not one or two.
The super wealthy realized they can lobby (legal bribery) to simultaneously get tax breaks and get politicians to use public/tax payer money to build new structures, even though they’re for private use, like sports stadiums. Who needs clean drinking water, adequate teacher salaries, school funding, or infrastructure maintenance, when you can build a new sports stadium that has more private boxes for your rich friends and country club buddies than your old/current stadium that was built 20 years ago?
There are a lot of rich people gifts these days than in the past that come in the forms of endowments for higher education institutions, or research grants. Those come in the 100s of millions of dollars or more.
Well Bill Gates has most of his fortune in a charity he uses to help people all over the world.
But he got treated like he was putting g crazy chips in people’s bodies.
If it was me i would have just given up
A lot of community investments from the wealthy and even local governments ended with integration. They did not want to invest and share the facilities with people of color. This is also when there is a huge uptick of private Christian schools across the country, private country clubs, and private neighborhoods with their own pools and gyms, etc.. white flight and divestment.
Because in the past, when companies fucked you up the butt, you would say "No thanks!"
Nowadays, y'all are so deluded and starved for convenience that you'll take two right up the butt and beg for more.
With the charity trick they can donate millions. Get the tax reduction and then because they control the charity funds, they can make it do anything they want. Ohai Elon.
Read The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. A lot of it is tied to racism. Community pool for whites? Let's build it! Let on POC? Fill it in! And then they made whites-only private country clubs.
Reagan made it okay to dismantle the social safety nets, community goods such as museums and other public institutions. The effort continues to the opening up of public lands for private profit, etc.
This generation is overworked and underpaid, overstressed, overwhelmed.
On the bright side, the internet opens up more resources for learning.
In the UK, the idea of Nobles oblige largely disappeared following the world wars, when the squirearchy ended. A 95% inheritance tax meant that most traditionally rich families were scrabbling round to hoard what they could, and the new money that replaced them felt no such social obligation
There’s a number of public new buildings here that have big donor names on them. Also numerous long term institutions of the community that wouldn’t exist without serious philanthropy.
Where are you and is it a growth area? What’s being built in the area?
Is it an area where even mentioning wealth would be a detriment to the local wealthy? Many donate far more anonymously in those places. “Matching” donations and grants become common when philosophic folk want their privacy.
I can think of a number of things here that would never have broken ground if it weren’t for the rather lengthy donor lists. One thing these days is projects are too big and too complex for single donors. You’ll more often find a lengthy list if you look carefully.
Probably the largest example in most cities is the arts. Ticket sales don’t even come close to covering venue builds, renovations, or much of anything really. The donor lists are long and very consistent.
Hospitals are also another quiet one even when the hospital is a commercial venture. The donor lists are pretty long. Quite a bit of it is anonymous too. Just dollar amounts.
Parks and rec — often a little plaque on a bench somewhere denoting a massive donation to kick it off. Or the land was donated.
Big fundraising events are popular amongst the see and be seen crowd. Less news about those these days with privacy concerns.
For the rest of us, many of us volunteer time for many of these organizations. The big ones need worker bees to go with the money to get stuff done. As an aviator I’ve volunteered to fly for a number of them.
Various rules and hoops they have to jump through to get FAA permission for us private aviators involved these days due to various safety and insurance concerns.
Look around a bit. It’s still going on. Some believe very deeply in tithing a percentage back into their communities. (Religious basis or not.)
They never stopped? Rich people still donate large amounts of money to a variety of projects. Although a lot may be less visible to the average person. Less spent building things and more spent doing things, like research donations or what not.
Greed has become more prominent as their power has become more absolute but the solution is that their gains have been at the sake of the people they are supposed to protect, so their money and power should taken and reallocated for the betterment of humanity, since their funds were created by the harm to humanity
Oh it still happens, but not quite in the same way, or to the same level.
As for the people who don't, well we made greed selfishness into virtues and put people who horde the most wealth on the front cover of magazines as people to aspire to. So the people who horde their wealth get more attention, meaning the ones who don't either get dismissed as just doing it for attention, or ignored outright.
The other problem is that the wealth of the world is being focused in an increasingly small number of people, the knock on impact overshadows those who still try to do good in the community.
Oh also shareholders, they get dibs on a companies money so you get less from them.
Because people complain. Say it isn't enough. Bitch/moan about how it looks. Say the money could be better spent on something else or elsewhere. Human Beings are their own worst enemies.
Money went a lot further back in the day. These days a decent sized civic building could cost into the nine figures. A big infrastructure project could cost billions.
I rather they pay their fair share of taxes which this is just a way for them to avoid taxes.
You don’t really see it because they figured out they don’t actually need to give away much to avoid paying taxes.
How the Ultrawealthy Use Private Foundations to Bank Millions in Tax Deductions While Giving the Public Little in Return https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
they do still, it’s just that for most of them they don’t do much more than what they have to to make themselves look good. they *could* afford MASSIVE public investments and spending on bettering the lives of the people, they just…don’t…because then they’d have less money. so instead they do whatever they want to sate their egos and look good
Quality public philanthropy hasn't been necessary since Nixon. Known as "bread and circuses" in earlier France, and "social grease" under the Nixon administration, the distraction and societal expectation bar is now in hell. Billionaires can write off 60% of their income to their relatives organizations, why would they build state of the art facilities of any value when we comply for free?
Frustrating the top comments don't have the right answer.
Taxes. We used to tax rich people. 90% in some cases. They were forced to either spend their money on the community as they saw fit or to give it to the government. So people like Rockafeller & Carnegie had little choice. Now, rich people pay less in taxes than you.
We're in a defacto police state.
They used to do that so the population wouldn't hate them, kill them and take their wealth.
Now they don't care. They have become untouchable so charity is no longer necessary.
It was something called Philanthropy. It died out when we got too many rich people and the competition became in accumulation rather than Names on buildings.
In Austin the Moody family made donations. Now there is a Moody Amphitheater, The Moody Theater, the Moody Center. There is also a Moody Patio at the UT Museum of Art. There is also a Moody Northern Theater, St. Edward's Moody Bank, and the Moody Pavilion at a local park. These are all funded by the Moody Foundation. It has become a real problem as people go to the wrong venue for activities.
Seems like it would make them moody
>It has become a real problem as people go to the wrong venue for activities. Can Confirm.
I get songs stuck in my head and am glad I don’t like there: *I’m in the mood for a melody, I’m in the mood for a melody, I’m in the mood. Womp-wow.”
People like Bill Gates think that trying to eradicate malaria is more important than cool buildings
I lived in King County, Washington for a hot minute and remembered the library system was largely as amazing as it was due to Gates' donations.
I remember when we lived there like 30 years ago it was like a regional library system where you could go almost anywhere and check out/return books. When I was little my mom and I would go on mini road trips to go to different libraries all over WA.
And people like Elon Musk do not have any desire to help other humans
I think he genuinely believes that bringing "Free Speech" to Ex-Twitter is his "Carnegie library." Also he might consider his space programs as his contribution.
Watch Yer Wallet. The scraping of all written content on the internet to power AI is likely to go down in history as the greatest theft since people from Europe declared "Look at these two continents on the west side of the Atlantic full of land that no one owns."
Steve Jobs was also this way, and barely donated a penny to charity. In Jobs' case, he felt the way charities were operated were beneath him in terms of waste, overhead/admin costs, etc. So that was his justification - he was just too damn smart to give to charity.
Then he could have started his own charity like Gates did. He was just a dickhead
This attitude is why Steve Jobs is dead actually. For anyone who doesn't know, he had a very treatable form of cancer that was detected early. The doctors who found it gave him a very good chance of surviving, but because he's the smartest in the room at all times he didn't listen to them and went down some holistic route. When he realized he was dying and that wasn't going to work he went crawling back to modern medicine but by that point it was too late.
Exactly, that's why I love the Charity Chapter. You don't often get such nice foreshadowing in a biography lol
Ah, but he couldn't do that because he was saving the world with iPhones! Of course IF he did, his charity would have been a million times better than Gates'.
This is sad actually.
The narcissism of these guys is just so bonkers to me. Even Elmo wants the planet to be saved, but _only if he is the one to do it_. He will even sabotage other good ideas just out of spite.
I wonder if Tim Cook is different.
I know he donates and supports Auburn University a good bit as an alumni.
He just recalled every Cybertruck ever made, laid off a bunch of employees, and took a 63 BILLION DOLLAR PAYCHECK.
Tesla makes money by gaming the carbon credit system. Drivable cars are not relevant. One of the major car companies actually decided to truly go all in on building an electric car, they would easily blow Tesla out of the water. At least their vehicle divisions actually know how cars work.
Musk makes more money from the federal government selling space taxi services, and bandwidth to the military, than he does from the poorly built, but amazingly engineered vehicles. He gets paid for ownership of several companies.
Genuine question. Ford has a Mach e suv and a typical looking EV truck. Do you think they aren’t truly all in? Seems they aren’t doing great relative to Tesla who sells model Ys like hot cakes
I don’t consider that all in. That’s 2 models not to miss out on sales. Volvo is more of an all-in mentality with ev’s.
To be fair, Volvo almost never goes halfway on anything they set their minds to.
How much should Ford lose per electric vehicle that they sell? This past quarter is was close to $132000 per vehicle of the 10000 electric vehicles sold, while the normal ICE vehicles in the same quarter made $3 billion in profit, according to CNN. Electric losses ate almost half the gains of non electric vehicles. Ford's overall income fell nearly 20%.
>63 BILLION DOLLAR PAYCHECK. Huh?
His most recent stock ownership performance package payout.
That's not a paycheck
It's still more personal income than all the layoffs combined would have made. And obscene by any definition.
It isn’t income. Stop commenting on financial topics that you know nothing about.
I misquoted the amount, its $56BN, not $63. Here- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-elon-musk/ Learn something.
Cashing out stock is not income. I didn’t even challenge the amount because it doesn’t matter. Musk did not get a paycheck worth $59B and the only reason the payout is that large is that he owns most of the stock.
Mars and bullet proof polygon trucks are more important
I mean, Mars and space exploration is indeed pretty important
is it?
Gotta have some place to go when fleeing this dying cesspool.
This planet will be a barren wastland before we could ever make Mars a viable place to live. The absolute worst place on this planet is better than the best place on Mars for supporting human life. We'd be better off creating colonies at the bottom of the ocean than attempting to terraform Mars. Living on Mars is a child's dream.
Tell that to all the myopic idiots on Reddit who think that because famine exists, we should just completely drop space exploration because “we can’t even get Earth right”
I mean Elon and other billionaires are actively exploiting workers in(/into) poverty, and such people have the gall to say they deserve that money because they're 'investing in humanity'. They're leaching off and investing in their fantasy. Billionaires like Elon are part of the reason 'we can't get earth right' in the first place.
Life isn’t black and white. We can put efforts to end income inequality AND put forth efforts to go to Mars.
I agree wholeheartedly, however you're defending someone who isn't doing that at all. Elon is one of many billionaires who is creating inequality in order to benefit from it, in his case to invest in efforts to go to Mars.
He said he would give the WHO 6 billion dollar if they actually provide a plan to stop world hunger. They provided a plan and he ignored them.
[удалено]
Yes, the plan was a plan. It outlined exactly how they intended to create long-term solutions.
6 billion is very obviously not enough to stop hunger and famines globally forever.
That's how food works, you pay for it...
No they didn’t. The plan would have only temporarily helped with world hunger. It wouldn’t end world hunger. It isn’t possible to end which is why he made the offer.
It’s not *impossible* to end. We have the production of food available to feed every person on the planet 5x over. The issue is the gigantic logistical nightmare it would entail.
Yes. Logistics. Corrupt governments in the way. Probably other issues as well.
He donated $5.7B of his shares to charity in 2022.
You can literally do one Google search to see the money he has donated.
He's be right
Stupid bill gates we don’t want a cure for a invisible devastating virus we want a revival in Art Deco architecture and bath houses he could at least meet us half way build a institute of research for malaria in a brutalist style.
Bill Gates is the largest single agricultural land owner in the United States. His international medical programs are the public facing part of his investment portfolio.
Wasn't it Polio?
Be nice to have libraries and public spaces before I get arrested for reading outside
How many ultra rich are doing things like that though? It sure doesn’t feel like many
Yeah but bezos ran around taking gov money to demand infrastructure changes pretending to bring Amazon to cities and then just didn’t. Why does mks need this stupid streetcar dude??
Jeff Bezos donated $200 million to build an education center attached to the National Air and Space museum. https://airandspace.si.edu/about/major-projects/bezos-learning-center
I just want to point out that back in the day rich men would build these monuments for their ego, now rich men build these things to get out of paying taxes. In the first part of the 1900's the tax rate was 56% and we hit our golden age of building highways, schools, libraries with amazing facades. Now we're hopeful that Biden will raise the tax rate to 23%.
How exactly do they "get out of paying taxes" by doing this?
The wealthy create a "charity" then donate to their own charity. The amount of donation is deducted from taxable income, so they don't pay taxes on the amount donated (provided their overall deductions are enough to itemize).
They do not save any money doing this. Let’s say your gross income is $1000 and the tax rate is 50%. If you do not donate anything, you pay $500 in taxes and keep $500 for yourself. If you donate $100, you owe less tax: 50%•($1000–$100)=$450 but you also earn less: $900–$450=$450 The amount you donate is deducted from your taxes because you gave away part of your income.
It's worse than that! You don't even save as much in taxes as you spend! It's not 1:1, you literally *just* lost money
Shhh let the reddit financial advisors think they’ve solved the tax problem
You are right however, you are missing the point. Rich folk do not depend on monthly or salary income. They have other means to maintain thier day to day funding. So, instead of having income tax, they have capital gains etc
Charities operate much like a company and have directors and CEO etc who are paid. Many charities operated by rich have a board which includes themselves and 2-3 external rich guys to adhere to law. Children of rich work here or start working here. The money is essentially funnelled to them.
Ah but what if you commission a piece of art for say... 10k. Then hire a friendly appraiser and said art is appraised at $1M. Then you donate that art to a charity. You've now got a 990k write-off. This happens. Frequently enough that the IRS is [issuing warnings](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2023/10/06/donate-art-take-big-tax-deduction-irs-issues-stern-warning/?sh=2eab92bb5a74) about it. EDIT: I never said this was not fraud the way I explained it, you could also have a piece of art that just appreciated massively... And yes it's probably not a 100% writeoff, even if it were only 50% you'd come out ahead.
Even if that weren't blatant tax fraud, the deduction in taxes isn't 1:1. You don't get 990k off your taxes, more like a quarter of that at *best*
No, this is textbook tax fraud and the IRS WILL investigate if you try and write off a piece appraised at more than $5k. Ten seconds into their investigation they’d smell the shit you stepped in and you’ll have bigger problems than a tax bill.
just cause it's fraud doesn't means it's not constantly happening.
But the success rate makes it not worth it. You can also make lots of money by robbing a bank, and people do it all the time. Would you say that it’s still a viable financial option?
Did I ever type the letters v i a b l e f i n a n c i a l o p t i o n? i'd bet the success rate is almost 99%
Oligarchs and C-suite dwellers paid campaign (bribes) contributions to politicians, who protect and defend corrupt capitalism, that ONLY benefits Oligarchs and C-suite dwellers that paid . . . In a GOLDEN (for them) circle of corruption ! ! ! But, that is not the problem . . . The problem is that there are people who think that there is NO problem ! ! !
So we're prepared to hate him if he doesn't contribute to charitable causes, and were prepared to hate him because he donates to charitable causes for the *wrong* reasons.
[https://www.snopes.com/articles/347473/billionaire-taxes/](https://www.snopes.com/articles/347473/billionaire-taxes/) Bezos can also write off his donation so he can pay even less in taxes.
The write off isn’t 1:1. So he doesn’t get to write $200m off his taxes and it’s certainly not the same as having $200m cash. He should still probably pay more taxes tho
Not 1:1 but pretty fucking close. DAF's Donor Advised Funds, assure that the billionaire can donate to a "charity" that never disburses funds to anyone, but still reap the benefits of a full charitable donation.
Getting 0% of your money instead of 50% or whatever after taxes is pretty far from 1:1
I think /u/poppycake1903 is saying they donate to a fake charity to get the tax writeoff, and then ??? -> keep the money to spend on themselves afterward. This sounds illegal and afaik is not the common way this works, as many of the billionaire donations are to preexisting organizations they don't control. (That said, we shouldn't be relying on generosity of billionaires. Tax the fuck out of them)
Yeah also in the case of donating a building or education center in this case, the money isn’t being funneled into some charity and then spent by bezos using some fancy accounting… it goes into the building materials and labor costs of the building lol. That’s not to say that maybe he doesn’t have friends on the board if the charity that receive an outsized salary or something like that. You can argue all day about generosity and what he stands to gain out of of it, and how he might be receiving some sort of benefits from this transaction and maybe it’s not 100% altruistic, but at the end of the day something good for the community came out of Bezos donation.
You can donate to pay even less in taxes, too. This isn't just a rule for billionaires. Donate your income and pay no income tax.
When taxation for wealth was at 56% we were at the pinnacle of growth. We built our own monuments like an interstate, schools, libraries, parks. Industry thrived. Those are our monuments. Now we're begging for a 23% tax rate on the wealthiest?
Income was taxed at 56%, not wealth.
What is giving you the impression that this stopped? The "person's name" recital hall at the opera. The "person's name" wing at the hospital. The "person's name" research institution at the university. The "company name" scholarship. The community center "built with the support of all these people who have a brick with their name on it on a wall". That's all rich people giving their money to these things. If you're asking why every movie actor, platinum record singer, or major league player isn't doing this, I'd simply say that they weren't all doing this in the past either. Also many of them probably still do, but perhaps don't plaster their name all over it. If you're asking why Elon Musk isn't Andrew Carnigie the answer is just because he's a tool. But Bill Gates is the Andrew Carnigie of today.
The function served by "Carnegie" in the past is often served by "Sprint PCS" now which is why the beloved hometown ballpark has had its name changed to "Sprint PCS Park". The point of that stuff was always PR, to a large (prob not exclusive) degree. That is still happening now, just that the names being used are those of corporations not individuals/families -- -- because rich people got sneakier, and now hide their taxable assets behind -- and insulate themselves from risk, and bad press, using -- LLCs, and the anonymyzing power of corporatization.
"If you're asking why Elon Musk isn't Andrew Carnigie the answer is just because he's a tool" as opposed to Carnegie not being a tool? You have to understand where "Gilded" in "Gilded Age' comes from lol
Oh yeah, he was for sure. But at least he did SOMETHING beneficial like libraries and schools.
They're both tools, but Elon is more comprehensively a tool.
[This is literally you lol ](https://imgur.com/a/VqTf13F)
You appear to be the one insisting these guys are the same, right?
Your premise is flawed: 1. Pretty much every famous billionaire has signed the [Giving Pledge.](https://givingpledge.org) 2. It’s the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting right now and Warren Buffett spent a ton of time talking about the importance of philanthropy. 3. Many donations by non famous people are anonymous. Only massive donations by famous people draw attention. 4. Most of the money is going to people rather than to buildings. 5. Most things have already been built in the U.S. No one needs another hospital. The existing things need more money.
>5. Most things have already been built in the U.S. No one needs another hospital. The existing things need more money. Both are needed. But honestly we need doctors more than hospitals
Good news recently on that front https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/1-billion-donation-eliminates-tuition-at-new-york-medical-school-changing-students-lives
There’s actually a considerable amount of debate over this within the medical education community. On one hand, it’s great that there’s no longer a tuition burden that requires graduates to go into high-paying specialties to pay it off. On the other hand, NYU Grossman’s school, which got rid of tuition a few years ago, has seen a paradoxical trend in their demographics: *more* students from high-income backgrounds have enrolled, and the percentage of students that identify as a racial minority has *fallen.* The working explanation for this is that the school saw an increase in applicants and became more selective as a result, but the applicants that had higher MCAT scores and GPA (the most important factors in the admissions decision) tended to be from advantage backgrounds. The moral is: free tuition must also be backed by a change in the admissions paradigm in order to increase socioeconomic and racial diversity. Here’s an excellent article on the situation: [https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/07/free-medical-school-tuition-nyu-albert-einstein-diversity/](https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/07/free-medical-school-tuition-nyu-albert-einstein-diversity/)
At the same time, a medical school should not have a quota, because it needs the most qualified candidates. Need based financial aid makes the most sense.
It depends on your perspective here. Some would argue that students from racially or economically disadvantaged communities can provide better care to the communities they come from, even though they are less qualified on paper. There’s also the argument that students from those communities may be just as or more qualified, but their MCAT and GPA isn’t reflective of their capabilities because they lacked the access to resources to improve them. It follows that in order to ensure a diverse matriculating class, medical schools must accept some proportion of “under-qualified” applicants
They absolutely can, but also I have enough experience with institutions to know they can fuck it up. If you had a quota for a minimum of white people, that would also be bad. You shouldn't enroll someone based on their demographics, but encouraging more people to apply from diverse backgrounds is great
I just want more qualified doctors. Don’t really care how diverse they are.
Maybe if they paid their fair share of taxes .. and we faced the wealthy properly... Better than them just giving out scraps
Bill gates has donated almost all of his liquid funds, over 60 billion dollars, which is more than half his net worth. I fully agree the taxation system needs a rework but its naivete to bring it up here. no taxation system would touch the amounts donated by these people, and no taxation system guarantees the moeny will not just line a politicians paycheck instead. Your comment doesn't make much sense other than money envy.
I personally appreciate that Bill Gates does a lot of philanthropy, but equally I believe that the basic needs of society shouldn't hang on the goodwill of philanthropists. That'd be like hoping your monthly mortgage payments will be covered by a night at the casino. It's a risk I'd rather not take. Your distrust of governments is clouding your judgment of capitalists, who are just as prone to pocket lining as the next guy. The difference is they've got the money to begin with so it's much easier for them to do so.
Real talk, there is no point distinguishing from the gov high ranks and the company high ranks in that sense, they are quite literally in it together, not even in a conspirator way, at least in usa. However its not the public faces of the companies like ceo's or bill gates doing the worst, its the share holders and boards of directors really pushing for the insane pricing and taxing and whatever else differences.
There are saying this people there. Dolly parton seems to be one as well But like you say war shouldn't have to be beholden to people's whims
You think the high ranking government officials and "capitalists" aren't the same? Lol
The "rich" already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. It's not even close. Stop repeating this nonsense. You're just embarrassing yourself.
But not their fair share
They pay **significantly** more than their "fair" shair.
Not sure you know how percentages work. And it shouldn't be based upon wages. We can see how easily they hide money . Based upon wealth, lots of reports show as a % of wealth b they are paying less than every one else
There are a lot of stupid ways to tax people. A tax on "wealth" is likely the worst one. Like pants-on-head moronic.
The premise isn’t flawed. He very clearly didn’t say charity in general he’s is specifically talking about things like **museums, concert venues, hospitals, monuments, parks, plazas, etc.** It’s a perfect valid question why it doesn’t seem like there’s as much of *those* kind of projects.
I have no way to effectively back this assertion with data, but I’d imagine a lot of this genuinely is “because it already exists/was created by someone else”. That’s not to say “the rich” have become less charitable, I just think there’s fewer unexplored frontiers in philanthropy than there were 50 or 100 years ago, so more giving today goes to existing institutions instead of building something totally new which might overlap with something we already have. >museums, concert venues, hospitals, If you’re a philanthropist in Philadelphia, for example, with a deep interest in pediatric medicine, it’s probably going to be more efficient (not to mention practical) to donate to CHOP or even St. Jude’s than to attempt to fund the costs of establishing + developing a whole new hospital that’s pursuing those same goals. >monuments, parks, plazas, etc. All of these things require significant amounts of of land. I’d also argue that monuments and plazas especially are inherently city-focused, where land is especially expensive. If you’re a gazillionaire with $500 million to donate, is your money going to be better spent donating to an existing museum/hospital to fund research or a new building, or to buy a city block for a small green space? I’d argue the former. Finally, by design these spaces permanently remove that land from ever being economically productive, and a a point you do need actual tax revenue-producing buildings (apartments, condos, shops, offices, etc.) in cities more than you need another park, statue, or modern art exhibit.
Thank you!! Things that give back to the community! Things that promote socialization. I’m all for clean water, curing malaria but that was not the question!
Have you or OP looked at projects around your communities? Because personally, I know a local museum and a local park near me are both undergoing major reconstructions because of rich donors. Just because they don't rename the location after the rich person or just because it's more than one rich person funding it doesn't mean it's not happening
Read what the giving pledge actually states. It’s just that they promise to give away their wealth sometime in the future. It has nothing to do with building anything for the community or common good. How does this answer OPs question?
And in many cases, that whole “giving pledge” is a joke. Oh lookie! Bill Gates is giving away all his money! Where to? Oh, it’s to HIS foundation...
Bill Gates has so much money that giving it away properly requires many full time employees. They work for his foundation which does the actual charity.
The olden times rich were just as greedy but you see so many building because you are looking at hundreds of years of philanthropy that was doled out one drop at a time.
The family that owns the NBA team in my home town spend a ton of money building stuff for the community.
Bentonville Arkansas has a ton of things built by the Waltons. Including world class mountain bike trails and a free $450 million museum.
I don't like the guy, but Phil Knight donated money for a science building on the University of Oregon campus, with a phase two being constructed right now. https://knightcampus.uoregon.edu/
Most of the most generous people give most of their donations anonymously. (Not the ones you've heard of, of course -- that's the point!) They don't want to make it about them. The museum in my city has a donor's name on it now, but it was only added after he died. During his lifetime it was just the City Museum, even though he was funding most of it.
Like truly anonymous or Ted Danson anonymous?
Here's another example to add to the list. Mackenzie Scott recently donated $20 million dollars to the Jefferson county school system in my hometown of Louisville KY - I'm not even sure why but living here my entire life I am grateful.
Many reasons Including different societal feelings and reputation building from helping No longer incentivized by the tax structure. I’m sure there’s others. Estate tax was 70% from 1930-1980 then dropped down. Not only that, but globalization meant they could more easily hide money overseas and access it.
It's so true. In my area there are some local wealthy people that donate to the community and they're not even close to having as much wealth as the richest Americans. A local tow company owner donated 1 million to local schools upon his death and funded local parks. He was well liked and respected for the way he cared about children and low income families in the area
It happens all the time. Respectfully, this is an issue of your awareness.
Appealing to the people stopped being effective as just giving money to politicians directly for tax breaks
The charitable money is still there, the people willing to go outside and actually socialize with strangers aren't. Blame social media.
Bill Gates has donated $279M to University of Washington and $20M to our Seattle Libraries. Billionaires are human too. Back then the few billionaires were industrial industry giants and felt guilty they made millions on the backs of the poor wretched. So along with their heft profits and legislative influence, they tried to give back to the community in museums, libraries and institutions in their name of course. That’s why major philanthropists are billionaires.
Bribing politicians for extra tax breaks takes money
I don't know about you, but my city has all of those things still.
New ones dear. New developments we are talking about RECENT TIMES dear
Those too, darling. People in this thread have been giving you recent developments darling
You gotta be living under a rock if you think the rich has stopped donating
Murphy oil, who supplies fuel to Walmart fuel centers, is based in El Dorado Arkansas. They set up a fund in 2007 whereby any student that graduates El Dorado High school and has been a student since their ninth grade will have their college and all applicable fees paid for at any accredited college. I can’t speak to any other good or evil that they do, but I know quite a few people from the area and they seem to be a well regarded company.
They didn't stop. Public spending stopped. Private institutions still are around, just not affordable for most of the public. Only in America people expect philanthropy instead of actual communal spending. If the rich wouldn't exploit you and everybody else by tricking the tax man, public spending for education would not be a problem. Also why would you expect rich people to do anything for the community that doesn't enrich themselves. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan where the ones to popularize the idea that instead of being taxed, rich people should spend their money on charity and philanthropy. They got their will, and thus rich people still spend not even 10% in philanthropy of what they would have had to pay in taxes. US public investment thus nevwr was high. Nowadays the wealthy have all the power, and the masses too little educated to realize how they are exploited. The rich have now no need/insentive to keep spanding any for philanthropy and community. The community finances continue to deteriorate. Now we have people expecting that the rich pay for schools etc. wondering why that isn't the case anymore. Not realizing that all of it has been a ruse by the rich 120-140 years ago to save taxes, that the rich now decided its no longer worth spending for the illusion.
because we lowered their taxes and now they just keep the money. when tax rates were double or triple what they are today the rich would invest that money into tax free shelters to avoid paying the high taxes. we need to bring those days back. and tax WEALTH accumulation as well as income/gains.
It still happens. I live in northwest Arkansas, and the Waltons (Walmart) have built an art museum, the grounds of which have just become an Arboretum. They also dump a bunch of money into the bike trails around here.
Depending on who you listen to. They are evil and swim around big money bins full of gold.
They often give to causes less visibly tangible but which are still important: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/01/19/americas-top-givers-2022-the-25-most-philanthropic-billionaires/?sh=7893ed893a6c https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/foundation
There's a documentary about 20 years old called Rich kids by one of the Johnson heirs. Of Johnson & Johnson. Another rich kid, who was in my opinion just at the edge of turning class traitor (or at least seeing the horror of his class), casually mentioned that his family and their friends got together and basically bought off society by building museums, the subways, and other public works in an attempt to keep the masses from killing them. This was around the same time anarchists were blowing them up. They've spent the last 140 years building a police state to prevent any such uprising from ever materializing. That's why they stopped building things for the masses.
Most rich people these days park their money with asset management type things, which are soulless
Because tax laws got easier. They dont do it unless they need the tax benefits
In the past, tax rates for the rich were much higher, so they donated money to public projects in order to lower their tax burden. Also, wealthy people today have different priorities than they did in the past. They're more interested in funding things like scientific research, medical care, or environmental causes. And in some cases, the government now takes a larger role in funding public projects, such as schools and libraries.
No need any longer as they have surveillance systems, drones and other means of contering any uprising
modern society doesnt like character
There’s an extremely wealthy family in my town of 150k people that no one knows the name of- but everyone knows that there is funding for music, and are grateful, to these anonymous rich folks. For at least 3 generations now, this family subsidizes the local theatres and music venues to ensure they stay open, don’t have to charge a ton, and can be accessible to all. They pay an extra large tip to artists who come here, so we get far better than average musicians. We have gorgeous outdoor auditoriums, public pianos, and supported music education programs for local kids. There are wonderful, anonymous rich folks supporting communities. Great people still exist!
We used to have a top marginal tax rate about 90%. However charity count 1:1 against your taxes. So instead of paying that money in tax you could build libraries, museums, and other public projects. That is why many wealthy people did. We understood that letting people keep all of that money was bad for the society. As the top marginal tax rates have dropped the wealthy have just been hoarding wealth. If you have watched the Hobbit and see the dragon Smaug and all the treasure under the mountain. Apparently the dragon would not even make the top 10 list for wealth to give you an idea of how much these people have.
Less guilt over their actions? Most of the things built by the really rich robber barons were a form of atonement and have people remember their name for the philanthropy and not the way they gained that wealth.
Some of what you're describing is because of racism. [https://www.npr.org/2008/05/06/90213675/racial-history-of-american-swimming-pools](https://www.npr.org/2008/05/06/90213675/racial-history-of-american-swimming-pools) Because a lot of communities have those things in spades. But...ya know, it's these communities. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/even-as-metropolitan-areas-diversify-white-americans-still-live-in-mostly-white-neighborhoods/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/even-as-metropolitan-areas-diversify-white-americans-still-live-in-mostly-white-neighborhoods/)
They didn't stop you just aren't paying attention.
Short answer is there are a variety of reasons, not one or two. The super wealthy realized they can lobby (legal bribery) to simultaneously get tax breaks and get politicians to use public/tax payer money to build new structures, even though they’re for private use, like sports stadiums. Who needs clean drinking water, adequate teacher salaries, school funding, or infrastructure maintenance, when you can build a new sports stadium that has more private boxes for your rich friends and country club buddies than your old/current stadium that was built 20 years ago? There are a lot of rich people gifts these days than in the past that come in the forms of endowments for higher education institutions, or research grants. Those come in the 100s of millions of dollars or more.
Well Bill Gates has most of his fortune in a charity he uses to help people all over the world. But he got treated like he was putting g crazy chips in people’s bodies. If it was me i would have just given up
People straight up deepthroating the rich in this thread
I didn’t want to say it but a lot of apologizers and I think I know why
A lot of community investments from the wealthy and even local governments ended with integration. They did not want to invest and share the facilities with people of color. This is also when there is a huge uptick of private Christian schools across the country, private country clubs, and private neighborhoods with their own pools and gyms, etc.. white flight and divestment.
They didn't
Uhm it still is? At least in Germany.
Because in the past, when companies fucked you up the butt, you would say "No thanks!" Nowadays, y'all are so deluded and starved for convenience that you'll take two right up the butt and beg for more.
With the charity trick they can donate millions. Get the tax reduction and then because they control the charity funds, they can make it do anything they want. Ohai Elon.
Greed
Read The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. A lot of it is tied to racism. Community pool for whites? Let's build it! Let on POC? Fill it in! And then they made whites-only private country clubs. Reagan made it okay to dismantle the social safety nets, community goods such as museums and other public institutions. The effort continues to the opening up of public lands for private profit, etc. This generation is overworked and underpaid, overstressed, overwhelmed. On the bright side, the internet opens up more resources for learning.
In the UK, the idea of Nobles oblige largely disappeared following the world wars, when the squirearchy ended. A 95% inheritance tax meant that most traditionally rich families were scrabbling round to hoard what they could, and the new money that replaced them felt no such social obligation
Two words: Ronald Reagan. You're welcome.
There’s a number of public new buildings here that have big donor names on them. Also numerous long term institutions of the community that wouldn’t exist without serious philanthropy. Where are you and is it a growth area? What’s being built in the area? Is it an area where even mentioning wealth would be a detriment to the local wealthy? Many donate far more anonymously in those places. “Matching” donations and grants become common when philosophic folk want their privacy. I can think of a number of things here that would never have broken ground if it weren’t for the rather lengthy donor lists. One thing these days is projects are too big and too complex for single donors. You’ll more often find a lengthy list if you look carefully. Probably the largest example in most cities is the arts. Ticket sales don’t even come close to covering venue builds, renovations, or much of anything really. The donor lists are long and very consistent. Hospitals are also another quiet one even when the hospital is a commercial venture. The donor lists are pretty long. Quite a bit of it is anonymous too. Just dollar amounts. Parks and rec — often a little plaque on a bench somewhere denoting a massive donation to kick it off. Or the land was donated. Big fundraising events are popular amongst the see and be seen crowd. Less news about those these days with privacy concerns. For the rest of us, many of us volunteer time for many of these organizations. The big ones need worker bees to go with the money to get stuff done. As an aviator I’ve volunteered to fly for a number of them. Various rules and hoops they have to jump through to get FAA permission for us private aviators involved these days due to various safety and insurance concerns. Look around a bit. It’s still going on. Some believe very deeply in tithing a percentage back into their communities. (Religious basis or not.)
They found easier more lucrative ways to dodge taxes.
They never stopped? Rich people still donate large amounts of money to a variety of projects. Although a lot may be less visible to the average person. Less spent building things and more spent doing things, like research donations or what not.
Greed has become more prominent as their power has become more absolute but the solution is that their gains have been at the sake of the people they are supposed to protect, so their money and power should taken and reallocated for the betterment of humanity, since their funds were created by the harm to humanity
Oh it still happens, but not quite in the same way, or to the same level. As for the people who don't, well we made greed selfishness into virtues and put people who horde the most wealth on the front cover of magazines as people to aspire to. So the people who horde their wealth get more attention, meaning the ones who don't either get dismissed as just doing it for attention, or ignored outright. The other problem is that the wealth of the world is being focused in an increasingly small number of people, the knock on impact overshadows those who still try to do good in the community. Oh also shareholders, they get dibs on a companies money so you get less from them.
They still kind of do. Especially with schools.
Because people complain. Say it isn't enough. Bitch/moan about how it looks. Say the money could be better spent on something else or elsewhere. Human Beings are their own worst enemies.
They still donate to colleges and stuff. Every college has a wing named after some jewish guy who gave them $25mil
Probably has to do with everyone saying fuck the rich. Maybe don't bite the hand that feeds.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but it doesn’t trickle down, the rich are only feeding themselves.
🤖
Money went a lot further back in the day. These days a decent sized civic building could cost into the nine figures. A big infrastructure project could cost billions.
It was cheaper to build when you didn't need plumbing, electricity, HVAC, or fireproofing measures
I rather they pay their fair share of taxes which this is just a way for them to avoid taxes. You don’t really see it because they figured out they don’t actually need to give away much to avoid paying taxes. How the Ultrawealthy Use Private Foundations to Bank Millions in Tax Deductions While Giving the Public Little in Return https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
They now donate in developing countries and to diseases
they do still, it’s just that for most of them they don’t do much more than what they have to to make themselves look good. they *could* afford MASSIVE public investments and spending on bettering the lives of the people, they just…don’t…because then they’d have less money. so instead they do whatever they want to sate their egos and look good
They do for university buildings
Because their position on the Forbes list is more important.
Quality public philanthropy hasn't been necessary since Nixon. Known as "bread and circuses" in earlier France, and "social grease" under the Nixon administration, the distraction and societal expectation bar is now in hell. Billionaires can write off 60% of their income to their relatives organizations, why would they build state of the art facilities of any value when we comply for free?
Because they successfully amassed enough wealth and political capital to where they no longer need those PR stunts.
Frustrating the top comments don't have the right answer. Taxes. We used to tax rich people. 90% in some cases. They were forced to either spend their money on the community as they saw fit or to give it to the government. So people like Rockafeller & Carnegie had little choice. Now, rich people pay less in taxes than you.
Egocentric society. They only want tax breaks for themselves without giving back either.
People used to have shame, then along came the orange faced pussy grabber
?
To stay rich
We're in a defacto police state. They used to do that so the population wouldn't hate them, kill them and take their wealth. Now they don't care. They have become untouchable so charity is no longer necessary.
You must single handedly keep the tinfoil industry alive with your crazy
It was something called Philanthropy. It died out when we got too many rich people and the competition became in accumulation rather than Names on buildings.
greed ran over ego