Why? Will he not have 2 superyachts to rub together?Bill Gates's Net Worth is 106 billion. Taxing away 100 billion doesn't really make much sense.
and we wouldn't have any of this if there is no such thing as money. But can we be realistic now?
Because he is
I just LOVE how the quote in the OP about taxation and how he'd start to think about it if it was $100 billion literally cuts off right before he says "Sorry, I'm just kidding". Or how the question about Trump v Warren, while he didn't give an explicit answer he says "I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate". Like it's pretty obvious what he means
Then why target the wealth tax at all? Why is it unreasonableI just LOVE how the quote in the OP about taxation and how he'd start to think about it if it was $100 billion literally cuts off right before he says "Sorry, I'm just kidding". Or how the question about Trump v Warren, while he didn't give an explicit answer he says "I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate". Like it's pretty obvious what he means
This democracy elected Trump and has voted for some horrible policies. So yes, give me Bill Gates singular decision-making, over what America tends to vote for.. That the decision making of a single admittedly intelligent but also extremely lucky person outweighs the decision making of a democracy? Is that really how we want things to be? Rather than an anointed king, we have a handful of people richer than god who get to decide which cause is worthy of their grace... and that's good?
And even if he did get taxed for everything he's worth, guess who is in charge of making social programs to do good with it. The government. HA! Fat chance.
If you took 100 billion dollars off his net worth Bill Gates would still be in the top 250 richest people in the world. I don't think people are truely grasping how absurdly wealthy he is.Bill Gates's Net Worth is 106 billion. Taxing away 100 billion doesn't really make much sense.
Bill Gates's Net Worth is 106 billion. Taxing away 100 billion doesn't really make much sense.
Like he literally talks about how we use to have an upper end 70% taxation rate and says rich people should pay more taxes!This entire thread is like when you pretend to throw the ball and the dog runs after nothing
You're already living in that world, friend. How's it working out?This democracy elected Trump and has voted for some horrible policies. So yes, give me Bill Gates singular decision-making, over what America tends to vote for.
All you need to do is pluck a quote from a 38 minute video that nobody is going to watch and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Checkmate and touchdown.I just LOVE how the quote in the OP about taxation and how he'd start to think about it if it was $100 billion literally cuts off right before he says "Sorry, I'm just kidding". Or how the question about Trump v Warren, while he didn't give an explicit answer he says "I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate". Like it's pretty obvious what he means
Exactly this. As far as I'm aware, he's never endorsed a candidate, but his comment about "the most professional" is top-tier shade thrown at Trump. I don't see how anyone could miss that context.Feels like the guy is trying too hard to call someone out and make a point. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates understands the difference between the two; he just doesn't want to publicly endorse a candidate.
Bill gets a free pass from me. Because he will be using all his money for greater good. He is legit saving millions of lives each year. I can't even comprehend that. So my take is, instead of giving the money to corrupt government, where only certain % of his money will be used to help other. Why wouldn't he contribute all of it to his foundation where 100% will go to the people in need.
I just LOVE how the quote in the OP about taxation and how he'd start to think about it if it was $100 billion literally cuts off right before he says "Sorry, I'm just kidding". Or how the question about Trump v Warren, while he didn't give an explicit answer he says "I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate". Like it's pretty obvious what he means
Why? I don't know if Bill has actually saved millions of lives, but if he has then I am not going to cancel that unfathomable amount of good over a weaselly political comment.
Pretty much this.I just LOVE how the quote in the OP about taxation and how he'd start to think about it if it was $100 billion literally cuts off right before he says "Sorry, I'm just kidding". Or how the question about Trump v Warren, while he didn't give an explicit answer he says "I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate". Like it's pretty obvious what he means
For one, as explained earlier in this thread, he doesn't have issue with being taxed more. Heck he even says 20 billion would be acceptable. I assume he means that would be through the rest of his life or over a period of a decade or more, and not per year (unless he's an idiot, which he demonstrably is not). Then he throws out a number like 100 billion which has never been suggested.As somebody who uses his wealth for the great good his stance seems reasonable to me. He said he'd prefer not to be taxed obscene amounts and that he is looking for the most professional candidate. Does that not rule out Trump?
Considering Warren has even replied to explain how the tax will not be to the extreme he used in his example (AN EXAMPLE BTW). He just seems to be commenting on the different tax ranges proposed and hypotheticals rather than declaring his loyalty to Trump. Seems a bit blown out of proportion with the articles having a clear bias / narrative or am I missing something.
I'd prefer you rationally explain if I am wrong rather then go full ERA and start screeching at me too.
Because even with his enormous philanthropy there are still millions of american children without adequate food , education, safety or healthcare.
I'm trying not to cynically compare the Gates Foundation to the Clinton Foundation or the Trump Foundation right now.
I think it's more about power (and ego) than a fear of scarcity. Bill Gates will never be poor even if Warren's plans would pass into law someday. He knows this; he's just being a twit because he doesn't want to be taxed like the rich used to be, and he's throwing a hissy fit. He's probably so used to not feeling any unexpected pressure in his life at all that he doesn't know how to react, more than actually feeling threatened by a lot more taxation. How dare we target billionaires?! It hurts his pride, which is perverse and sad that he and his billionaire friends feel that way. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's really scared about being poor under Warren's America fully realized, the more I think about it.It's a stunning revelation about power / the basic human fear of scarcity that Bill fuckin' Gates is worried that he could be taxed to a point where he doesn't have enough money.
If I gave 10 dollars to homeless person today I have probably given more as a ratio of my worth to charity then he has ¯\_(ツ)_/¯I respect his honesty. And I respect what he has done as a philanthropist even more.
He has done more good than anyone here criticizing him could ever dream of from behind their keyboard of courage. Spreading his wealth on the lot of you would be a waste.
Oh wellBill and Melinda gates foundation will not exist.
From his point of view, of course, he will be against it.
That anyone ever bought into this bunkum about Gates' supposed altruism is indication enough how this country could have ever elected someone like Donald Trump to the presidency. Led like lambs right to the slaughter.We are witnessing the unraveling of one of the great pretensions of our age. All along, we were told that these billionaires really cared about equality and justice above all. Bill Gates was trotted out as the example of choice when others behaved more dubiously.
If I gave 10 dollars to homeless person today I have probably given more as a ratio of my worth to charity then he has ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
He literally said he was joking right after the 100 billion taxes, but everyone is cutting that out of of their tweets and images
They're not comparable. There are organizations that vet charities like Charity Navigator. They don't have The Gates of Trump Foundation, because they're private, but you can freely read about the Clinton FoundationI'm trying not to cynically compare the Gates Foundation to the Clinton Foundation or the Trump Foundation right now.
Later on he goes on about how he intentionally tries to stay out of publicly speaking on politics. He brings up lobbying and how he doesn't engage in that even though he might be tempted to. He later talks about accidentally signal boosting people just by vague association (when asked about Epstein)
No, don't you get it? He should vote for what resetera thinks he should vote for. You must be new here.
Like he literally talks about how we use to have an upper end 70% taxation rate and says rich people should pay more taxes!