Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:37 am
by Leisher
Claims to be fighting poverty and does so with other people's money, yet he's worth $48 billion and makes a lot of his money on a company that goes to great lengths to shelter profit from taxes.
One of my pet peeves is the ultra rich telling "common folk" to pay more in taxes and give more in charity while they clutch to their money for dear life.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:47 am
by Malcolm
I refuse to hear a discussion for higher taxes until government corruption has the hammer brought down on it. But that'd require them to regulate themselves properly ... because the citizens sure as fuck aren't doing it.
As of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation.
1) Yeah. Other people's money.
2) The government routinely pisses away $28B. I dare them to do 1/10th of Bill's charitable organization's work with double that amount.
Edited By Malcolm on 1409068178
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:47 pm
by Leisher
As the article points out, his foundation does a lot of campaigning for taxpayer money to be spent on poverty solutions. It's not like his foundation is cutting checks everywhere.
Also, it's been pointed out in the past that he and his wife run and own the foundation. It's THEIR foundation. So don't be too impressed with the $28 billion figure until it's spent.
And keep in mind, he still has $48 billion, which is growing each year. If he's so concerned with poverty, he could do more than just talk about it.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:33 pm
by TheCatt
The company has a legal obligation to its shareholders (all of them, not just Bill) to do everything it can to minimize taxes and maximize return to shareholders.
I have no issue with his behavior. Stupid article based on the headline, didnt read more.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:50 pm
by Leisher
The company has a legal obligation to its shareholders (all of them, not just Bill) to do everything it can to minimize taxes and maximize return to shareholders.
Does the legal obligation permit them to commit illegal or unethical behavior? Just curious where you land on that, although feel free to separate them. I think it's unfair to group those two distinctions.
I have no issue with his behavior.
I do, but only because I think he's full of shit.
Plus, nobody with that much money should have hair that bad.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:04 pm
by Malcolm
Does the legal obligation permit them to commit illegal or unethical behavior?
Illegal? No. That costs too much probably and illegal biz tends to get taxed to the tune of 100% (if they're caught ... unless they're connected). Unethical? Fair game, so long as it's cheaper in the long term.
Edited By Malcolm on 1409076289
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:19 pm
by Troy
Catt dropping fiduciary duty in a Bill Gates thread. I love.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:35 pm
by TheCatt
I love some fiduciary duty, yo.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:58 pm
by GORDON
Get a room.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:46 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:The company has a legal obligation to its shareholders (all of them, not just Bill) to do everything it can to minimize taxes and maximize return to shareholders.
Does the legal obligation permit them to commit illegal or unethical behavior? Just curious where you land on that, although feel free to separate them. I think it's unfair to group those two distinctions.
I have no issue with his behavior.
I do, but only because I think he's full of shit.
Plus, nobody with that much money should have hair that bad.
illegal: No, unless the cost of the illegal behavior < than the benefits. 
unethical: sure.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:56 pm
by Leisher
It's not good that we're blowing off unethical like it's a minor inconvenience.
Meanwhile, Bill and whatever the name is of the chick that married him just gave $1 million from their foundation towards gun control.
So yeah, "fighting poverty"...
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:27 pm
by Malcolm
It's not good that we're blowing off unethical like it's a minor inconvenience.
Exactly which set of ethics are we playing by? These? These? Something else?
Edited By Malcolm on 1409092077
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:45 pm
by GORDON
Leisher wrote:It's not good that we're blowing off unethical like it's a minor inconvenience.
Yeah... the problem with making ethics mandatory is that somewhere you will have a person or committee deciding what is ethical, and more likely than not this person will be insane, or dishonest as fuck.
Insane = sharia law.
Dishonest = the republicans and democrats making money hand over fist creating legislation that favors their campaign contributors.
Either one will destroy a society.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:26 pm
by Malcolm
Insane = sharia law.
Sharia law reminds us why tradition needs to be obliterated. Absolutely sucks for the people living under it unwillingly. I'd be rebelling or dead in such a place.
Dishonest = the republicans and democrats making money hand over fist creating legislation that favors their campaign contributors.
New idea to keep them honest:
1) Set a threshold, we'll say a greater than 50% disapproval rating and less than a 50% approval rating. Any voter can update this status daily on some website or through some app.
2) Any legislator at the federal or state level is subject to reelection every single time the threshold is reached, no limit. Booting occurs after X number of times. Not sure. Thinking three sounds right, in honour of the dumb-ass "Three Strikes" laws.
That ought to make it im-fucking-possible to focus on reelection. You're burying yourself the more you don't do your job.
Edited By Malcolm on 1409110207
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:54 am
by Leisher
Yeah... the problem with making ethics mandatory is that somewhere you will have a person or committee deciding what is ethical, and more likely than not this person will be insane, or dishonest as fuck.
I never said anything about making them mandatory.
I see ethics as less than something the law makes you do, but more something you make yourself do like holding onto garbage and throwing it away when you get home instead of tossing it out your car window.
I also don't consider any part of Sharia law to be ethics based. That's a bad example. To those that follow it, those are the law. (It's right there in the name.)
Ethics can be discussed, and should always be flexible.
At the end of the day, it's about doing what's right. Should every company based in the U.S. and who makes a majority of their profits in the U.S. be doing things to hurt the U.S. economy? Are you really serving your stockholders when you take shortcuts to boost your bottom line by a pinch, while hurting the overall economy of where they live? (And please understand, I'm pretending here that the U.S. government is competent and isn't wasting those tax dollars.)
I think everyone on these forums don't want additional laws, and in fact, want fewer laws, wouldn't encouraging more ethical behavior from both people and corporations serve that goal?
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:41 am
by Malcolm
Ethics ... should always be flexible.
What? You want ethics, except when you decide to flex them enough to bend over backwards?
...but more something you make yourself do like holding onto garbage and throwing it away when you get home instead of tossing it out your car window.
Still the law. Ethics might be what makes you recycle instead of tossing aluminum cans. As I've said before, "ethics" is pretty much what you can wake up and live with the next morning.
Edited By Malcolm on 1409147106
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:26 am
by Leisher
Malcolm wrote:Ethics ... should always be flexible.
What? You want ethics, except when you decide to flex them enough to bend over backwards?
...but more something you make yourself do like holding onto garbage and throwing it away when you get home instead of tossing it out your car window.
Still the law.
No. You're trying to take things too literally to fit your stance.
Who gives a shit if there's a law about throwing a gum wrapper out a window? Apparently nobody. I've cleaned up the side of roads for years with two different companies, and people throw out everything. And yeah, ethics would apply to whether or not you should be ignoring laws.
A guy recently ordered a comic book and was shipped Amazing Fantasy #15 by mistake. He immediately contacted them to correct the error. Ethics.
And of course they have to be flexible. Not so you can bend them for your own gain...interesting that's where you go first...but because society and our knowledge of the world is constantly changing. That means our behavior may need to change along with it.
Do we really need to have a debate at this level? Seriously? That's how nit picky we've become? It's like fucking Congress around here. Law or not, we should expect a certain level of behavior from people and corporations. That behavior shouldn't be: "Who gives a fuck! Me! Me! Me!"
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:51 am
by Malcolm
Law or not, we should expect a certain level of behavior from people and corporations.
Civilization has spent the last few thousands years arguing about that "certain level." Nitpicky indeed.
He immediately contacted them to correct the error. Ethics.
I wonder where his ethics would have gone if he needed to sell that fucker to cover a debt somewhere. It's a fuckload easier to be "ethical" with a comparatively comfier existence.
Edited By Malcolm on 1409154774
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:37 pm
by Leisher
Civilization has spent the last few thousands years arguing about that "certain level." Nitpicky indeed.
Yep, and that's why it needs to be flexible.
Nobody said this shit was easy.
I wonder where his ethics would have gone if he needed to sell that fucker to cover a debt somewhere. It's a fuckload easier to be "ethical" with a comparatively comfier existence.
Who cares? Look at it for what actually occurred instead of what could have been if only the guy's life was a bit shittier.
Besides, the original point of this was about a company that makes billions in profits annually, so I think they're doing ok too.
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:09 pm
by Malcolm
Yep, and that's why it needs to be flexible.
Nobody said this shit was easy.
Ethos is like religion minus the supernatural shit. If someone wants theirs to be as inflexible and completely lack adaptation, so be it. The only practical one I've seen is from Bruce Lee. "Be like water."