By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Jeff Bezos is set to become the world’s first TRILLIONAIRE in 2026.
Even if you believe the mantra that he deserves that wealth because he works hard and started from scratch (he didn’t) can you understand how much good that kind of wealth could do for the planet but is instead just languishing? What can a single Human being do with $1,000,000,000,000?
Completely agree, Bazza. Obscene wealth has become even more obscene in these difficult times. Whilst always trying to look for a positive do you or anybody else know if he is at least a part of the philanthropist group (Gates Foundation)?!
Completely agree, Bazza. Obscene wealth has become even more obscene in these difficult times. Whilst always trying to look for a positive do you or anybody else know if he is at least a part of the philanthropist group (Gates Foundation)?!
He has his own foundations, but bear in mind that relative to his wealth it’s fúck all. Also, because of the charitable status, in many countries he pays less tax.
He has his own foundations, but bear in mind that relative to his wealth it’s fúck all. Also, because of the charitable status, in many countries he pays less tax.
OK. So I'm sticking to my silver lining. He does something. He redistributes his wealth to (presumably) notable causes when the easiest thing would be to do nothing. He could do more. But then we could all do more. The worst thing possible, as I'm sure you'll agree, would be to do nothing.
Again, to clarify his worth (on paper) is obscene as is the case for an ever-increasing list of people but I'll always at least recognise and appreciate those that put something back.
OK. So I'm sticking to my silver lining. He does something. He redistributes his wealth to (presumably) notable causes when the easiest thing would be to do nothing. He could do more. But then we could all do more. The worst thing possible, as I'm sure you'll agree, would be to do nothing.
Again, to clarify his worth (on paper) is obscene as is the case for an ever-increasing list of people but I'll always at least recognise and appreciate those that put something back.
He probably puts less back as a % than you do, and it’s no good paying Charity if you are creating more poverty than you are solving.
FWIW Bazza he doesn't put less back than me as a percentage. These days I don't have a pot to piss in so unfortunately I don't make any donations. When I had money, I used to contribute to Make A Wish and Childline on a monthly basis and ran the 2000 London Marathon raising a lot for Childline but I just don't have that luxury these days (of being able to run 42km and/or having sufficient funds to contribute anything!).
I just don't think that you should tar every billionaire with the same brush. It's too easy and takes no real thought. Look at the amount of money that the Gates foundation has raised.
Again, just to clarify, their amount of wealth is obscene. Nobody, absolutely nobody, needs that amount of money but there's nothing to stop these people accumulating that wealth, unfortunately, but I'll at least admire those that choose to give some of it back to society and/or the less fortunate,.
FWIW Bazza he doesn't put less back than me as a percentage. These days I don't have a pot to piss in so unfortunately I don't make any donations. When I had money, I used to contribute to Make A Wish and Childline on a monthly basis and ran the 2000 London Marathon raising a lot for Childline but I just don't have that luxury these days (of being able to run 42km and/or having sufficient funds to contribute anything!).
I just don't think that you should tar every billionaire with the same brush. It's too easy and takes no real thought. Look at the amount of money that the Gates foundation has raised.
Again, just to clarify, their amount of wealth is obscene. Nobody, absolutely nobody, needs that amount of money but there's nothing to stop these people accumulating that wealth, unfortunately, but I'll at least admire those that choose to give some of it back to society and/or the less fortunate,.
Brilliantly put. Gates has been phenomenal. I posted Chuck feeney. All done anonymously. Nobody knew what he bequeathed until he died.
Philanthropy. Hmmmmm. I have mixed views - it can also be anti-democratic and an exercise in power. However, if i had money and wanted to redistribute, i wouldn't trust the government not to misuse it for it's own ends. Oh well, not a problem i really need to worry about. There shouldn't be billionaires, let alone trillionaires. What is it now, 68 people own as much as 50% of the worlds population combined? Fvcking mad species. I'm going out for a walk and a deep, green levelling.
Brilliantly put. Gates has been phenomenal. I posted Chuck feeney. All done anonymously. Nobody knew what he bequeathed until he died.
Personally I don't really think billionaires and trillionaires should have such a say in which charitable organisations get money and which don't. It risks less sexy groups not getting anything at all. Does it benefit humanity overall for Cornell University to be given a billion dollars while other organisations get nothing? The taxation system, while flawed, is a much fairer distributor of funds than billionaires. So we should not be allowing the global markets to take tax dollars from countries which really need it by tax loopholes so they can pay it in cheaper jurisdictions. It doesn't matter that the billionaires that benefit from this give to charities, because they will not necessarily spend their charity dollars in all the countries which have lost out in taxation.
While I agree that it shows that personally they are decent human beings, we should not concentrate power and decision-making in such a small group of individuals. I don't believe in total redistribution of wealth. Capitalism seems the least bad system. But the last few decades have been lurching too far in the favour of the super-rich to the detriment of everyone else. You just have to look at the multiples of salaries comparing the lowest wage-earner in the company to the company boss. A few decades ago, from memory it was a twelve-fold difference. Now it's several hundred in FTSE 100 companies.
Personally I don't really think billionaires and trillionaires should have such a say in which charitable organisations get money and which don't. It risks less sexy groups not getting anything at all. Does it benefit humanity overall for Cornell University to be given a billion dollars while other organisations get nothing? The taxation system, while flawed, is a much fairer distributor of funds than billionaires. So we should not be allowing the global markets to take tax dollars from countries which really need it by tax loopholes so they can pay it in cheaper jurisdictions. It doesn't matter that the billionaires that benefit from this give to charities, because they will not necessarily spend their charity dollars in all the countries which have lost out in taxation.
While I agree that it shows that personally they are decent human beings, we should not concentrate power and decision-making in such a small group of individuals. I don't believe in total redistribution of wealth. Capitalism seems the least bad system. But the last few decades have been lurching too far in the favour of the super-rich to the detriment of everyone else. You just have to look at the multiples of salaries comparing the lowest wage-earner in the company to the company boss. A few decades ago, from memory it was a twelve-fold difference. Now it's several hundred in FTSE 100 companies.
yeah, we risk going back to victorian ways and 'the deserving poor'.
I’ve always wondered why he never sent a benchmark with Amazon paying good wages with great benefits and be a real shining light.
My theory, and it’s just that, that setting a precedent would jeopardize a few too many other institutions into looking bad and affecting profits. A warped eco system of sorts.
The amount of empty Amazon boxes out on recycling day is huge. Sadly a lot don’t care as long as they get there stuff. Views were mixed here when Amazon were considering Baltimore for a big investment. Talk about the City sucking up to a company with such a bad reputation regarding being an employer. Wall mart tried to come into the city but had too much opposition from the locals.
Personally I don't really think billionaires and trillionaires should have such a say in which charitable organisations get money and which don't. It risks less sexy groups not getting anything at all. Does it benefit humanity overall for Cornell University to be given a billion dollars while other organisations get nothing? The taxation system, while flawed, is a much fairer distributor of funds than billionaires. So we should not be allowing the global markets to take tax dollars from countries which really need it by tax loopholes so they can pay it in cheaper jurisdictions. It doesn't matter that the billionaires that benefit from this give to charities, because they will not necessarily spend their charity dollars in all the countries which have lost out in taxation.
While I agree that it shows that personally they are decent human beings, we should not concentrate power and decision-making in such a small group of individuals. I don't believe in total redistribution of wealth. Capitalism seems the least bad system. But the last few decades have been lurching too far in the favour of the super-rich to the detriment of everyone else. You just have to look at the multiples of salaries comparing the lowest wage-earner in the company to the company boss. A few decades ago, from memory it was a twelve-fold difference. Now it's several hundred in FTSE 100 companies.
Exactly.
Charity is a failure of state. Can’t agree with Capitalism being the least worse option though.
@BazzaInTheLoft 'What can a single Human being do with $1,000,000,000,000?'
In my opinion, that is the wrong question. The real question is where does that wealth come from?
@distortR 'There shouldn't be billionaires, let alone trillionaires.'
But why are there billionaires and trillionaires?
@distortR 'What is it now, 68 people own as much as 50% of the worlds population combined? Fvcking mad species.'
The current situation is not an expression of the nature of our species, but of our social system.
On charity, Wilde pointed out its absurdity over a century ago:
'It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.'
'The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it.'
Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism, (1891)
@BazzaInTheLoft 'What can a single Human being do with $1,000,000,000,000?'
In my opinion, that is the wrong question. The real question is where does that wealth come from?
@distortR 'There shouldn't be billionaires, let alone trillionaires.'
But why are there billionaires and trillionaires?
@distortR 'What is it now, 68 people own as much as 50% of the worlds population combined? Fvcking mad species.'
The current situation is not an expression of the nature of our species, but of our social system.
On charity, Wilde pointed out its absurdity over a century ago:
'It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.'
'The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it.'
Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism, (1891)
All very much a different time and the amounts of money are distorted by time and inflation, but Andrew Carnegie made huge contributions to education and libraries in this country after he became one of the richest man in the world. He even started a pension fund for teachers.
Carnegie once said, “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” While he didn’t exactly die a billionaire, giving away massive swathes of his wealth to more than 3,500 public libraries, the Carnegie net worth at his richest was valued in today’s dollars between $300 and $372 billion.
All very much a different time and the amounts of money are distorted by time and inflation, but Andrew Carnegie made huge contributions to education and libraries in this country after he became one of the richest man in the world. He even started a pension fund for teachers.
Carnegie once said, “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” While he didn’t exactly die a billionaire, giving away massive swathes of his wealth to more than 3,500 public libraries, the Carnegie net worth at his richest was valued in today’s dollars between $300 and $372 billion.
Many of the greatest philanthropists are American, look at what bill gates foundation is doing, in the last 30 years new cases of polio have gone from 40 per hour, to around 40 per year, it’s been eradicated from all but 3 countries of the world.
Warren Buffett when he dies will have given more than 99% of all the money he has ever earned to charitable causes.
What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first."
If he divided his wealth equally between the worlds population we’d all be £125 better off.
Hardly life changing is it?
Not sure anyone’s calling for Bezos to directly transfer money to them. If they paid a sensible amount of tax in the countries where they realistically generate revenue (I.e. Dave in Swansea buying a book on Amazon that’s then delivered from a warehouse down the road) rather than via a poxy office in Luxembourg or somewhere, then (a) UK retailers that do pay their taxes wouldn’t be hugely disadvantaged/driven out of business, and we’d have more revenue to pay for the public services and infrastructure in the countries in which they actually generate their huge profits.
I can’t see holding that much wealth as anything other than a badge of dishonour. It should be a source of embarrassment. And bunging £50m here and there at your own discretion doesn’t change that in my eyes. People with extraordinary wealth should pay their fuc king taxes and not spend a fortune employing specialists to exploit loopholes/play the system on such an epic scale.
Not for us but for a huge percentage of the world population it would probably be exactly that.
True, I was being partly flippant, just making the point that equality of distribution isn’t the answer.
Unless handouts/redistribution, call it what you will, is rigidly organised it invariably goes to waste. African countries regularly make the point that our charitable approach to that continent was quite often counter productive.
Humanitarian charities are invariably the go to, feel good, easy option for the wealthy. In essence, a trillion pounds of wealth could provide investment of £200,000 for 5 million actual businesses. Surely a far better way forward for the poorest countries, would be investment in business, providing jobs and tax income, rather than giveaways via charitable contributions.
Of course that’s the capitalists answer, not sure what sustainable answers are coming from the left other than the usual ‘take the bastard down’ option.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
