Bezos 'criticised' for not giving away his fortune?

[UTH]

From this news article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63619512

Am I wrong in questioning why on earth he was criticised for not promising to donate his fortune to charity? Now don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that his level of fortune is utterly ridiculous, and of COURSE it would be a great thing to do, to donate lots/all of it etc.

BUT.....I don't see why it should be a given that anyone should donate their fortune, regardless of how ridiculously huge that fortune is. So why should he be getting criticised for not promising to do it?
Surely he has every right to spend it on private jets, super yachts, mega houses in every country you can imagine and so on if that's what he wants to do?

Or am I missing something? Is there a reason why people like him HAVE to commit to giving it all away otherwise they go to hell?

[T6 vanman]

Controversial thought .... Maybe he (his companies) could pay some of the tax he's avoided / used efficiencies to reduce

[Electro1980]

Because it is part of the fundamental social agreement in the US. It’s stupid, but a lot of the countries services are run on philanthropy. It’s a bit like the tipping culture. To the rest of the world it seems bizarre, but in the US not doing it is heavily frowned upon, and there is huge social pressure to conform.

[bigandclever]

You have to dig a little deeper .. he was criticised for not signing the Giving Pledge. Which is emphatically not the same as 'I'm not giving my money away to no-one'.

Amusingly (or not) Sam Bankman-Fried signed it this year and look where he is now

[UTH]

Electro1980 said:

Because it is part of the fundamental social agreement in the US. It’s stupid, but a lot of the countries services are run on philanthropy. It’s a bit like the tipping culture. To the rest of the world it seems bizarre, but in the US not doing it is heavily frowned upon, and there is huge social pressure to conform.

Really? Did not know this. So actually earning a fortune in the US because you want to live a rockstar lifestyle with the cars, planes etc is always going to be massively frowned upon because you should be giving it all away? Sod that! haha

[J4CKO]

UTH said:

From this news article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63619512

Am I wrong in questioning why on earth he was criticised for not promising to donate his fortune to charity? Now don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that his level of fortune is utterly ridiculous, and of COURSE it would be a great thing to do, to donate lots/all of it etc.

BUT.....I don't see why it should be a given that anyone should donate their fortune, regardless of how ridiculously huge that fortune is. So why should he be getting criticised for not promising to do it?
Surely he has every right to spend it on private jets, super yachts, mega houses in every country you can imagine and so on if that's what he wants to do?

Or am I missing something? Is there a reason why people like him HAVE to commit to giving it all away otherwise they go to hell?

He doesn't have to, he should want to use it for the greater good though.

It's an utterly unfathomable amount of wealth that even when you buy multiple massive homes, as many Yachts as you think you need and a fleet of private planes, it still wouldn't make much of a dent.

Money only scales to a point for an individual, as one average sized human there is only so much stuff you can use, you then get into duplicating things or there is always someone there to sell you a more expensive version, but they run out of ideas as to how to make things more expensive so its usually a case of covering it in glue and rolling it in diamonds.

Jeff Bezos is getting on for sixty, more years behind than in front, and you cant buy any more time, he will die and his wealth will be passed on.

I think beyond the first few million it goes from having money to having more than some other billionaire, it buys power and influence and I think the personality types driven and ruthless enough to make that much money arent generally always the most altruistic.

I suppose as well, its in stock not like he has 110 billion in dollar bills, so maybe not that easy to pass on without losing control of his company or whatever.

[alabbasi]

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said that the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money?

[boyse7en]

Electro1980 said:

Because it is part of the fundamental social agreement in the US. It’s stupid, but a lot of the countries services are run on philanthropy. It’s a bit like the tipping culture. To the rest of the world it seems bizarre, but in the US not doing it is heavily frowned upon, and there is huge social pressure to conform.

It used to be a major part of British way of life too. All those public parks, poor houses, hospitals, concert halls etc built during the Victorian era are often from the donation of a wealthy industrialist, landowner or trader.
Altruism was seen as being part of high society.

[Electro1980]

UTH said:

Electro1980 said:

Because it is part of the fundamental social agreement in the US. It’s stupid, but a lot of the countries services are run on philanthropy. It’s a bit like the tipping culture. To the rest of the world it seems bizarre, but in the US not doing it is heavily frowned upon, and there is huge social pressure to conform.

Really? Did not know this. So actually earning a fortune in the US because you want to live a rockstar lifestyle with the cars, planes etc is always going to be massively frowned upon because you should be giving it all away? Sod that! haha

No, the lifestyle is perfectly acceptable in the US, but you have to be seen to give away some of it. As much as anything the ability to give away is a status symbol. That’s why their big universities are so rich.

[ZedLeg]

Billionaires in general shouldn't exist, Bezos included. His wealth is built on vicious exploitation.

[Randy Winkman]

alabbasi said:

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said that the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money?

Eh?

I'm with J4cko. Bezos has so much money he cant really run of it no matter how much he spends. Hence the suggestion of giving it away.

[UTH]

Randy Winkman said:

alabbasi said:

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said that the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money?

Eh?

I'm with J4cko. Bezos has so much money he cant really run of it no matter how much he spends. Hence the suggestion of giving it away.

And I do agree, to an extent, but I do take issue with someone being criticised for not immediately pledging to give it all away. His money, do what he wants with it really.

[ntiz]

Electro1980 said:

No, the lifestyle is perfectly acceptable in the US, but you have to be seen to give away some of it. As much as anything the ability to give away is a status symbol. That’s why their big universities are so rich.

Yep there are some customs that seem strange to Brits but pretty normal in the USA.

For instance my best mate donates to both our boarding school and Harvard. It’s not as charitable as it seems though it has tax implications and it’s no coincidence that his parents and all his cousins went to Harvard. Being a billionaire, a legacy and donors pretty much guarantees entrance regardless of academic suit ability.

But it’s normal thing to do. Many of my friends that went to the USA do similar.

[otolith]

ZedLeg said:

Billionaires in general shouldn't exist, Bezos included. His wealth is built on vicious exploitation.

His wealth is built upon viciously providing consumers with what they wanted.

[2xChevrons]

UTH said:

Electro1980 said:

Because it is part of the fundamental social agreement in the US. It’s stupid, but a lot of the countries services are run on philanthropy. It’s a bit like the tipping culture. To the rest of the world it seems bizarre, but in the US not doing it is heavily frowned upon, and there is huge social pressure to conform.

Really? Did not know this. So actually earning a fortune in the US because you want to live a rockstar lifestyle with the cars, planes etc is always going to be massively frowned upon because you should be giving it all away? Sod that! haha

In the 1950s the top personal tax rate in the USA was over 90% - in theory you had to give 90 cents in every dollar you earned over a certain amount to the government. But there were numerous, entirely honest and official ways you could avoid that, which included donating to charities (which ran - and still do run - many of the 'public' services in the US, especially on the welfare side of things), funding charitable foundations, putting it in government bonds, paying it to your local city or county at a lower rate and so on and so on.

There was a similar arrangement for corporation tax - it wasn't as high, but it was what seems like an eye-wateringly high figure compared to what it is today. But again it only applied to net profits and those could be reduced by the company ploughing it back into R&D, modernisation, new fixed assets, higher pay for employees etc.

The attitude was very much "you can make as much money as you like, but if you don't spent it or invest in a way that benefits the society that helped you become that rich, we're going to rinse it out of you and spend it ourselves."

That was the American 'social contract' for much of the 20th century (not at all coincidentally also the period of the biggest growth in broad-based prosperity, opportunity and rising living standards...). Now they've largely kept the "you can make as much money as you like" bit but have taken away the "we're going to rinse it out of you and spend it ourselves" option and replaced it with some peeved tutting and harshly-written blogs.

otolith said:

His wealth is built upon viciously providing consumers with what they wanted.

But not his employees (re: wages, working rights, union representation). Or the governments of the nations his company operates in (re: tax payment, environmental regulations, competition laws).

[otolith]

2xChevrons said:

otolith said:

His wealth is built upon viciously providing consumers with what they wanted.

But not his employees (re: wages, working rights, union representation). Or the governments of the nations his company operates in (re: tax payment, environmental regulations, competition laws).

I am very much of the opinion that corporations cannot be expected to behave altruistically, and it is the responsibility of the societies within which they operate to set the ground rules. If, in a democracy, corporations are allowed to not pay tax and to treat employees badly within the law, that is the fault of that society. Individuals are perfectly within their rights to decline to do business with corporations which behave in ways they do not approve of, both as consumers and as employees.

[Electro1980]

otolith said:

I am very much of the opinion that corporations cannot be expected to behave altruistically, and it is the responsibility of the societies within which they operate to set the ground rules. If, in a democracy, corporations are allowed to not pay tax and to treat employees badly within the law, that is the fault of that society. Individuals are perfectly within their rights to decline to do business with corporations which behave in ways they do not approve of, both as consumers and as employees.

Which completely ignores the imbalance of power involved.

[otolith]

Electro1980 said:

Which completely ignores the imbalance of power involved.

What, between the state and corporations?

[pork911]

ZedLeg said:

Billionaires in general shouldn't exist, Bezos included. His wealth is built on vicious exploitation.

and your's isn't?

[Electro1980]

otolith said:

What, between the state and corporations?

Far less imbalance between large corporations and the state than between large corps and employees.