Bill Gates - the modern day Robin Hood?

stuie said:
silvia said:
Do you have the absolut truth to decide if my assumptions are correct or incrrect?

Undisputed fact: No other person has ever given as much to charity as Mr. Gates.

Therefore your assumptions are incorrect.

Can we have the percentage exact of his personal fortune he is giving the charity?
Cos if you say he is giving the 50%, or the 75% I would say I was partially wrong.
If you say he is giving a 10% then I think you should say you were wrong :D


And stuie, you don't have an idea of where my assumptions come from or what am I or what I do in life (second time I said this to you) so don't be that absolutist with me, pleaes :roll:
 
OK I have some figures for you- sorry they are not completely up to date, but some of our books in the office need to be re-ordered.

In September 2003 Bill Gates personal wealth was an estimated $46 billion.

In the 18 months leading up to July 2000 he gave $20.8 billion to charity. I don't have the figures for what he has given away since then.
 
Bill Gates’s Money

Whatever the fallout from the federal antitrust suit, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will be one Gates institution left standing.

Where the Money Goes

$1 billion over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students through college and some kinds of graduate school.
$750 million over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.
$350 million over three years to teachers, administrators, school districts and schools to improve America’s K-12 education, starting in Washington State.
$200 million to the Gates Library Program, which is wiring public libraries in America’s poorest communities in an effort to close the “digital divide.”
$100 million to the Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, which will accelerate delivery of lifesaving vaccines to children in the poorest countries of the world.
$50 million to the Maternal Mortality Reduction Program, run by the Columbia University School of Public Health.
$50 million to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, to conduct research on promising candidates for a malaria vaccine.
$50 million to an international group called the Alliance for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.
$50 million to a fund for global polio eradication, led by the World Health Organization, Unicef, Rotary International and the U.N. Foundation.
$40 million to the International Vaccine Institute, a research program based in Seoul, South Korea.
$28 million to Unicef for the elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus.
$25 million to the Sequella Global Tuberculosis Foundation.
$25 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which is creating coalitions of research scientists, pharmaceutical companies and governments in developing countries to look for a safe, effective, widely accessible vaccine against AIDS.

One of the ways in which the very rich are different from you and me is that they become public property.

Just about everyone has an opinion about Bill Gates’s business tactics, products, motives, character, house—and about what he should be doing with his immense fortune.

Before he began giving money away, people complained that he was a miser. Now that he is giving money away, they complain that he’s doing it too late, that he isn’t giving enough, that he hasn’t a clue about what he’s getting into, that the projects he is financing are too conservative, too liberal, too big, too small, too safe, too risky, too conventional, too splashy.

Or they say he’s only doing it to avoid taxes, or to expand Microsoft’s markets, or, especially, to improve his image in light of the government’s high-profile antitrust suit.

“Bill Gates can’t win,” says Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation and a longtime adviser to Gates on the subject of philanthropy.

“It’s like 19th-century anti-Semitism. If the Jews didn’t mix into German society, people said they had a parochial, shtetl mentality. If they did mix, people said they were trying to pass. More important than why he’s doing this is what he’s doing. The proof will be in the pudding.”

In January, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation edged past Britain’s Wellcome Trust to become the largest in the world, with assets of $21.8 billion. Even the greatest philanthropists of the past did not give away as much in real dollars over their entire lifetimes as Gates has at the age of 44.

Gates has always said that, like Carnegie, he will give away most of his fortune before he dies. He plans to make sure his children are well taken care of but doesn’t want to leave them the burden of tremendous wealth.
 
silvia said:
And stuie, you don't have an idea of where my assumptions come from or what am I or what I do in life (second time I said this to you) so don't be that absolutist with me, pleaes :roll:

And for the second time I'm not talking about what you do in life or what you are, I'm talking about Bill Gates and you quite clearly are wrong ;)
 
stuie said:
silvia said:
And stuie, you don't have an idea of where my assumptions come from or what am I or what I do in life (second time I said this to you) so don't be that absolutist with me, pleaes :roll:

And for the second time I'm not talking about what you do in life or what you are, I'm talking about Bill Gates and you quite clearly are wrong ;)


Yes, I'm partially wrong, and I don't have any problem to say it in public that he is giving half of his fortune so it's a big man.



And yes, you were talking about me and the way I see things and I repeat don't talk to me that absolutist, you sound like and old nun :D


And why the way, you didn't answered me when I asked if I give half of my money but I don't make it public will I be worst than your hero?
 
Haven't time to read this from start to finish right now, but first quick scan would suggest that offence was taken where none was meant early in this thread? Looks like the reasonable debate was thwarted from there?
 
silvia said:
And yes, you were talking about me and the way I see things and I repeat don't talk to me that absolutist, you sound like and old nun :D

I told you your assumptions were incorrect. That has nothing to do with who you are/what you do etc etc. I was telling you a fact, your assumptions were/are incorrect.

silvia said:
And why the way, you didn't answered me when I asked if I give half of my money but I don't make it public will I be worst than your hero?

You can give half your money in private, no problem. How can a charity foundation with assests of over $20 BILLION operate in private?

Also on top of what his foundation does he may well give privately aswell, he may well of made a donation to the DEC for the Tsunami... we don't know that.
 
stuie said:
silvia said:
And yes, you were talking about me and the way I see things and I repeat don't talk to me that absolutist, you sound like and old nun :D

I told you your assumptions were incorrect. That has nothing to do with who you are/what you do etc etc. I was telling you a fact, your assumptions were/are incorrect.

silvia said:
And why the way, you didn't answered me when I asked if I give half of my money but I don't make it public will I be worst than your hero?

You can give half your money in private, no problem. How can a charity foundation with assests of over $20 BILLION operate in private?

Also on top of what his foundation does he may well give privately aswell, he may well of made a donation to the DEC for the Tsunami... we don't know that.


Stuie...

Scoobie made clear that fundations can't be private and all that but I wonder, how many dirty rich people is giving loads of money to charity fundations with no impact in the media. That's my point of view.

And I think we are not going to agree on it
 
Re: i think....

silvia said:
I'm sorry Funkyhousekitten, but I don't think it's fair to call ridiculous other people just cos they think different than you.
Just to clarify i wasnt calling someone ridiculous it's MY OPINION that the one-sided view is ridiculous.
If he doent agree then he can just ignore it, its nothing personal. :)
Each to there own and all that. :D
 
I'm with Sil - apparently it was that bastard Gates who shipped all the olives out of Ibiza last season. :evil:
 
Buckley said:
I'm with Sil - apparently it was that bastard Gates who shipped all the olives out of Ibiza last season. :evil:


Buckley, You've been talking about olives for the last 6 months and I still don't understand what's wrong with the olives.
 
silvia said:
Stuie...

Scoobie made clear that fundations can't be private and all that but I wonder, how many dirty rich people is giving loads of money to charity with no impact in the media. That's my point of view.

And I think we are not going to agree on it

You could not make a single $1 BILLION dollar donation to a charity without it becoming public knowledge so I am sure you couldn't spend $20 BILLION + anonymously.

But we'll never know because no one has ever given as much as him.

Foundations also spend the money where they see the need for it, rather than giving to a charity/charities which can not administer it.

And Silvia, i know we're not going to agree on this but it's obvious from P1 of this thread that you weren't changing your mind about him being an unethical business man and nothing else.
 
stuie said:
And Silvia, i know we're not going to agree on this but it's obvious from P1 of this thread that you weren't changing your mind about him being an unethical business man and nothing else.

1. When I got the numbers I agreed I was wrong.
2. He is giving loads of money but he is not ethical in business, and as we say in spanish, one thing doesn't exempt from the other.
3. I keep thinking that legal publicy on donations doesn't mean media publicy.
 
He's just the pertfect example of the American dream really isnt he. You might argue he's the most perfect Amercian ever for all he's done based on American values and beliefs.
 
silvia said:
1. When I got the numbers I agreed I was wrong.
2. He is giving loads of money but he is not ethical in business, and as we say in spanish, one thing doesn't exempt from the other.
3. I keep thinking that legal publicy on donations doesn't mean media publicy.

round and round and round and round.

i have to get off this roundabout now Silvia.

nice debating with you, everythings been covered, he is the devils child and Mac Os is way better that Windows so his charitable donations don't count for anything.
 
To be honest Stuie, I recognised I was wrong, but I think I could still have my opinions and at the moment nobody has demonstrate he is the most ethical business man in the world, so probably you are also a bit narrowminded (also= I can be narrow minded).

And who talked about Mac Os? :roll:
 
Back
Top