Warren Buffet/Bill Gates= generous Americans

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

Also, shouldn't a conservative be suspicious of charity generally? If handouts given by the welfare state encourage dependency and sloth, why should handouts by individual philantrophists have the same effect? Remember, it isn't worth saving the destitute if a bunch of spongers can thereby profit.

Because if I as an individual or a private charity find someone squandering a gift, perhaps buying liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, I can just stop giving. If the government tries to stop giving, they face charges of unfairness, racism, sexism, etc.

Also, if you are given a gift by an individual that you see as making a voluntary sacrifice to give you that gift, you are more likely to be grateful and not waste it than if this money came as part of some large, impersonal, government handout.

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
it's also worth pointing out that while Gates and Buffett are giving a large portion of their fortunes away to charity- they are deliberately not giving it to their children. Unlike Bush and the GOP, who want to repeal the estate tax (inheritance tax) permanently, Buffett says the estate tax protects America's meritocracy.

wonder where George would be these days if his last name was Smith?

The estate tax is schedule to return in 2011, Buffett could have allowed half his $30 billion to go to the US government. He could have just sent it to them without waiting for an estate tax even.

Apparently he supports the estate tax, but for some reason doesn't think it is a wise place for his fortune to go.

Who knows where George would be if his last name were Smith. I wonder where you and I would be if our last names were Axmed and Abdi-Aziz and we were born in Somalia.

Originally posted by rwingett
Warren Buffett should be sent to the guillotine. A 30 billion dollar bribe does not exonerate his guilt.

You seem to be mocking someone, but I can't figure out who.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, has bequeathed 30 billion dollars to Bill and Melinda Gates' charitable foundation to equal a total of 60 billion dollars, the equivalent of the GNPs of Kuwait and Bahrain put together. For the past couple of years, especially when the tsunami hit the East Indies, all I heard from you Euro-twats wa even in islamofascist countries like Iran or Pakistan.....

So, eat crow peckerwoods!!!

Here's a related article regarding American generosity.

by Bruce Bartlett
Jan. 3, 2005
NCPA.org
The other day, a United Nations official accused the U.S. of being "stingy" in terms of aid to tsunami victims in South Asia.
After criticism from the State Department, the official clarified his position. Americans aren't being stingy in helping tsunami victims, only stingy in terms of overall foreign aid compared with other countries.
This is a familiar attack. It comes up annually when the foreign aid appropriations bill is before Congress. But let's look at the facts.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003 the world's major countries gave $108.5 billion in foreign aid. Of this, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion, or 35% of the total. The next largest giver was the Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.
The claim of stinginess, however, comes from a different calculation -- foreign aid as a share of national income.
In 2003, U.S. foreign aid came to just 0.34%, well below the world-leading Dutch at 2.44%. Other big givers were Ireland (1.83% ), Norway (1.49% ) and Switzerland (1.09% ). The U.S. would have to triple its aid just to reach the lowest of these contributors.
The first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002 the Netherlands spent just 1.6% of its GDP on defense. Norway spent 2.1%, Switzerland spent 1.1% and Ireland a piddling 0.7%.
By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4% -- and this was before the Iraq war. It's easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country basically defends you for free.
Another thing one notices is that the foreign aid data are only for "official" (i.e., government) aid. The data are sketchy, but by all accounts Americans are far more generous in terms of charitable contributions than the citizens of any other country.
A 1991 study found the U.K. gave the second largest percentage of private charity. But in 2003, charitable giving totaled 8.6 billion pounds, or 0.8% of GDP, in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, vs. $241 billion, or 2.2% of GDP, in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.
Even this estimate of American charity is low because it counts only cash and not volunteer work. According to the Independent Sector, in 2003 Americans contributed $266 billion worth of their time to charitable enterprises.
This is based on a value of $17.12 per hour. Even if one uses the minimum wage, this noncash giving comes to about $100 billion.
In the area of international aid, the official data also exclude private transfers, such as remittances by foreign workers in the U.S.
According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances to Latin America alone totaled $38 billion in 2003 -- a sum greater than all official aid. And $31 billion of that came from the U.S. In some countries, foreign remittances came to more than 10% of GDP, thus having a significant impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Former Agency for International Development official Carol Adelman calculated the total of all private foreign aid in 2000 in a 2003 Foreign Affairs article.
She found private foreign aid greatly exceeded U.S. government aid. Official aid came to $22.6 billion that year. But private aid was $35.1 billion, including $6.6 billion from private voluntary groups, $3.4 billion from churches, $3 billion from foundations and $2.8 from corporations.
Even this understates how much Americans help developing countries, because it excludes private investment and trade. According to the Institute of International Finance, in 2003 Americans invested $124 billion in emerging market economies.
Americans also buy a considerable amount of goods from developing nations. This year, a third of our imports will come from these countries, providing jobs and incomes for millions of poor people.
In short, the stinginess charge is unfounded. The U.S. carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid and much of their investment and income.
It also pays a fourth of the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Is Warren Buffet who gives 30 billion dollars to charity more benevolant than an unemployed single mother who gives a dollar to that same charity?

She would do better to hang on to that dollar and use it to start her own multi billion dollar company, she could then later donate much more.

Originally posted by Wajoma
She would do better to hang on to that dollar and use it to start her own multi billion dollar company, she could then later donate much more.

Yes, and Waren Buffett and Bill Gates would do better to hold onto their money because, with their business skills, they'll have more money in the future to donate to charity. 😞

Originally posted by Wajoma
Just remember that your research is of so little value, people must be MADE to pay for it.

But the research that went into Bill Gates products people willingly purchase. You think that without gummints there'd be no scientific research?...you poor sap (what's the matter, can't make it in the real world)

Yes, we should close down the Universities. That's a great idea. Stop educating people wholesale. Fantastic. Get rid of all the scientific advances that research comes up with.

Man, you are ludicriously short sighted.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, and Waren Buffett and Bill Gates would do better to hold onto their money because, with their business skills, they'll have more money in the future to donate to charity. 😞

Whoah, you've had...like an 'insight' man, how does it feel.

Yes, you are correct, Bill would do better to hold onto his money and use it to create more and better products, the products that help people live longer and better lives.

Hoorah

Originally posted by Wajoma
Whoah, you've had...like an 'insight' man, how does it feel.

Yes, you are correct, Bill would do better to hold onto his money and use it to create more and better products, the products that help people live longer and better lives.

Hoorah

In fact, let's all hold onto our money. Let none of us donate to charity. That way, we'll all be rich!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, we should close down the Universities. That's a great idea. Stop educating people wholesale. Fantastic. Get rid of all the scientific advances that research comes up with.

Man, you are ludicriously short sighted.

Obviously a product of the state education system.

Please point out where I said close down Universities. I'll give you 100 dollars if you can.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
In fact, let's all hold onto our money. Let none of us donate to charity. That way, we'll all be rich!

Enter the ghost of Ayn Rand...