this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
721 points (96.5% liked)

Science Memes

9347 readers
1566 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
721
Malaria (fedia.io)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 118 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

I consider Gates to be "better" than most billionaires, but, I recognize that he's still a billionaire, and as such, his philanthropic endeavors are as much about him having wealth and maintaining his wealth as they are about him being a "good person".

Let me explain: it's a tax write off. Basically, billionaires often donate to charity, not because they're particularly giving, but because it reduces their taxes. They basically take the money they would otherwise pay in tax, and instead pay it to a charity that then does whatever they do with it.

By establishing a charity for himself, he can personally pay his charity the money that would otherwise go to tax, then as the charity, dictate where those funds are spent. Instead of giving the money to someone else to do with as they will, he basically pays himself, so he can dictate what happens with his money.

In turn, he pays little to no taxes, and only has to ensure the money circles around his charity somehow. That may be in the form of paying himself (or others) as a function of running the charity, or sending the money to places and people who he believes can benefit from it (or indirectly, benefit him).

It becomes a large circle jerk of money that otherwise would have gone to the government for taxes.

EDIT: before this gets any worse: he's not making money with tax write-offs. That's literally impossible. The point is to control where your money goes. Here's an example. In situation A, bill, the individual, wants a thing to happen.... Say, it's research into a new form of energy. So Bill takes $1000 from his gross income and pays someone to research that thing to make it a reality. At the end of the year, bill gets a knock on the door, it's the tax man, looking for his cut off the $1000 bill earned. His cut is 30% or $300. Now let's move to situation B. Bill wants the thing to happen, but Bill owns a charity. So Bill donates the money to his charity and gets a tax write off for it in the form of a receipt that he can submit later. As a representative of the charity, bill then pays that $1000 to people to make the thing. At the end of the year, the tax man comes calling for his $300 of bills income. Instead, bill hands the tax collector the receipt for the charitable donation he made with the $1000 of income. The tax man accepts it and leaves with nothing.

The charity is a tax shelter so that bill has more money available to spend on the things he wants to have happen. So more of his money can go towards those things without being taxed.

I hope that clears it up a bit. Jesus, there's a lot of people here that don't understand tax write-offs. There's more that simply don't understand me, or have literacy issues, and assume far too much about what I'm saying here. Yikes.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I’m convinced no one on Lemmy or Reddit knows what a tax break actually is or that YOU DON’T MAKE MONEY FROM THEM!

[–] HauntedCupcake 40 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The above post seemed to be saying that:

  1. Bill Gates pays less taxes as he donates to a charity

  2. Bill Gates runs that charity

  3. Bill Gates then gets to decide how that charity spends his donated money

This then means that he can use what should have been tax to:

  1. Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity

  2. Lobby politicians using the charity's money

  3. Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests

Which part are you disagreeing with? I guess he doesn't "make money" in the strictest sense, but it sure seems like he's exploiting the system to keep more of it

[–] Serinus 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity

Why does Bill Gates earn nothing through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Lobby politicians using the charity’s money

A 501(c)(3) organization is subject to heightened restrictions on lobbying activities, A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. Lobbying may not constitute a “substantial part” of the activities of the 501(c)(3) organization. ^[source]

Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests

I guess you can argue that eliminating malaria is in his best interests, but it's pretty reaching. I guess nobody should do anything good if it might indirectly benefit themselves.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Issue is if he's paying himself with the charity's money he'd have to pay tax on that, and if he wrote that off with a donation and paid himself again then it'd reset the loop - there's no loophole there, literally, as it'd be an endless closed loop of transferring money.

Given the best interests of the US government are destabilising other countries and supporting unfair healthcare companies, and given what is known about Bill Gates' charity spending I think a higher proportion actually goes to the betterment of society than would if it went to the US government

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

The part where he "gets to keep more of it."

$1 in charitable contributions does not lower your tax burden by $1, and certainly not more than $1.

If that dollar would have been taxed as capital gains, assuming 20% capital gains and 3.8% NII tax, it saves 23.8 cents meaning the $1 donation costs 76.2 cents.

If that dollar would have been taxed as normal income, assuming a marginal tax rate of 37%, it saves 37 cents meaning the $1 donation costs 63 cents.

(These two examples are not intended to be an exhaustive list.)

Charitable contributions cost money, just not as much money as they would if there wasn't a tax deduction.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

I've come to the same conclusion. Every time there's a corporation or billionaire either scrapping something or giving something away, then it's "for the tax breaks".

[–] druidjaidan 34 points 4 months ago (2 children)

None of that makes sense with how taxes actually work. For every $1 donated to charity, the maximum you're getting back is 0.37 from the tax deduction. That's assuming you're in the max tax bracket. The higher your tax bracket, the cheaper it is to give to charity, but it's never better than keeping the money yourself.

There are games that can be played with charitable donations, but cash to a foundation is not really the way. The real games are played around with hard to value assets like art/jewelry where massively inflated values and weird lease terms can lead to some really questionable outcomes. For example "loaning" art to a museum and writing off the "rent" after having it appraised for some insane value.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Telodzrum 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bill’s income is near zero, his personal tax burden is probably less than yours. This charitable giving isn’t offsetting his tax liability; it’s a hobby.

[–] Anticorp 14 points 4 months ago

I suppose if you mean traditional income, but he gets tens of billions of dollars per year in capital gains. I remember a few years ago he said "sure, I paid three billion dollars in taxes last year, but I should have paid more". I read about ten years ago that he donated $10 billion dollars to charity and his net worth still went up $9 billion. His financial holdings are so enormous that his net worth still increases regardless of giving away ridiculous sums of money. I remember Chris Rock talking about Gates a couple decades ago and he said "you can't get rid of that much money. You can't give it away fast enough to lose it", and that's a pretty accurate statement.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Let you explain? That's literally not how taxes work. Who falls for this shit?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The number of people who don't understand the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit is too damn high.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sunbytes 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You're not wrong.

Check out the Behind the Bastards episodes on him to see how his charitable efforts often end up more destructive than not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unphazed 13 points 4 months ago

Just listened to Behind the Bastards on Gates... Gates Foundation is all about drumming up capitalism in other countries. Worth a listen I assure you.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 72 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You should see what he released on Epstein's island

[–] [email protected] 101 points 4 months ago (7 children)

We joke, but Epstein masqueraded as a wealthy investor/entrepreneur for like two or three decades before he was caught, so him merely having some one's contact written down doesn't mean much. In fact, Bill Gates has never been shown to have visited the island at any point, and Epstein was very invested in the Gates Foundation charity work such as loaning his plane for high profile individuals to fly to charity sites across Africa.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The fact that Melinda immediately filed for divorce after the news came out is pretty damning to me.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

While I thought the same at the time, since then I've adopted a more nuanced view. My guess is that she was planning to divorce him for a while and just used an opportune moment to actually do it. Some rumors that can be explained away are not something that would end a healthy marriage.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

Some rumors that can be explained away are not something that would end a healthy marriage.

I agree. My theory is he came clean with her, because he assumed it was going to come out anyway, and that what he told her was really bad.

[–] Leeker 17 points 4 months ago

I always thought it was more to do with the fact that their youngest son had just turned 18. So he was probably moving out of the house to college. There is a big culture here in the US to "stick it out for the kids until they move out" mentality. So I just thought that is what they were doing.

[–] Hnazant 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thought it was because his office behavior was sus.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago

"There's no reason only consenting adults should have the experience."

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I hate mosquitos. All my homies hate mosquitos.

[–] madcaesar 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Mosquitos, flies, roaches. I could do with them all gone.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You probably couldn't as the ecosystem is linking into each other

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd take 1 global apocalypse for having all those suckers die. Thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge 9 points 4 months ago (7 children)

One of the reasons mosquito populations are out of control is that we've killed off a lot of their predators. No mosquito anywhere is a keystone species, and you would only need to wipe out the vector species. Other, less harmful species of mosquito would fill in nicely with less competition.

At least, that's the theory. Previous theories included introducing mosquitofish to eat the larvae, but that backfired because the moquitofish are aggressive and don't eat as many mosquitos as local predators driven off by the mosquitofish.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] madcaesar 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I don't know man... So many species died out naturally and unnaturally and things moved along. I'd guess wager we can do without them 😝

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He also held on to that COVID vaccine

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (8 children)

He fucking did! Why the downvotes? He personally lobbied governments to make sure nobody released the patents to allow cheap vaccinations in developing countries

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Gates got a bunch of defenders for some reason

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›