Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away.

It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million.

In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.

Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either:

(a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or

(b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down.

Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US Government is a more effective way to generate positive impact in the world than personal charitable donations.

If I could pay my taxes to Bill Gates I would – my tax dollars would be used to eradicate polio or malaria, rather than on bureaucracy and starting wars.

You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.

Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. That's dangerous territory.

I'm not saying I have a better idea, I don't, but democracy has been the driving force behind some pretty heinous stuff over the centuries (most obviously the resistance to equality of race, gay rights and universal suffrage). It's just less terrible than the alternatives that exist in the world today (e.g. dictatorship).

At least in giving your money to a Buffett, a Gates or a Feeney you have some evidence that they intend to put it to good use.

> Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is.

Only insofar as you're getting into a debate about how morally right it is _compared to billionaires and/or corporations spending the same money_.

I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option

(c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.

As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.

Yes. I'm far less worried about government == inefficient (I've learned too much about AI and the genetic algorithm to have faith in human-based optimization strategies, and this is one reason I'm enthusiastic about population-based optimization along Basic Income lines) but possibly even more offended by the logic that specifically billionaires will allocate wealth better.

I feel like the very existence of billionaires demonstrates that they are a self-selecting pool of abusers and/or criminals running exploits that place their interests above the system they're in. Even the idea of 'the wealthy allocate money better' is ridiculous. Towards what, themselves? It's like saying cancer allocates body resources better, because cancer can get into a position where it conclusively 'wins'.

(d) I believe 1 person will spend $1bn much better than 100m will spent $10.

But you've got to aggregate a) over all the billionaires, not just the ones giving. We're not comparing Bill Gates to the US Govt for impact per dollar, we're comparing all US billionaires vs the US Govt.

You are forgetting or ignoring the damage to society caused by multi-generation accumulation of wealth and the consolidation of power that arises from that. These were the primary concerns when the founding fathers were debating estate tax..

If you give more money to the government, doesn’t that implicitly mean you are giving/donating about 15% of that money to the military industrial complex?

Then vote for officials who wont put that money into the military industrial complex.

If you live in a real democratic country, then you have no excuse. YOU* chose that government.

* obviously a generalization, but in the end enough people chose that outcome.

Billionaires act against the interest of the working class more than they act in favor of it. That's how they became billionaires.

Billionaireness is profoundly extractive by definition. Leave class out of it and billionaires inherently benefit themselves against any and every system they are in, and that's including other billionaires (they're exceedingly competitive).

That means that billionaires also act against the interests of the donor class as a matter of course. If they were not the very definition of unaccountable power, you wouldn't see anybody defending them or their typical behaviors.

That is quite a short sighted and funny evaluation.

It is so benignly restricted since it excludes the possibility of charity and government funding can have a positive impact. Instead it is some fight against good and evil.

I don't know what it has to do with Christianity, but you are free to visit a church, maybe they can tell you something about the gospel you linked.

One could argue that there is probably some correlation between great wealth and good judgement about the effective use of money.

In that regard, perhaps it’s good to have social intervention performed by a mixture of democratic and individualistic entities. Perhaps one will address things that the other might miss.

I find some of the arguments in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio... rather compelling.

> Two of the billionaires whose philanthropy I most respect, Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, have done a lot of work on criminal justice reform. The organizations they fund determined that many innocent people are languishing in jail for months because they don’t have enough money to pay bail; others are pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because they have to get out of jail in time to get to work or care for their children, even if it gives them a criminal record. They funded a short-term effort to help these people afford bail, and a long-term effort to reform the bail system. One of the charities they donate to, The Bronx Freedom Fund, found that 92% of suspects without bail assistance will plead guilty and get a criminal record. But if given enough bail assistance to make it to trial, over half would have all charges dropped. This is exactly the kind of fighting-mass-incarceration and stopping-the-cycle-of-poverty work everyone says we need, and it works really well.

> If Moskovitz and Tuna’s money instead flowed to the government, would it accomplish the same goal in some kind of more democratic, more publically-guided way? No. It would go to locking these people up, paying for more prosecutors to trick them into pleading guilty, more prison guards to abuse and harass them. The government already spends $100 billion – seven times Tuna and Moskovitz’s combined fortunes – on maintaining the carceral state each year. This utterly dwarfs any trickle of money it spends on undoing the harms of the carceral state, even supposing such a trickle exists.

Many other examples are provided.

How do you know what the Walton's and Koch's are doing with their wealth? Perhaps they are doing the same thing as Feeny but without the fanfare. I think they are. Are you singling them out because of political differences?

Waltons and Kochs actually give a lot. I am very close to an organization that receives money from both of their foundations. They do have a political agenda with much or their giving but in certain areas it could be considered apolitical.

It is impressive that he and his wife cleaned themselves out and live frugally.

> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters.

I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of money.

Now Feeney certainly has had more of an impact, and that's great, but he had that impact because he was fortunate enough to have billions of dollars to give away in the first place. Being lucky is not a valid reason to be praised, I think.

Indeed I don't think Feeney wants to be praised: he just wants to be rid of his wealth in a meaningful way.

Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it.

Maximizing positive impact should be the goal.

Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

> Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

We have to assume that in the given scenario the other person needed it more and nobody else was stepping up.

> Why praise sacrifice at all?

You don't even have to praise the concept of sacrificing in general to praise caring enough to help those less fortunate even when helping has a cost. The alternative is for nobody to help except those for whom money no longer has any meaning, ie billionaires, and I don't see Jeff Bezos building homes for the homeless.

> Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal.

The first sentence is false. Donation is zero-sum in absolute dollar terms, no money is gained or lost, but money _does_ have diminishing utility to the individual, so the raised person can gain more than the lowered person loses. So a person can sacrifice AND maximize positive impact.

For what it's worth, I think the right approach is to eat the billionaires instead of waiting for the person with $25 to sacrifice even further for the person with $5. Clearly eating all of the billionaires would maximize positive impact.

This is a very utilitarian view, and it’s only considering the economic aspect at that. I’m not trying to argue that you’re wrong—I just want to suggest that there are other ways of looking at sacrifice that lead to the opposite conclusion.

Giving to help someone worse-off than you—ideally—engenders a feeling of gratitude and humility that makes our society a better place. Experiencing a greater sense of gratitude can help more than just money: gratitude helps one keep a positive mental outlook and can carry one through difficult times.

As a man of faith myself, I believe in divine blessings—both during and after this life—for sacrifice and generosity. That’s not my motivation for doing good, but I do believe that sacrifice does make a better community and a happier individual.

Now, as for the limit case of being utterly destitute (e.g. $25 to their name), a wise man once said “it is not requisite that you run faster than you have strength”—looking after yourself is noble, provided you continue to do what you can.

I don’t see how sacrifice and suffering is necessary tied to charity, gratitude, humility and brotherhood.

Sacrifice can be a demonstration of love and caring, but is the latter that is important. Sacrifice is just evidence. Would you agree?

Some people see risk and sacrifice of the self as the foundation of heroism.

A fire code inspector might save more lives than a fire fighter, but nobody sells calendars of sexy fire code inspectors, or hands out medals for bravely insisting that tower block's staircase have a sprinkler system fitted.

Of course, an Effective Altruist / utilitarian would say who cares about feelings and medals? After all, altruism by definition isn't seeking medals.

I agree that sacrifice can be evidence of love and compassion. I would go a step further and argue that sacrifice is requisite for these things, especially in their highest forms.

Sacrifice exposes what is important to a person—both to external observers as well as the individual in question. A marital relationship—for example—requires immense sacrifice on both spouses’ sides for it to work out. Without sacrifice, affection wanes.

I don’t think sacrifice necessarily equals suffering. Sometimes it can. But based on my experience, when the sacrifice is made willingly and for a good cause, it serves more as a source of joy that I can get outside myself and aid someone in need.

Now, waisted or senseless sacrifice—yes, that doesn’t make much sense. I see a distinction between the two, but that could just be me. Does that make sense?

> Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it.

What? How? If you see this extremely locally, like the community being, your country, sure, but I don't think that's apply when you consider the community has being the whole world.

> Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

Does it though? We see this as a first world country, where even for the one starving a bit, still get a life much better than a good proportion of the world. That means that keeping that 25$ will help you surely, but would serve much better a few others, if given correctly.

I guess HN is probably a place where disproportionate ego exist in a higher percentage than anywhere else, that many believe that they are the 10x programmer which is worth more than everyone else, but I'm a firm believer that given the same opportunity as me, anyone else could have done the same as me, thus helping many reach the same opportunities as me, will help more than helping myself.

Sadly I'm still a bit selfish and still want a better life for myself. I still do self sacrifice, but it's extremely local.

As we are trying to judge someone's character or morality I would consider it along the lines of - if that poor person were in Feeney's shoes would they have done the same? If Feeney were in that poor persons shoes would he have done the same?

The forces on a wealthy person giving up almost all of his wealth are also pretty great, but in a different way, when compared to a poor person doing the same.

As #1 in the original list implies, it may be most important to be lifted out of poverty as this is what creates fulfilling civilisation. So one might argue that the poor person should invest what little money they have into their own future first, in a way which will improve their lot, as this will give them the opportunity to help many others (like Feeney did).

Bill Gates' sacrifice includes the years of hard work, perseverance and self realization which produced the money.

Also stealing CP/M.

Time whitewashes everything. Bill Gates has spent many years doing good work as a philanthropist. I'm not sure this undoes the fact that much of his gain was from blatant cloning, ruthless abuse of monopoly, and substandard products.

I am very happy he donated all that money, and I greatly respect him for doing it without calling too much attention to himself, especially compared to others.

But it says a whole lot about Forbes that having at least $2M -- and I'm betting maybe a small apartment and a modest car and possibly even health insurance -- counts as "officially broke" in America.

Well he lost 98%+ of his wealth, that could be considered as going broke in relative terms.

Not just Christian, but other religions and philosophy as well. Utilitarianism isn't necessarily the default and is easy to subvert for selfishness. "See, really, me getting as rich as possible is justified because someday I'll be able to use this to solve some abstract problem I've decided is the REAL issue that needs to be solved..."

As long as you convince yourself that the returns to compound interest are higher than the returns to charity at any one point, it's easy to justify just pushing off your donation time to sometime arbitrarily far in the future, and high luxuries can be justified as "self-care" that enhance your own productivity or whatever. Utilitarianism can too easily become perverted to just being self-serving.

Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.

Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.

Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".

He did not start with everything.

In what way does he still have everything? It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income in my state. That’s a long walk from everything in my book.

> It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income

Oh come on. He's 89 years old and has millions of dollars still. How long do you expect him to live? "Sustainably generating" a median household income in perpetuity is an interesting bar to set. You're aware that most of the country doesn't have any savings at all, yeah? That the current median _at_retirement_age_ savings for the US is around 150K? That he's still getting an actual income from social security payments because why not?

My challenge was to your hyperbolic claim that he "still has everything" and an insinuation that that makes giving away $8 billion (with a B) over his lifetime not as impressive because he didn't give away the last 0.025% of his wealth.

That he's getting payments from Social Security after a lifetime of contributions to Social Security is also of no concern to me (I view it as the overwhelming default and entirely proper).