30 American billionaires to give at least half their fortunes to charity

Biggins

30 American billionaires today pledged to give away at least half their fortunes to charity

More than 30 American billionaires today pledged to give away at least half their fortunes to charity as part of a major philanthropy campaign launched by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Mr Gates and Mr Buffett, who have already committed more than $60 billion to fund initiatives mainly focused on global health, launched a “giving pledge” earlier this year to encourage fellow billionaries to commit their wealth to worthy causes.

Signatories to the campaign include Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, the film director George Lucas, Barry Diller, the entertainment executive, media mogul Ted Turner, T. Boone Pickens, the energy billionaire and the co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison.
Letters of intent signed by the 34 billionaires show that much of the money — already worth at least $100 billion — will be channelled towards improving health and education, in America and abroad.

Some fortunes are committed to single causes — such as that of the businessman John Huntsman, who sets out his plan to give all his money to cancer research — while others cover a range of initiatives and innovations such as in education, energy research and social enterprise.

Full story: http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg

Amazing stuff.. Fair feks to them!

ejmaztec

Reminder: Must get 30 stamps.

minidazzler

Faith in Humanity kinda returning!

I gotta go watch 1 man 1 jar so I can lose that faith again

Also, Damn communists! :mad:

Doyler92

I heard somewhere before that if the 10 richest people donated a certain % of their wealth, there would be no more poverty in the world.

I think it could be true but how would that work? Like where is the poor/not poor line?

MagicMarker

WTF? There's nothing here for me to complain about!

MrStuffins

That's a hell of a lot of Big Issues!

Biggins

ejmaztec wrote: »

Reminder: Must get 30 stamps.

You better get 40 then. The article later continues:

Other tycoons on the list include David Rockefeller, investor Ronald Perelman, Jeff Skoll and Pierre and Pam Omidyar, who founded eBay, and Thomas Monaghan, the former owner of Domino’s Pizza.

The billionaires join the property and construction billionaire Eli Broad, the venture capitalist John Doerr, media entrepreneur Gerry Lenfest and former Cisco Systems Chairman John Morgridge who have already committed to giving away most of their wealth.

The 40 billionaires on the list now represent 10 per cent of the total in America. With a total of 403, the country is home to the largest number of billionaires in the world.

aDeener

its amazing to think that such an amount of money will improve very little in the grand scheme of things. still fair play to the men!

who what when

Doyler92 wrote: »

I heard somewhere before that if the 10 richest people donated a certain % of their wealth, there would be no more poverty in the world.

I think it could be true but how would that work? Like where is the poor/not poor line?

How that wealth is distributed is nearly more important than the act of giving it!!

alwaysadub

Fair balls to them. Wonder would they throw a bit of it my way too :pac:

starbelgrade

The fact that charities for the likes of cancer research or children's hospitals even exist, means that society has failed to look after it's most vunerable.

In many cases, this is because those who can afford to pay the most towards funding them, do not do so.

Philantrophy is a misnomer... "guilt assuasion" would be a more suitable term for this.

Saila

Guily conscience much

MrStuffins

I hope they can find it in their hearts to give Alison O'Riordan a dig out!

God knows one can only make their own coffee for so long!

Ah Jesus Christ.. This is brilliant. No need to put a sour twist on it.

orourkeda

minidazzler wrote: »

Faith in Humanity kinda returning!

I gotta go watch 1 man 1 jar so I can lose that faith again

Also, Damn communists! :mad:

2 girls 1 cup will restore it again

Biggins

Saila wrote: »

Guily conscience much

I'd say the bottle is always half empty with you rather than half full - huh? :pac:

minidazzler

starbelgrade wrote: »

The fact that charities for the likes of cancer research or children's hospitals even exist, means that society has failed to look after it's most vunerable.

In many cases, this is because those who can afford to pay the most towards funding them, do not do so.

Philantrophy is a misnomer... "guilt assuasion" would be a more suitable term for this.

Saila wrote: »

Guily conscience much

These guys could give a billion and have no guilty conscience, it's ALOT of money, but no, they choose to give several billion, more money than is comprehendable really. They aren't guilty of anything, they are in a capitalist economy and happen to be smart enough to capitalise. Jealousy gets you nowhere.

starbelgrade

Biggins wrote: »

I'd say the bottle is always half empty with you rather than half full - huh? :pac:

The bottle is usually more than half empty because some people have drank more than their fair share of it.

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

The bottle is usually more than half empty because some people have drank more than their fair share of it.

It's all a scale though no?

You criticise those with wealth from the comfort of your nicely centrally warmed home. You have enough money left over after eating and ensuring you are alive to pay for the luxury of a computer and a monthly internet subscription.

You think your "share" is as fair as those who are starving to death?

areu4real?

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah Jesus Christ.. This is brilliant. No need to put a sour twist on it.

Was just about to say this. No matter what way you look at it, this act of generosity is great. Wether they want to alleviate the guilt, reduce a tax bill, get publicity, etc. it is still a load of funding going to people who need and deserve it.
Think I'll start a thread bashing the Irish about begrudgery? Oh wait, found it......

*and by the way, the glass is not half empty/half full. It is just too big

Terry

MagicMarker wrote: »

WTF? There's nothing here for me to complain about!

You could bring up Bono.
There are bound to be plenty of people asking why he doesn't give some of his multi-trillions to charity, when he's always asking them to personally give away their money.
Have you net seen the ads on the telly where he tells the Irish people that they need to give their money to charity?
Get with the times, dude. Giving out about Bono on a charity thread makes you cool.

Biggins

Many, many people give away huge amounts of money they are earning (or have earned already) and still folk find something to bitch about within their first responding posts towards the givers.
Unreal and sad!

Its not that hard to say "fair fcuks to them".

Fighting Irish

starbelgrade wrote: »

The fact that charities for the likes of cancer research or children's hospitals even exist, means that society has failed to look after it's most vunerable.

In many cases, this is because those who can afford to pay the most towards funding them, do not do so.

Philantrophy is a misnomer... "guilt assuasion" would be a more suitable term for this.

We are ruining the evolution of the human race by helping the vulnerable, survival of the fittest, it might be cruel but in the long term it's the only way the world can work

Webmonkey

Biggins wrote: »

Many, many people give away huge amounts of money they are earning (or have earned already) and still folk find something to bitch about within their first responding posts towards the givers.
Unreal and sad!

Its not that hard to say "fair fcuks to them".

Exactly. These people worked very hard too to get where they are. I hate those jealous people that just sit back and complain all the time instead of getting off their arse and doing something.

laugh

How do I get these ****ers to give me one little million dollars.

MrStuffins

Fighting Irish wrote: »

We are ruining the evolution of the human race by helping the vulnerable, survival of the fittest, it might be cruel but in the long term it's the only way the world can work

Damn, this is such a horrible thing to say from a human point of view............. yet it makes so much sense from an evolutionary point of view.

Damn you!

MrStuffins

laugh wrote: »

How do I get these ****ers to give me one little million dollars.

You gotta be really poor. So give ME all your stuff and you'll qualify!

areu4real?

Fighting Irish wrote: »

We are ruining the evolution of the human race by helping the vulnerable, survival of the fittest, it might be cruel but in the long term it's the only way the world can work

Or maybe mother nature evolved intelligent life to allow us to look after the weak? We evolved and will continue to evolve according to our surroundings. For example, if I stay in this thread forever I will be immune to bitterness. Life is the most adaptable thing around and it's arrogant to think we will destroy evolution

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

You better get 40 then. The article later continues:

I'll stick to 30, I'm not a greedy beggar.

Tar.Aldarion

I love how all the 0's catch the light

sock puppet

Saila wrote: »

Guily conscience much

What exactly does George Lucas have to be guilty about other than a few films of questionable merit?

Biggins

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'll stick to 30, I'm not a greedy beggar.

Better safe than sorry - do the 40! :pac:
Any surplus - you can give to boards.ie

Tar.Aldarion

I thought he meant to thank them at first

mikom

sock puppet wrote: »

What exactly does George Lucas have to be guilty about other than a few films of questionable merit?

A fat neck.

Fighting Irish

areu4real? wrote: »

Or maybe mother nature evolved intelligent life to allow us to look after the weak? We evolved and will continue to evolve according to our surroundings. For example, if I stay in this thread forever I will be immune to bitterness. Life is the most adaptable thing around and it's arrogant to think we will destroy evolution

I have a disability so i shouldn't think the way i do, but i can't help it. The world only works because of "survival of the fittest"


edit: Unless you're religious?

ballsymchugh

where's run 2 da hills?? this is bound to be a conspiracy by the new world order and the zionist movement to do something. not sure what that something is other than make many, many unfortunate people more comfortable, but it's something!

Kasabian

What are they at. Do they have some plan to warp the global economy . Who is going to control where this money is going to end up. Is it going to end up funding some dictator in some arsehole country in the 3rd world.

If so how will we get rid of Cowen.

starbelgrade

Fighting Irish wrote: »

We are ruining the evolution of the human race by helping the vulnerable, survival of the fittest, it might be cruel but in the long term it's the only way the world can work

Survival of the fittest is one thing, but in a world where medical advancements, treatments & cures can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, what you are talking about is the survival of those with the fattest wallets.

And being rich doesn't mean that you have a fitter mind or body, just that you have more money, either through endeavour, good fortune, inheritance, or by illegal means.

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's all a scale though no?

You criticise those with wealth from the comfort of your nicely centrally warmed home. You have enough money left over after eating and ensuring you are alive to pay for the luxury of a computer and a monthly internet subscription.

You think your "share" is as fair as those who are starving to death?

There is no-one starving to death in Europe because I happen to have central heating & an internet connection. That is a ridiculous comparison.

I can only imagine that the starvation you speak of is in Africa. One of the main problems that Africa has is the intervention of charities & interference from the 1st World.

It is no surprise that as development aid from the west to Africa has increased, dependency, corruption, poor governance, poverty & starvation have increased. All that foreign aid has achieved is to help perpetuate the cycle of poverty and hinder economic growth in Africa.

minidazzler wrote: »

These guys could give a billion and have no guilty conscience, it's ALOT of money, but no, they choose to give several billion, more money than is comprehendable really. They aren't guilty of anything, they are in a capitalist economy and happen to be smart enough to capitalise. Jealousy gets you nowhere.

Capitalism has many virtues, but also has many pitfalls. It's main pitfall is that it is often unrestrained to such an extent to that it is allowed to ignore it's social responsibilities & in doing so, it creates social alienation, economic inequality, unemployment, and economic instability.

Fortunately in democratic Europe, the extremes of capitalism are reigned in to a certain extent & the extremes that it can create are lessened to some extent, but not so the case in authoritarian states such as The People's Republic of China.

When a handful people who are allowed to create so much wealth for themselves, that handing out a few billion here & there is seen as a virtuous thing, meanwhile hospitals & schoold lack proper funding - there is something inherintly wrong.

This is not jealousy, this is just common sense.

Fighting Irish

starbelgrade wrote: »

Survival of the fittest is one thing, but in a world where medical advancements, treatments & cures can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, what you are talking about is the survival of those with the fattest wallets.

And being rich doesn't mean that you have a fitter mind or body, just that you have more money, either through endeavour, good fortune, inheritance, or by illegal means.

I agree with what you are saying here but that doesn't change the fact that we are ****ing up evolution(survival of the fittest) by helping people with "problems"

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

There is no-one starving to death in Europe because I happen to have central heating & an internet connection. That is a ridiculous comparison.

Thats not an answer. You said some people have had more than their fair share.

Do you think your share is fair compared to others? Do you think your share is the same as those who ARE starving in Europe, Africa and elsewhere?

If that is the case, why aren't you doing something about it? Surely you could use your extra share to help others?

Kasabian

2012 is looking ever more likely . A bunch of men who have spent their lives making money , for some enough to run countries and feed everyone on the planet, are suddenly feeling compelled to give half of it away.

Something is going on , they are keeping half so they are hedging their bets , Smells like 50 / 50 on the world ending.





* Thank fcuk it's payday tomorrow.

MagicMarker

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying here but that doesn't change the fact that we are ****ing up evolution(survival of the fittest) by helping people with "problems"

I didn't realize evolution now applied to people's finances?

In that case, you're fúcking up evolution by wearing the clothes that you do, eating the neatly packaged food that you buy, the house that you live in, the tv that you watch.

Get the fúck out there into the wild and we'll see how survival of the fittest really works.

starbelgrade

MrStuffins wrote: »

Thats not an answer. You said some people have had more than their fair share.

Do you think your share is fair compared to others? Do you think your share is the same as those who ARE starving in Europe, Africa and elsewhere?

If that is the case, why aren't you doing something about it? Surely you could use your extra share to help others?

I've already answered your question.

MrStuffins

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying here but that doesn't change the fact that we are ****ing up evolution(survival of the fittest) by helping people with "problems"

In fairness though, human civilisation is ruining evolution!

starbelgrade

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying here but that doesn't change the fact that we are ****ing up evolution(survival of the fittest) by helping people with "problems"

As a species, man is constantly evolving. You might consider that "f*cking up evolution", but witjout it, we'd still be living in caves & hunting for food.

Personally, I like to think that it is progress that I can live in a comfortable house with food in the fridge & an internet connection, so I can debate such things!

Donkey Oaty

So, have I got this right: some posters think that rich guys giving some (or actually a lot) of their money way to charidee is a bad thing?

starbelgrade

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

So, have I got this right: some posters think that rich guys giving some (or actually a lot) of their money way to charidee is a bad thing?

No.

The argument is that charities shouldn't have to exist & when they do, for the most they do more harm than good, in the guise of being a "good thing".

Fighting Irish

starbelgrade wrote: »

As a species, man is constantly evolving. You might consider that "f*cking up evolution", but witjout it, we'd still be living in caves & hunting for food.

Personally, I like to think that it is progress that I can live in a comfortable house with food in the fridge & an internet connection, so I can debate such things!

You are looking at the evolution of the world, not the evolution of man

Donkey Oaty

starbelgrade wrote: »

No.

The argument is that charities shouldn't have to exist & when they do, for the most they do more harm than good, in the guise of being a "good thing".

So, "charity" is bad - i.e, anything that isn't a "government organisation" or "commercial organisation" is bad?

MrStuffins

starbelgrade wrote: »

I've already answered your question.

No you haven't. It's easy for you to criticise those who give to those less fortunate than them, while you do nothing of the sort and blame those factor which you, conveniently, can't control.

What about the ones you can control?