Comments

  • I hope she held a pinky to her mouth as she did
  • When he has given, I've criticized his approach for a lack of rigor and clarity.

    Well that should straighten him out, whoever-you-are, I bet he hasn't slept a wink since then
  • This is Fark. No amount she gives will be good enough. Same goes for what she spent it on.
  • Spoiler: charity is a function of choice, and never manages to solve problems that arise from market failures, because market failure is a function of choice as well.

    /which is we should be taxing the uberwealthy at a much higher rate and allocating funds based on society's interests
    //it's almost as if charity has had thousands of years of human history to create a functional society based on charitable donations
    ///huh. none exist. how odd.
  • AsparagusFTW: This is Fark. No amount she gives will be good enough. Same goes for what she spent it on.


    Open bobs
  • Thats nice but it would probably be better for her to start cutting checks to people instead of having it disappear in some charity "administrative cost".
  • Why Billionaires Won't Save Us | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix
    Youtube mS9CFBlLOcg
  • gameshowhost: Spoiler: charity is a function of choice, and never manages to solve problems that arise from market failures, because market failure is a function of choice as well.

    /which is we should be taxing the uberwealthy at a much higher rate and allocating funds based on society's interests
    //it's almost as if charity has had thousands of years of human history to create a functional society based on charitable donations
    ///huh. none exist. how odd.


    All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    The world is pretty complicated where that society may have existed, however, like the lush forest where the Sahara currently is, the world changes for better or for worse.  Indus valley being another example.  Had cities thousands of years ago with sever systems, and naturally built air conditioning designed into buildings by manipulating wind, excess food.

    Or the Inca having a taxation through labor system that created great public works, infrastructure, and food distribution without currency.  Then everyone dies of disease.

    Usually everyone dies of disease, even in a paradise.
  • Managing money is a full time job bigger than making it. And micro-managing who you give it to is a hundred times more important. Zuckerberg learned this the hard way when he just gave a few million to a NJ school district to improve their schools, classes, etc.... after a few years the money was gone and no renovations were done on the schools, but the school board directors all had fancy new cars.

    You have to earmark that shiat, and ensure it gets spent properly, on the things you want it spent on, and on the people you want to help. Otherwise the money just disappears and suddenly every family member of the administrative staff of the charity you gave it to have brand new houses.

    A lot of rich people -- Bezos especially -- are far too busy to really spend a lot of time on such philanthropic work with the same attention to detail that they run their companies. They aren't greedy, they're just occupied with other things most of the time. That's why they switch to philanthropic endeavors when they retire, once they have the free time.

    Because the world of philanthropy is full of sharks, and there's no bigger mark than a billionaire who doesn't pay enough attention to where his money is going.
  • links136: gameshowhost: Spoiler: charity is a function of choice, and never manages to solve problems that arise from market failures, because market failure is a function of choice as well.

    /which is we should be taxing the uberwealthy at a much higher rate and allocating funds based on society's interests
    //it's almost as if charity has had thousands of years of human history to create a functional society based on charitable donations
    ///huh. none exist. how odd.

    All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    The world is pretty complicated where that society may have existed, however, like the lush forest where the Sahara currently is, the world changes for better or for worse.  Indus valley being another example.  Had cities thousands of years ago with sever systems, and naturally built air conditioning designed into buildings by manipulating wind, excess food.

    Or the Inca having a taxation through labor system that created great public works, infrastructure, and food distribution without currency.  Then everyone dies of disease.

    Usually everyone dies of disease, even in a paradise.


    I'm ... not sure what your point is here?
  • She ain't terrible-looking either. Call me, MacKenzie.
  • Is Scott her maiden name??? God I hope so or all of my meticulously laid plans are for naught. O_o
  • ThatGuyFromTheInternet: She ain't terrible-looking either. Call me, MacKenzie.


    Looks for pictures of her before the work (yes, I'm serious).
  • Having worked in both nonprofit administration and grant making, I can say from experience that it is way more difficult than people realize for a nonprofit to absorb a lot of unexpected money and responsibly spend it in a reasonable amount of time. A nonprofit's output is tied to its number of staff; if a nonprofit wants to do more work, it has to hire more people, and that's a slow process. And as you hire more people, you also have to build support infrastructure for them.

    None of that is to say the money shouldn't be donated, but given the concern that not enough money is being pumped into the system and actively used, if you dump a lot of money into a small organization at once, it will end up sitting in the bank for a long time while the organization figures out how to grow.

    And with $35 billion to spend, a lot of that money would be better spent on direct payments to people, such as paying off medical and court debt.
  • Ishkur: Managing money is a full time job bigger than making it. And micro-managing who you give it to is a hundred times more important. Zuckerberg learned this the hard way when he just gave a few million to a NJ school district to improve their schools, classes, etc.... after a few years the money was gone and no renovations were done on the schools, but the school board directors all had fancy new cars.


    That is a breathtakingly dishonest take on what happened.
  • gameshowhost: Spoiler: charity is a function of choice, and never manages to solve problems that arise from market failures, because market failure is a function of choice as well.

    /which is we should be taxing the uberwealthy at a much higher rate and allocating funds based on society's interests
    //it's almost as if charity has had thousands of years of human history to create a functional society based on charitable donations
    ///huh. none exist. how odd.


    But taxes go to governments which have also been shown to be inefficient failures.  Just hand your money to a homeless person on the street instead.
  • AsparagusFTW: This is Fark. No amount she gives will be good enough. Same goes for what she spent it on.


    Giving away money doesnt really solve the problem of why the wealth gap got so wide in the first place and why Democracy is almost dead.But it does give the giver a warm fuzzy feeling and a tax break.
  • AsparagusFTW: This is Fark. No amount she gives will be good enough. Same goes for what she spent it on.


    Dont give a murcan a fish.Return his government to the people instead of big business and the rich instead.
  • Ishkur: Managing money is a full time job bigger than making it. And micro-managing who you give it to is a hundred times more important. Zuckerberg learned this the hard way when he just gave a few million to a NJ school district to improve their schools, classes, etc.... after a few years the money was gone and no renovations were done on the schools, but the school board directors all had fancy new cars.

    You have to earmark that shiat, and ensure it gets spent properly, on the things you want it spent on, and on the people you want to help. Otherwise the money just disappears and suddenly every family member of the administrative staff of the charity you gave it to have brand new houses.

    A lot of rich people -- Bezos especially -- are far too busy to really spend a lot of time on such philanthropic work with the same attention to detail that they run their companies. They aren't greedy, they're just occupied with other things most of the time. That's why they switch to philanthropic endeavors when they retire, once they have the free time.

    Because the world of philanthropy is full of sharks, and there's no bigger mark than a billionaire who doesn't pay enough attention to where his money is going.


    You still cant see the forest bec the leaves are in the way.
  • The Googles Do Nothing: gameshowhost: Spoiler: charity is a function of choice, and never manages to solve problems that arise from market failures, because market failure is a function of choice as well.

    /which is we should be taxing the uberwealthy at a much higher rate and allocating funds based on society's interests
    //it's almost as if charity has had thousands of years of human history to create a functional society based on charitable donations
    ///huh. none exist. how odd.

    But taxes go to governments which have also been shown to be inefficient failures.  Just hand your money to a homeless person on the street instead.


    Gov owned by big business and the rich is a failure.Get private money out of gov and elections and youll have a successful gov of by and for The People.
  • Sounds like she is doing more than her ex at least. Giving quickly and limiting attached strings(provided you effectively vet target organizations), are both good things.

    I'm all for taxing the wealthy more too - including removing tax deductions for charity because targeted spending shouldn't be immune from paying into society's general funds.
  • It will never be enough, because ti should not be like this in the first place.
    That single people can hold the wealth of entire nations is disgusting and offensive.

    It does not matter what label you hang on them, or if they behave politely or not.
    When we imagine it is ok for whole populations of people, have to toil to  pool the value into other people's private pockets and then hope to carry on subsisting, if those enriched by the labor, will give up some table scraps of charity to the masses.
    That is a pathetic culture unworthy of anyone risking their lives or making peronal sacrifice to help uphold and protect.


    The only news here is that we allow any one of us to basically drive this much of the entire nation's wealth as Dictator masters that no member of the public had any choice in who would have such power over us all.

    That person alone decided who was worthy of need and who was not, without any obligation to do anything more than look into the own make belvei imagination to decide what was the best use of so much resource value, for so many of us.
    That one of us has that much, means in practice our lives are still in the public under heavy sway by a tiny hand full of private, no oath of duty to ALL OF US in the nation, people.
  • PvtStash: It will never be enough, because ti should not be like this in the first place.
    That single people can hold the wealth of entire nations is disgusting and offensive.

    It does not matter what label you hang on them, or if they behave politely or not.
    When we imagine it is ok for whole populations of people, have to toil to  pool the value into other people's private pockets and then hope to carry on subsisting, if those enriched by the labor, will give up some table scraps of charity to the masses.
    That is a pathetic culture unworthy of anyone risking their lives or making peronal sacrifice to help uphold and protect.


    The only news here is that we allow any one of us to basically drive this much of the entire nation's wealth as Dictator masters that no member of the public had any choice in who would have such power over us all.

    That person alone decided who was worthy of need and who was not, without any obligation to do anything more than look into the own make belvei imagination to decide what was the best use of so much resource value, for so many of us.
    That one of us has that much, means in practice our lives are still in the public under heavy sway by a tiny hand full of private, no oath of duty to ALL OF US in the nation, people.


    You do understand that is how it has always been right? It doesnt matter what time or place you pick, in whatever way they have items of value the one with the most of them is always the most powerful
  • OptimisticCynicism: I'm all for taxing the wealthy more too - including removing tax deductions for charity because targeted spending shouldn't be immune from paying into society's general funds.


    Removing the charitable deduction also solves a different issue that we like to pretend doesn't exist: The fact that our government certifies which religions count as religions enough to be tax deductible. It's a blatant violation of the establishment clause, since they're categorized differently than non-religious charities (and with different reporting and qualifying requirements as well). But our society decided it was ok to do so long as the churches get their tax breaks!

    Now, while I philosophically agree with you (as noted above), the other reason that they keep the tax deduction on charitable donations is that it gives the government a carrot/stick to require those organizations to keep open books and follow certain rules. If 501/503 wasn't a thing, charities would simply be another business and wouldn't have what little accountability that they maintain now in order to keep their status with the IRS. You'd want to have a framework of some sort (either legal or third party) that would still be auditing and certifying orgs and you'd want to steer donors away from those that weren't.  It could certainly be done better than it is now, to avoid Komens and the like.
  • Load 12 of 12 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.


Close