-
Pray and Grow Rich
May 16, 2013 | 63 comments
-
Ruthie’s Way
May 2, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Free and Indivisible Union
April 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize
April 18, 2013 | 80 comments
-
What the New Atheists Ignore
April 11, 2013 | 103 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Billions for Charity
But not a dime of real change.
Just in time for Christmas (or maybe Chanukah) another billionaire has pledged to leave half his fortune to charity. Not that Facebook CEO and Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” Mark Zuckerberg needed any arm-twisting. He was — he texts — happy to spread half the wealth. It’s right there on his Facebook page.
At only 25, Zuckerberg is already worth about $7 billion, give or take a few million. It used to take guys like Andrew Carnegie or George Hearst a lifetime to amass that kind of fortune. The Carnegies first had to sell the chickens and borrow £20 from relatives to immigrate to America. In Pittsburgh, young Andy worked his way up from bobbin boy. Zuckerberg, by contrast, was a spoiled computer prodigy from the get-go, always with the best tutors and teachers. No stoking boilers in a textile factory twelve hours a day, six days a week for this Harvard grad.
What gets missed in these self-serving headlines is the remarkable generosity of not-so-wealthy Americans. Americans who earn less than $20,000 a year give twice as much of their income to charity as those making $100,000. If you earn less than $25,000 you probably give 4.2 percent of your income to charity. That’s a big deal even though Zuckerberg probably tips his doorman more than that. My not very subtle way of saying that for most of us, our 4.2 percent hurts a LOT more than Zuckerberg’s 50 percent, which doesn’t hurt at all.
IT IS BELIEVED the United States has 170 billionaires. So far 60 have taken the Giving Pledge, which is what you sign on to when Bill Gates or Warren Buffett calls you up during dinner and shames you into giving away half your fortune, preferably before your soup gets cold. And it won’t do any good to get an unlisted number. Bill Gates has your unlisted number — unless you make under $25,000 a year or own a Mac, which is pretty much the same thing.
What did billionaires do with their money before Bill Gates packed his bags for his little guilt trip? Well, it seems 19th and 20th century billionaires also gave away their fortunes. Yes, even the Captains of Industry — dubbed “robber barons” by the pro-slavery, proto-fascist and “insipid muddlehead” (Nietzsche’s phrase) Thomas Carlyle — were civic-minded and generous. Carnegie put charity at the heart of his Gospel of Wealth, warning that “the man who dies rich dies disgraced.” Meanwhile, old skinflint John D. Rockefeller confessed: “I never would have been able to tithe the first million dollars I ever made if I had not tithed my first salary, which was $1.50 per week.” These men didn’t believe it was enough to be incredibly successful or to create millions of jobs, or figure out new, innovative ways to make everyone’s life better.
In fact, Carnegie went into poor, underserved areas and established schools in places where the government proved — not surprisingly — incapable. Carnegie was a meritocrat who wanted to give hardworking Americans “ladders within reach upon which the aspiring can rise.” Zuckerberg has done likewise in Newark, New Jersey, only he’s giving $100 million to failing public schools so they can continue to fail students for another decade and turn out another generation of doomed illiterates (by which I mean the incompetent teachers and administrators). Sort of the educational equivalent of propping up corrupt third world dictators with U.S. foreign aid.
The “robber barons” also established free libraries and art museums because they wanted to bring culture to the plain people, mostly because every time they holidayed in Europe they had to listen to some boring Brit lecture them about how uncivilized Americans were. Today their money is being used to fund exhibitions of shock-the-bourgeoisie art, because board members of these charitable foundations get a kick out that. Makes them feel superior. If that’s not exactly what John D. had in mind, tough titty. He’s dead.
Personally, if I had $7 billion I would use it a bit more constructively. I would buy MSNBC and fire Keith Olbermann. Then I would order the station manager to play nothing but Green Acres reruns. I would take the other $6 billion and place a $6 billion bounty on Osama bin Laden’s head. And none of this dead or alive stuff. I want him Bonnie and Clyde dead. Eventually, one of his inner circle will succumb to the temptation and push Osama and his donkey (also named Osama) off the side of a cliff.
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Christopher Orlet
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/16/billions-for-charity
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- A President Loses His Power
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 12.16.10 @ 6:56AM
Suppose this guy was aksed to leave � of his wealth to charity ? How ready would he be to do that. These billionaires of the left are so weathy that if they give a few mil this is chump change for them and they liver very well.
Appleby| 12.16.10 @ 7:19AM
Do you want rich men to give their money to charity, or do you simply not want them to be rich?
Ned| 12.16.10 @ 1:12PM
The little part that is left out when discussing the Giving Pledge is that (1) the donor doesn't have to give up his money NOW... it's more like "when I feel like it... maybe when I die... maybe... or not" and (2) by donating a billion dollars, these characters get a billion dollar TAX WRITE OFF.
By giving half their fortune, the other half becomes tax free... so by giving up something that really means nothing - after all, what's another billion going to buy that the first billion won't? - they avoid virtually all taxation... Billy Gates is a great one at this scam, all the while proclaiming that tax rates are not high enough... how the hell would you know Bill, you don't pay any taxes. And besides, as he himself said in 1984, shortly after Micro-crap went public, "You have to understand that after this, money means nothing to me... there's nothing I can buy..." And he was only worth $300M then!
But YOUR tax rates aren't high enough...
Alan Brooks| 12.16.10 @ 6:19PM
Now someone else will say the "Jews like Zuckerberg control the media."
Alan Brooks| 12.16.10 @ 7:17PM
The Jews control the media, that's why I became a muslim. I no longer have to make decisions, the koran does it for me.
Alan Brooks| 12.16.10 @ 10:46PM
Tim*, if it's you who wrote the comment above in my name, you ought to know your IP can be looked up. So why comment in someone else's name? what does it do for you?
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:45PM
Most IP's are not fixed, I believe, unless you have it specifically set that way.
Melvin| 12.16.10 @ 7:16AM
These billionaires can keep their damn money. Nor will I grovel at they're feet seeking favor from them while they sit like imperial Caesars deciding our fate. I'm sorry my freedom and dignity aren't for sale.
Tom| 12.16.10 @ 7:36AM
And their giving to charity imperils your freedom how?
Melvin| 12.16.10 @ 11:07AM
No one gives away money without strings attached. Bill and Melinda Gates both firmly believe in Eugenics and forced reduction in populations across the Globe.
Besides, call me cynical, but I'm tired of rich old white dudes, telling me how to live because they know what is good for me. Hell, the government is full of em. And yes their world-view does infringe on my freedom.
Melvin| 12.16.10 @ 11:11AM
Excuse me I forgot to add, If Zuckerberg wants to help society. Let him band together with the other tech billionaires and use their wealth to re-build our tech manufacturing again.
He would do more to put the masses to work building tech manufacturing than just handing the money out to charity.
If he did this, maybe I wouldn't be such a cynic in that regard.
David W| 12.16.10 @ 11:43AM
Their hypocracy does. The liberal rich constantly call on their brethren to give it away. Yet they give away what is really a fraction of their wealth. Percentage-wise it is less than those working stiffs donate (I remember reading how little Joe Biden, part of the “give away the wealth” administration, donated to charity one year). They make these calls for the “rich” to give away money. And if the “really rich” can afford to give it away then the “rich” can. Then the “almost rich”. Then the “not quite rich”. Then the ones not rich. And so on. All to help the less fortunate.
I’d like to see these really rich give it all away NOW! Keep enough to live comfortably – not their comfortably but my comfortably (I might be considered upper middle class, though after being laid off I took a 15% pay cut for a new job). Think that they will do that? Not on your life. And when they die where will their millions and billions go? Salvation Army? Red Cross? Habitat for Humanity? Local food banks? Faith-based organizations? Don’t be silly. It will probably go to those “charitable” organizations that say they help the poor and downtrodden get social justice (ACLU, environmental nutcases, anti-human PETA, etc.). Of course social justice is just a code word for basically screwing those who have and turning the poor into economic slaves, dependent on their government masters for whatever they can extract from the “rich”.
Old Soldier| 12.16.10 @ 8:44AM
I want rich guys to invest and try to get richer. I want them to build useful. profitable things - that make us all richer.
If I had 7 billion dollars, I would be asking engineers how much a space elevator would cost to build.
Tom| 12.16.10 @ 8:51AM
You don't need to ask an engineer.
http://www.spaceelevator.com/d......raitt.pdf
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.10 @ 9:03AM
Old Soldier,
best idea yet. Not the space elevator precisely, but maybe bribe enough politicians to get approval for modular nuke plants all over the country.
skedaddle| 12.16.10 @ 8:45AM
I'm still wondering what has been improved by Buffet and Gates money. What suffering have they healed or prevented? I think of their charity as mostly a tax scam - how is all that money taxed now that it's a charity? Maybe Bill Gates could use some of his money to reimburse the companies he pillaged on the way up and to release an operating system that was fully functional right out of the box. Now that would be a gift to all PC users.
Tom| 12.16.10 @ 9:04AM
Any tax benefit to billionaires is nickles on the dollar.
What major technological innovation has been 'fully functional' right out of the box? Hell, they are still refining cars and the have been around a century.
cdc| 12.17.10 @ 2:50PM
Some people like the maleia vaccine their charity funded, but I suppose that doesn't help you.
Skippy| 12.20.10 @ 5:04PM
A bogus fantasy unicorn rainbow vaccine is just such a warm special idea!
How about these squillionaires put a buckortwo aside to dispel the DDT BS spread for the last 50 years so those nice little brown people can get a break from the torture of malaria?
Or are the millions of birds that were never harmed by DDT anyway more valuable than the millions of malnourished peasants dying horribly from a totally preventable disease?
Just asking...
Midas| 12.16.10 @ 8:47AM
Yes there "charity"imperils my freedom. Billionaires charities are used for political influence e.g. Blumberg buying city council votes,
Anything by Soros etc. Don't worry, anyone in a service industry knows that the ultra rich are lousy tippers.
Tom| 12.16.10 @ 9:07AM
Ah, the old money buys influence crap. BS. There is more than enough money for any candidate to get their message known. I find this view no more valid when conservatives blame Soros for losses than I do when liberals bitch about "The evil rich corporations."
If you have enough money to make your message known to the voters and still lose then the problem is not you were out spent, the problem is either with you or your message.
Curly Smith| 12.16.10 @ 9:12AM
I'm unclear as to the article's intent. Are we to castigate Zuckerberg because he didn't "earn" his money? Are we to rally the troops to redistribute his wealth because he didn't soil his hands? Maybe we'd feel different if he got rich from playing basketball, whoring global warming, or stuffing himself with political pork?
Zuckerberg saw a market opportunity, created a product to fill a niche, and got rich along the way. If you don't like his product then don't use it. If you don't like him becoming rich while engaged in capitalism then join the CPUSA. Nobody is stopping you from engaging in capitalism and seeking a vast fortune, except your lack of ideas, ability, and follow-through. So don't rely solely on yourself, go the Bill Gates way and form a company with individuals of different skills. Sadly, that will entail work and it's much easier to just take Zuckerberg's money via a Progressive Charity Tax... just to make sure that the money goes to the "right" causes.
LarryK| 12.16.10 @ 9:38AM
I would say the theme/intent of this article is this...the old rich were made of sterner stuff, and got wealthy by transforming physical materials into tangible products (not entirely true BTW - some old money was created through finance or pure commerce i.e. buying low and selling high). They were also no less generous than today's billionaires, but more hard-headed - they wanted to actually extend a hand up, instead of making a relatively empty gesture. Today's billionaires aren't being nearly as effective as they should be with their bequests.
I wouldn't castigate Zuckerberg at all. I think he is a kind of creative genius, which should be celebrated. But I would love to see more billionaires fund institutions that celebrate and promote the best of western civilization, instead of what is simply trendy and/or 'transgressive.' This is definitively a worthy and 'needy' cause.
Curly Smith| 12.16.10 @ 11:14AM
Maybe you're right. But I'm not sure how Gates and Buffett really fit into the picture. They get a lot of credit for giving vast amounts of money to charity but they gave it to their charity. They still control the money... it's just now tax free. They took great pains to avoid giving it to Uncle Sam (with Buffett even saying that Uncle Sam wouldn't spend it wisely). Then, of course, they took great pains to tell us that we should all pay higher taxes. Presumably, Uncle Sam will spend our tax dollars wisely.
Maybe your last para touches on the Gates' and Buffett celebrity - their "charity" funds "approved" causes. If they supported the free markets and American exceptionalism that allowed them to become rich then they'd be vilified as modern day robber barons.
Cromulent| 12.16.10 @ 9:53AM
Tsk tsk. No one here thinks to praise the idea of replacing Olbermann with Green Acres reruns?
Of course, you could replace a good amount of basic cable with Arnold & Hank Kimball.
Cromulent| 12.16.10 @ 10:02AM
But then if I had $7 billion I'd build a cable channel that did nothing but loop classic Tobias Funke lines.
Tobias| 12.16.10 @ 6:28PM
"I think I just blue myself."
Grant Johnson| 12.16.10 @ 10:25PM
The beauty of the plan to buy MSNBC and fire Olberman is that not only would it be fun, but the 24 hour Green Acres rotation would probably improve MSNBC's ratings.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:57PM
I thought it was hilarious! But remeber all the fuss made when Ted Turner (back when he was conservative) wanted to buy one of the networks?
My fantasy is to buy the New York Times and just shut it down, lock, stock, and barrel. Of course, one would have to deal with the delivery union.
Andrew| 12.16.10 @ 10:25AM
This demonstrates that every purchase is a transfer of power. When these people give the money we gave them for the pleasure of using their devices to charity, they give to charities that extract our freedoms. And through the democracy of the dollar we have invited it all.
energyaware| 12.16.10 @ 10:32AM
I would only add one more thought for the first billion dollars of spend: buy MSNBC, fire Keith Olbermann, then play Green Acres reruns, where Keith Olbermann's face has been photoshopped onto the body of Mr. Haney! That would be worth watching.
LarryK| 12.16.10 @ 4:09PM
Great suggestion! Olbermann is an ag school graduate, so that would be a good fit.
Evidently, though, he failed as a farmer, so he became a sportscaster. When he failed at that too, he finally found his calling - becoming a left-wing hack, where no one expects actual results, which makes failure impossible.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:58PM
Not Arnold? Nah, you're right, Arnold's too intelligent.
sinanju| 12.16.10 @ 10:44AM
Some of the column sounds like sour grapes but I think the gist of it is that the zillionaires of today don't give away their money creatively. They dole it out to the usual suspects who make it go up in ineffectual smoke.
My own charitable fantasy would be to provide $10,000-a-year educational scholarships--specifically focused on ALL the children in a particular town who applied, say D.C. It could be applied to any educational purpose the parents chose and any remainder could be rolled over from year-to-year. There would be NO income limit, it would be aimed at the middle class as much as poor families. The only stipulation would be that all recipients would be on a publicly accessible database so that any millionaires who took the money could expect to hear their names repeated on talk shows and the daily news. The object would be that an entire private industry of schools could spring up to serve such students and let the free market decide which ones succeeded or failed.
It would be interesting to see what the secondary and tertiary effects would be to the municipality in question and it's economy.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:54PM
The AFT will try to stop you, you know.
Dustoff| 12.16.10 @ 11:52AM
The funny part that no-one has brought up.
None of these "rich" people is leaving a dime to GOV.
Yet we hear over and over by some of the rich. They don't pay enough in taxes.
Very telling I must say.
fwb| 12.16.10 @ 12:15PM
These people THINK they are buying good will. IMO, their motives are simply ego boosts and of course tax breaks.
Facebook like most other online services contributed NOTHING to life. In fact things like FACEBOOK and MYSPACE are wastes of life. People who do not interact face to face are social autists.
Check out Carlos Slim's remarks. Giving to people DOES NOT HELP THEM. Giving only weakens the already weak. Providing gainful employment like Mr. Slim offers will help.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Tim the Enchanter| 12.16.10 @ 12:49PM
fwb: you got the last line wrong. It should go as follows: "Teach a man to fish, and he'll sit on his a$$ in a boat and drink beer all day."
Tim the Enchanter| 12.16.10 @ 12:47PM
I'm surprised with all the religious commentary here that no one mentioned the story of Our Lord watching the treasury in the Temple where the rich put in "sizable portions" and the widow put in two pennies. Our Lord then commented that the widow had put in more that all the others, because she gave of her want, all that she had to live on, while the others merely gave of their surplus. Two thousand years later, here we are at the same place.
Tom| 12.16.10 @ 1:59PM
Well done. Simply well done.
David| 12.16.10 @ 1:26PM
Elon Musk is using his money to get us into space. He is the only billionaire I know of thats doing something really useful for the future with his billions.
martin j smith| 12.16.10 @ 4:16PM
I would say this, that all of the Left Billionaires etc. who are Socialists should be asked to give up 80%
of their wealth to help balance our budget and see if they put their money where their mouth is. This is voluntary of course.
YeloStalyn| 12.16.10 @ 4:37PM
He's WORTH 7B, right? That means that most of that worth isn't liquid. How, then, could he give it away now?
It would be more apt and appropriate if one's wealth were measured in liquid assets... that which he has the power to use at his whim. Then, give half of that to charity. Or, better, yet... if you were to profit at a rate to produce 7B in liquid assest in only a few short years you would probably do well to pay your people, especially those at the bottom end, more... a lot more. I mean, if "What's an extra billion" is a true attitude... why not use it to raise the wages of those directly responsible for producing that wealth on the daily, ground floor, hands-on way?
I know, I know... that probably sounds fairly leftist... but just think about it. It's an idea that supports capitalism and extreme success... and also pushes for him to freely treat people better than they maybe otherwise would be. It's incorperating the idea of free capitalists with the well intentioned (but always unjust and violent in the end) ideals of the left in a way that, well, prevents those unjust and violent ends of an otherwise fine enough end-goal.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:51PM
Give away the stock. I think it would get him out of the taxes, also.
martin j smith| 12.16.10 @ 6:08PM
I don't give a damn i the assets are liquids,solids or gases: Lets see these left billionaires give up � of their assets to balance our budget. NOW!!!!!!!!! Then we can have a nice conversation over TEA!!!!!!!!
Bill Sundling| 12.17.10 @ 5:45AM
The problem is that when liberals give they give to liberal political organizations. They don't give to organizations that help people. A billion given to the Salvation Army would help a lot of people during these tough economic times.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 7:50PM
One major issue is indeed the fact that he isn't giving it NOW. Or maybe he thinks that he will make more with what he has, and give it all then? Or he is afraid of getting sued?
One thing to be careful of when discussing charity is that figures can be misleading. First of all, we need to look at net income, not gross. Secondly, tax returns don't necessarily do it; there are many ways to give to charity (such as to needy individuals) that are not deductible. Half of my charity is easily not deductible, even it I did live back in the U.S.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:02PM
P.S. Chanukah has been over for quite some time. We even passed the Fast of 10 Tevet last Friday. Closest thing to a holiday coming up is the New Year for Trees, but that's Al Gores's territory.