Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (7442)	7/2/2006 10:05:28 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 218151

Why are you so suspicious? Gates got to be the richest person on Earth. So once you've done that what's the point in accumulating more billions (by selling MSFT stock and investing in other stuff). So you move on to plan two: Create the world's largest charitable foundation. Yes you do get a massive tax deduction so you never pay tax on your income for the rest of your life. Best of both worlds! Buffett is more interesting. He stopped short of overtaking Gates - he realizes though that in dollar numbers he will never reach in his lifetime the level that Gates reached when MSFT stock was at its peak. The next move is more interesting - he has exchanged the option of making the Buffett Foundation bigger than the Gates one for outsourcing the job and not having to run a foundation - just sit on the board - so he can keep doing what he wants which is running Berkshire. There is no point I think in giving billions (rather than millions) to your children unless you want them to retain control of your firm. In Gates case he was a minority shareholder anyway - though the biggest. So this wasn't going to be an option. In Buffett's case this ain't going to happen. His three children dropped out of college and aren't interested. They will now have plenty of charity to manage. OTOH in Australia where there are no inheritance taxes you don't see this happening. Recently the wealthiest Australian resident, Kerry Packer, died. His son was already an executive in the family and public firms. He is now CEO and the shares primarily passed to him, so he is now the wealthiest Australian. Murdoch seems to have struggled with this. Though he is a US citizen now and even transferred the News Corp listing to NY. Will be interesting to see what the eventual outcome is there. Currently the inheritance will be divided among his various children. The News share structure is complex like Berkshires with voting and non-voting shares.

To: elmatador who wrote (7442)	7/2/2006 3:41:53 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218151

Dear Elmatador, For a change I disagree with you on all the points in your post. 1. There is no way one can increase wealth by giving away money to charity. In most countries if you give away money that way you get only a part back, usually a small part. 2. People don't get rich by giving money away. That's perfectly true but what if people some times want to achieve other ends? Particularly if they are rich. I certainly regard capitalists AS A GROUP, as a bunch of swine, often very cruel. On the other hand Gates and Buffett are exceptions. They want to use a substantial part of their money to improve the world, a lasting contribution to mankind, sure to persist after their own death. If you and I were that rich, wouldn't we feel that way? Stroll through some of the great art museums of the world such as the Louvre or the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Deathless masterpieces donated to the museums after the owner dies. She/he wants to enjoy it for a while, then realizing that it is something greater than themselves, has her will pass it on to all of posterity rather than to her immediate people who are well provided for. Carnegie's name lives on in the thousands of libraries in North America that he financed. Also in the museum ditto. Stanford University, a great one if there ever was a great university, would not exist if Stanford had not been one of the superrich. 3. The needs of people in the poorest countries are the most evident needs in the world. Is it reprehensible not to leave money for charitable activities INSIDE the richest country in the world? At least it was the richest until this bestial savage became president. Each generation of capitalists has a few noble people among the rest who are other than noble. I was privileged to be a close friend of George Cadbury. He was one of the six grandsons of the original Cadbury. You, a world traveler, have probably come across this global brand name for chocolate candy. The original Cadbury was a Quaker. His treatment of his employees at his Birmingham factory was a model of the future for all the world. I know for a fact that George, his grandson, gave away most of his money before he died to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. He was chairman of this organization for many years. The function of the latter was to educate poor populations in the value and methods of contraception and to give them free contraceptives. This is one great way to address overpopulation tragedies. He and his wife in the end had to be careful of expenditures!! They had given so much away. The deaths of him and later of his wife was a terrible loss to me and my family. Beware of caricatures.