Buffett gives $37 billion to Gates and other foundations?

carey24 · Post by **carey24** » June 28, 2006 9:58 am

I'm never impressed by how much money someone has..... Tell me how much they gave to charities last year....then I'll be impressed.

Way to go!

green1 · Post by **green1** » June 28, 2006 10:28 am

Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released? I doubt if there will ever be any real cure for either to be found and released. I hope there will be, but I seriously doubt it.

Sam, are you saying it would be better that cures for these diseases were not found so that these researchers could remain employed?

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » June 28, 2006 10:35 am

green1 wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released? I doubt if there will ever be any real cure for either to be found and released. I hope there will be, but I seriously doubt it.
Sam, are you saying it would be better that cures for these diseases were not found so that these researchers could remain employed?

Mr. Play asked the same question -

Mr Play wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released?
You mean you'd rather have people dying of these diseases than have others displaced from jobs when a cure is found?

I can't wait to hear how Sam spins this one.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » June 28, 2006 10:52 am

LIPH wrote:
green1 wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released? I doubt if there will ever be any real cure for either to be found and released. I hope there will be, but I seriously doubt it.
Sam, are you saying it would be better that cures for these diseases were not found so that these researchers could remain employed?
Mr. Play asked the same question -
Mr Play wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released?
You mean you'd rather have people dying of these diseases than have others displaced from jobs when a cure is found?
I can't wait to hear how Sam spins this one.

I am betting the usual obfuscation due to confusion and misunderstanding, followed by accusation and more obfuscation...

El mojito · Post by **El mojito** » June 28, 2006 11:06 am

I hear he gave it as "tax Free" so that he could beat the Estate Tax

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » June 28, 2006 11:17 am

El mojito wrote:I hear he gave it as "tax Free" so that he could beat the Estate Tax

So he's smart about how he donates his money - what's your point?

El mojito · Post by **El mojito** » June 28, 2006 11:25 am

Mr Play wrote:
El mojito wrote:I hear he gave it as "tax Free" so that he could beat the Estate Tax
So he's smart about how he donates his money - what's your point?

He and Gates are against the personal Estate tax for the public

thebeachbumm33 · Post by **thebeachbumm33** » June 28, 2006 11:28 am

"Charity starts at home", it would be great if our Congress and President agreed but we continue to spend 5+ times more than any other country on our defense spending. Why doesn't the US take 1.5billion annually out of our military budget and spend it on our own citizens to feed the hungry, house the homeless, educate the uneducated, etc...

2004 chart http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html

thebeachbumm33 · Post by **thebeachbumm33** » June 28, 2006 11:38 am

Also finding a cure does help at home

"As reported in a recent study in the Journal of Political Economy, the researchers said a 1 percent reduction in mortality from cancer would be worth $500 billion to the U.S. in reduced health care costs and extended productivity."

Sam · Post by **Sam** » June 28, 2006 12:23 pm

LIPH wrote:
green1 wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released? I doubt if there will ever be any real cure for either to be found and released. I hope there will be, but I seriously doubt it.
Sam, are you saying it would be better that cures for these diseases were not found so that these researchers could remain employed?
Mr. Play asked the same question -
Mr Play wrote:
Sam wrote:A cure for cancer? A cure for AIDS? How many people are employed and have a job seeking such? How many people would suddenly be unemployed, if such cures were founded and released?
You mean you'd rather have people dying of these diseases than have others displaced from jobs when a cure is found?
I can't wait to hear how Sam spins this one.

Here was my reply to Mr. Play

You asked me something about finding a cure for cancer or HIV earlier. Yes I believe we must find a cure ,( if we don't already have one). The thing is look at how many people are employed in the research and what not. Doctors can cure certain types of cancer that they could not do 10 years ago, for example. How many people and how much money is involved in cancer research each year? My Dad had lung cancer and stomach cancer. He was cured of the lung cancer, some years ago. My Dad went through Operation Crossroads: Test shots Able and Baker.
Advancements are being made nearly every day. When AIDS first came out people were DEMANDING the same amount of money for reseach that it took cancer researchers roughly 20 years to get.
Now think about the money that is involved in all of that research. I have read documentation in the past of various things on going in some labs.
No that does not mean every lab or research person is doing such. Yet consider the money and the job security of it.

No I am not saying curing these diseases should not be cured, or anything like that.
I am saying that [l]I doubt a cure would ever be found because of the money involved.[/i] It has become a mega $$$$ business.

Let me see if this analogy will work....
If you developed an inexspensive and very efficient form of energy and turned it loose and freely gave it to everyone ( by the way,Tesla wanted to do just that and lost his financial backing because of it ) ...that would a good thing for everyone right? No more people depending on fossil fuel power plants or nucear power plants

Okies that is a good thing for the people right?! Bad for the power industry though isn't it? Now do you think they actually want everyone to have free and/or inexspensive power???

Read this article about Cancer Research.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/res ... ancer.html

Also the money spent on lobbying for Cancer and HIV research ( in 1998)
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9809/25/cance ... .advancer/

Larry, I commented on the money being donated to express my opihion on the issue, just like you did. I have repeatedly said what they were doing was a good thing. Care to say I did otherwise?

As to what I have done to help is irrevelent and probably is nothing, that compares to your "holy works" by any means. It is actions that speak louder than words and while money is needed, so are people and bodies to help get things done.

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » June 28, 2006 1:11 pm

Sam wrote:Read this article about Cancer Research.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/res ... ancer.html

The author makes broad generalizations about cancer in general. Each type of cancer is different and must be treated separately. Tremendous progress has been made. In women, check out the drastic declines in death rates for cancer of the uterus, colon/rectum, stomach, and breast here;
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CAFF06MrF.pdf

Or in men, look at the declines in death rates for cancer of the stomach, prostate, colon/rectum, and even lung/bronchus here;
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CAFF06MrM.pdf

Sam wrote:Also the money spent on lobbying for Cancer and HIV research ( in 1998)
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9809/25/cance ... .advancer/

Article wrote:In 1996, with more than a half million cancer deaths, the National Institutes of Health dedicated $2.5 billion to cancer research. With over 32,000 AIDS deaths, $1.4 billion went to AIDS research. And with more than three-quarters of a million heart disease fatalities, $851 million went to cardiovascular research.

The article is from 1998 - the figures are from 1996. At that time, AIDS was viewed as an epidemic with real potential to wipe out populations. You can read a year-by-year history of AIDS here;
http://www.avert.org/historyi.htm

Here's a direct quote;
"At the end of the year UNAIDS estimated that during 1996 some three million people, mostly under the age of 25, had become newly infected with HIV, bringing to nearly 23 million the total number of infected people. In addition an estimated 6.4 million people; 5 million adults and 1.4 million children, had already died."

Anytime you're dealing with limited resources, you have to prioritize things. As one disease gets cured, focus shifts to the next challenge. Some diseases are more complex than others and require more technology than others. The elements of advancing technology are time, money, and creative thinking. We know a lot more about AIDS and some forms of cancer today than we did 10 years ago. Resources are limited and you have to take them one at a time.

green1 · Post by **green1** » June 28, 2006 1:17 pm

Sam wrote:No I am not saying curing these diseases should not be cured, or anything like that.
I am saying that [l]I doubt a cure would ever be found because of the money involved.[/i] It has become a mega $$$$ business.

Let me see if this analogy will work....
If you developed an inexspensive and very efficient form of energy and turned it loose and freely gave it to everyone ( by the way,Tesla wanted to do just that and lost his financial backing because of it ) ...that would a good thing for everyone right? No more people depending on fossil fuel power plants or nucear power plants

Okies that is a good thing for the people right?! Bad for the power industry though isn't it? Now do you think they actually want everyone to have free and/or inexspensive power???

Read this article about Cancer Research.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/res ... ancer.html

Also the money spent on lobbying for Cancer and HIV research ( in 1998)
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9809/25/cance ... .advancer/

Larry, I commented on the money being donated to express my opihion on the issue, just like you did. I have repeatedly said what they were doing was a good thing. Care to say I did otherwise?

As to what I have done to help is irrevelent and probably is nothing, that compares to your "holy works" by any means. It is actions that speak louder than words and while money is needed, so are people and bodies to help get things done.

Sam, what you said was that if the diseases wee cured a lot of people would be out of work, not that the healthcare industry would loose money. Don't change your argument now. Perhaps you want to alter it? Perhaps you see the response to your tirade and realize you may have chosen your words poorly. Fine, retract them and then restate your point.

However your analogy of free power is ridiculous and insulting as you are equating one kilowat of energy with a human life.

I don't need to read your articles. I have read more and studied more about cancer and cancer research than I ever want to read again.

I do agree that actions speak louder than words. To that end, and to the point of this thread, Mr. Buffett spent his life amassing a fortune that few will match and now he is acting by taking that fortune and spending it where he believes it will do the most good. His actions are momentous, your words are mere whining that he didn't consult you first.

SchoolGirlHeart · Post by **SchoolGirlHeart** » June 28, 2006 1:18 pm

A very wise singer/songwriter once wrote:

No amount of talkin'
Can change a mind that's been made up.....

Post by **SMLCHNG** » June 28, 2006 1:26 pm

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:A very wise singer/songwriter once wrote:

No amount of talkin'
Can change a mind that's been made up.....

AMEN!!

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » June 28, 2006 1:30 pm

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:A very wise singer/songwriter once wrote:

No amount of talkin'
Can change a mind that's been made up.....

Or open one that's closed.

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » June 28, 2006 1:31 pm

Mr Play wrote:Sam - maybe you should put together a grant request to the Gates Foundation for some charities of your choice.
The money is there for the asking.

Seriously - in theory there is $4.1 Million that needs to be spent today. Why not try to get some of it directed to the causes you're so passionate about?
Everything you need to know is here;
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrant ... efault.htm

El mojito · Post by **El mojito** » June 28, 2006 1:39 pm

Mr Play wrote:
El mojito wrote:I hear he gave it as "tax Free" so that he could beat the Estate Tax
So he's smart about how he donates his money - what's your point?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... -TAXES.xml
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett on Monday called for U.S. lawmakers to retain the estate tax, after announcing plans to leave more than $37 billion of his own fortune to charity, not his children.

Buffett spoke after agreeing to sign over roughly $30.7 billion of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, run by the Microsoft Corp. chairman and his wife, and another $6.4 billion to foundations on behalf of his late wife Susan and his children.

"I would hate to see the estate tax gutted," Buffett said at a Manhattan news conference with the Gateses about his donation.

"It's a very equitable tax," Buffett said. "It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged."

Buffett, the second richest man in the world, after Bill Gates, spoke less than three weeks after the U.S. Senate fell three votes short of advancing a bill backed by President George W. Bush that would permanently repeal estate taxes.

Democratic opponents have argued that a full repeal would cost the U.S. Treasury about $1 trillion over the next decade, and principally benefit the ultra-rich. Permanently repealing estate taxes is a long-sought Republican goal.

Bush's 2001 tax cuts included a phase-out of estate taxes through 2009 and a total repeal in 2010 only. In 2011, the tax would be reimposed on estates valued over $1 million and the top tax rate would revert to 55 percent.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Also on Reuters
Got gas price fury? Talk to your local Shell CEOAnglican leader sees split over gay bishopsVeterans hungry for last hurrah; World Cup coverage

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » June 28, 2006 1:41 pm

El mojito wrote:
Mr Play wrote:
El mojito wrote:I hear he gave it as "tax Free" so that he could beat the Estate Tax
So he's smart about how he donates his money - what's your point?
He and Gates are against the personal Estate tax for the public

Maybe they just think their money will do more good in the private sector.
Unless the structure of the donations is illegal, I don't have a problem with it.
Any there any tax attorneys who would like to comment on this?

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » June 28, 2006 1:48 pm

I'm not a tax attorney, but in the past the estate tax has been as high as 55%. It's much lower now (I'm not sure of the exact rate) and will be 0% in 2010 before it goes back to the old rate in 2011 unless the present law is changed. Now what's better for everyone, Warren Buffett donating $30 billion, or whatever the total turns out to be, to charity or the government getting 55% of whatever his estate is worth when he dies? The government is so efficient at spending what it has now, let's give it more.

weirdo0521 · Post by **weirdo0521** » June 28, 2006 1:51 pm

Sam wrote:
Mr Play wrote:
Sam wrote:Or else how to make it and to keep it........

Whose to say what the Gates Foundation will or won't do?
My point is if Gates is so giving, why hasn't he given more? He does not need Warren Buffett's money to fund his personal charities. He could fund it himself, and never miss a dime.

Bill Gates is the laregest charitable donor in history. No one has given more to charites than he has.