We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
The Gates Foundation is a PR group. The work they under these 'charity initiatives' is completely unaccounted for and for a reason. Who do you think benefits from it?
Also, going by that logic, apparently the Ambanis fed around 5000 people everyday for free during the wedding in a langar of sorts. Does that count as charity? If yes, who gets to decide the cause for charity?
Ideally they should be paying up more taxes, and let the government decide while they keep re-investing the money into their business so more people get jobs to help their families out in anyway they can.
Also, much charity Bezos has done while not allowing his employees to even take piss breaks.
> Actual employment generative, increased skill based wages, everyone makes a profit business.
Technically, only the owners make a profit, everyone else just sells their time for money, which if left purely to the owners and free markets, is usually barely enough to live on (e.g. clothes manufacturing sweatshops in Bangladesh or natural resources mining in many parts of Africa).
It is a very known fact that the Bill foundation is a PR Scam, money is invested yes, but how much actually goes into the mouths of the starving children in Nigeria or to ensure peace in Israel is never reported for a reason.
Someone talked about paying taxes correctly. Walking in an alley with large mansions of big politicians or bureaucrats, who crack a rote exam and dream of pulling money out of the tax fund, while most of the roads are cracked open and poor quality of services like banks; don't think so.
Well then the most efficient way, and that is what capitalism vouches is investment in business. And not some sham ESG-but-actually-invested-in-big-oil funds. Actual employment generative, increased skill based wages, everyone makes a profit business.
so yeah unless a person actually goes to the hospitals and pays off critical and poor patients, its not money well spend.
Interesting question. I see a lot of generalization and in the question and the comments below.
As a matter of general historical trends, please appreciate that charity and philanthropy has been often used as a means of creating brand value/ positive public perception and even recovering the lost brand value.
Read about the person mentioned in the question a little more. Especially the time when the tech-giant he is associated with was involved in a serious anti-trust case.
More often than not charity comes with more terms and conditions albeit implied.
As someone rightly pointed out, charity comes with its own set of problems such as possibility of money-laundering, tax evasion etc.
Lastly, the proposition of taxing the billionaires more does not really help. Just read about how heavy taxes have only gone on to inspire more vigorous routing of monies.
The sum and substance is that you should always bet on the Indian billionaires for creating more jobs.
https://www.firstpost.com/business/indias-richest-1-per-cent-own-more-than-40-per-cent-of-total-wealth-oxfam-11990812.html