What 'thing with Green Peace'? But agreed, billionaire 'charity' is mostly a PR move.
> 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).
Charity? Seriously? Even after all the scandals and the thing with Green Peace?
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.
Good points, billionaire philanthropy is basically outsourcing the decisions of which social ills deserve most fixing to an unelected and unaccountable billionaire class. Or they could just pay what should be much higher taxes and let the government decide where to spend it, rather than being grateful to them for handouts...?
Charity is the world's greatest evil. Charity is unaccounted and unapologetic. Its money trail is untraceable and frequently used to launder black money. I'd rather the Ambanis and Adanis keep all their money to themselves and pump it into their own businesses and the economy. Trust me, neither you nor I will ever be the recipients of "charity".
It is a common knowledge that the Indian rich persons are greedier in comparison to their American counterparts. This is happened due to the fact that in our world rich tend to flaunt their wealth more openly and have a tendency to hoard wealth, while the American rich are more likely to invest in philanthropic causes and give back to society.
Maybe another question to ask is how much taxes most of such billionaires pay? If billionaires paid up, we'd need less charity, however inefficient the state may be.
> 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