Bill Gates likes to be thought of as a great philanthropist. He's referred to as such, so I guess he's happy about it. And in some senses he is.
But remember he gets tax relief as a result.
Remember something else too: the value of Microsoft has undoubtedly been inflated by its tax planning. Low taxes equals higher value is a golden rule of the stock market: it's the motive for tax avoidance.
So ask a question: how much of Gates' philanthropy has been paid for by the US Exchequer? Quite a lot, I suspect. It's still philanthropy, but not quite as it first looks.
And does philanthropy subsidised by the Exchequer really give a right to try to direct how state funding is spent, as so many philanthropists of this sort seem to think? I question that.
I'd go further: I'd rather less philanthropy, less hype, less high profile giving to publicity laden causes and rather more tax paid to ensure that the government in each country in which a multinational corporation trades has the tax due to it to ensure it can supply the public services the people in that country deserve.
That's a judgement: Gates is allowed to act as he does.
But I question whether it's all quite such a good cause as some would claim, or even as generous as it might seem. There's too much tax distortion in it all for me to feel comfortable with any such suggestion.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
And how much value for the US Exchequer has Gates created over the years?
I suppose in your view, he should be grateful that they allowed him to start a business?
I don’t suppose Gates set out to create a penny of value for the US Exchequer
He does have a duty to pay tax
Yes, he should pay it
It is a duty – you’re right – implicit in his right to run a US business
I’m sure his intention was to make a tonne of money, which he plainly has.
I suppose that he pays personal tax on income and capital gains, his firm pays tax in multiple jurisdictions, his employees pay tax, his customers pay sales tax, and I’ve probably missed off several other taxes, and all the US Exchequer needs to do is sit there and wait for the cheques to roll in – they are doing pretty well out of the deal all things considered.
A bit of tax relief would seem to be fair to the man.
Are you implying that without the tax relief, Gates would not give to good causes?
Rather mean-spirited of you…
Hardly…much of the evidence in the Uk suggests that without tax relief the rich would not give, and as a proportion of income they give less than the poor, many of whom get no tax benefit. But Gates may be an exception – but I really do expect he claims the relief
What Bill Gates seems to fail to mention re his admitedly large donations for Polio eradication is that it is a
50:50 donation partnership with the Rotary organization. As a member of Rotary I and others are getting a little fed up that he does not mention us in PR opportunities that we are giving half of the donations from the funds we raise.
So instead of Bill Gates spending his money on worthy topics of his choosing you would rather he give the money as tax for the state to spend on worthy topics of its choosing. If they topics of both are the same you would still prefer the state to collect the tax and then spend it? With governments known to be very good at spending money efficiently.
Yes, of course I would
It’s called democracy
I like it
Don’t you?
Richard, taking your principle to its logical conclusion would make it wrong to give money to beggars, on the grounds that it should be carried out by the State. It presents a bar to personal altruism, which – I would argue – is a factor in encouraging people to vote for State altruism. What happens if, denied an outlet for personal altruism, people vote to end any outlet for State altruism too?
Of course it’s not wrong to give
It’s right to give
But does it need to be tax deductible?
And if the giving is the proceeds of tax avoidance is that right?
That’s what I asked – don’t construct straw men
As for state altruism – isn’t that your metaphor for hating democracy?
I would perhaps take your comment about straw men slightly more seriously if you hadn’t gone and constructed one of your own about ‘state altruism’ meaning ‘hating democracy’. All State Altruism means is actions taken by the state for the intended benefit of its citizens, which I’d presumed you were in favour of.
However, the broader point – which I accept I failed to entirely capture – about tax deductibility is interesting. But isn’t it the case that we want more spent on what could be considered social goods, and that it doesn’t matter who does it? Whether the state or the individual does good, that good is still done for that amount of resource.
Take it seriously or not: if you can’t be bothered to say what you mean in comprehensible fashion then I didn’t create a straw man, I misunderstood you
I did however consider your comment on state altruism pretty weak – do you always argue in absurdum?
And no – I don;t agree with you: means are important to ends. The state is accountable in ways the individual is not: especially a wealthy individual able to impose a personal agenda of priorities on others