After reading Winners Take All my level of cynicism is through the roof with headlines like this.
$10b of his own personal fortune? That won't results in tax breaks / deduction because can be considered a donation? Or does that include money Amazon-the-company is spending on "climate change" efforts, such as buying electric delivery trucks instead of gas ones? Investments in "green datacenters"? Is any of this new investment that's needed anyway for Amazon-the-company to operate, but now it's green so it gets added up to the $10b?
Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and lots of goodwill?
I frequently see the "they're just doing this for the tax breaks" sentiment for these kinds of donations (especially when the donor is a corporation or hyper-wealthy individual) but I don't understand the reasoning.
From what I understand of tax deductions, a donation of $X basically means that the donor can skip paying taxes on $X of income. This results in a savings of tax% * $X, which is always < $X. Since tax% is always < 100%, it seems that the donation is always negative-sum for the donor.
The tax deduction also seems like a boon for the beneficiary, since they receive $X instead of (1 - tax%) * $X.
Can you help me understand the cynicism? How does the donor benefit here (aside from PR etc)? It seems like they do not come out ahead financially, and the tax breaks benefit the recipient of the donation.
I think ultimately this cynicism is born out of envy/jealousy for the good will that such a donation engenders.
As you've pointed out, any logical analysis would conclude that, even in the most extreme cases, there's still a sizable positive benefit to society.
People have a problem with "undeserved" good will as if good will is some scarce resource that's limited in supply. I think the reality is they're envious.
Its just a constant reminder that we live at the mercy of these elites, that our tax dollars don't appear to have any effect in bringing about the change that we want because these scumbags have rewritten the laws in their favour so that the money only concentrates towards them.
What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing, but I'm sure as hell not going to pander to their 'benevolence'
Somehow use most of his filthy amount of wealth, much of it acquired in filthy ways, to things that are not him?
I'm perpetually baffled at how one person having this much wealth is somehow considered okay. Sure, we can argue about where it goes instead, but jesus christ is this an unfathomable amount of wealth that really shouldn't be in one person's control.
I honestly cannot understand this attitude. It sounds like pure jealousy. You are saying that we should stop people from being too successful.
Bezos earned all of his wealth honestly. He offered products and services for prices that people were willing to pay. He did not steal. He did not force anyone into anything. If he is stupid rich, it is because he was able to provide things people wanted more effectively than anyone else.
How can you possibly justify punishing success? What right do we have to give him money for doing what we want, and then turning around and taking it away. What sort of message does that send to other people?
"Work hard and be successful, but not TOO successful..."
I could go into the broader problem I have with a single person having that much wealth/power.
But really, mostly it's that Bezos is a giant piece of shit. His company has a long history of controversy and anything good he does doesn't erase that. That has nothing to do with all the upstanding people in the world who are trying to be 'successful'.
Personal income tax deductions are additionally capped at 50% of income (and maybe 30% for unearned income? I forget the specifics). So if Bezos' income is $1/year, basically none of this would be deductible if it came from his personal fortune.
That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The article doesn't exactly make this clear.
> That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The article doesn't exactly make this clear.
Yep, more along these lines. Lots of people are latching on the "tax break" but I thought I made a larger point about where the $10b figure is coming from. That's part of my cynicism: Bezos gets to write a great headlines with big rounding number like $10b, but I wonder what kind of creative accounting will be applied here.
No, he can't. That's exactly what the lower 30% limit is on — gifts of appreciated capital.
If he sold the shares first, he could claim up to the higher 50% limit. But he'd owe capital gains taxes on the sales, which is almost certainly more than the additional deduction.
He can only deduct up to 30% of his AGI, but also by giving the shares to a foundation he does not realize any of those gains. So the entire donation effectively becomes tax free.
This isn't responsive to earlier comments in this thread and doesn't support (or retract) your earlier wrong statement.
You previously stated, "Bezos can avoid that limit," with "that" referring to either OP's or my statement about AGI deductibility limits, which is incorrect.
I think you might now be trying to make a statement about being able to claim capital gains as an AGI deduction without paying taxes on those capital gains? Which is true enough, but not responsive; it's just a fact that was never in dispute.
Yeah the donation deduction is just a form of leverage. You effectively pay X but the charity gets 2X (actual multiplier depends on your marginal tax rate).
One way of looking at it is that the government is "matching" part of your donation with tax money.
You can't make money this way but you can still argue that money that would have gone to taxes has now been redirected by an individual to a cause they solely decided is worthwhile.
Well, elected officials decided that very early in the US's history of personal income tax. It's not like we have direct democracy and 2020 society has voted to approve this policy. We didn't have a federal income tax before 1913, and the government added the charitable deduction during the 1917 WWI revenue act, which also raised the personal income tax rates.
As far as I know it's simply never been touched since 1917.
You're not wrong, but I don't think this is responsive to my comment. Maybe replying to the wrong one on accident? (Also: any organization can claim religious status and becomes essentially exempt from IRS review of charitable status. See: Scientology. Not that I expect Bezos' fund to do that.)
You make it sound like "decides which donations are tax deductible" was done 100 years ago and never changed which isn't the case. Now if you'll excuse me I have to file some paperwork for the Church of the V8...
I didn't say that and I'm sorry it was unclear. I said:
> the government added the charitable deduction during the 1917 WWI revenue act
The distinction I was trying to draw was that prior to 1917, charitable giving could not be deducted at all, and what changed was that the legislature of the time decided to make it so. It's 100 years ago, but really not that long compared to the history of this country.
If you want to say the IRS represents the will of society, I think I would mildly disagree. They're not elected. That said, they are largely governed by rules set forth by the legislature, who are at least elected, if not always representative.
I've seen this (exactly this, actually) line of reasoning regarding taxes and art before. While I think that it is somewhat relevant it's still not legal to do that, at least not where I live.
C) this isn't making money. You can't directly deduct a collectible or security you donate. You can give it away without realizing any capital gains however.
(B) Replace $10 mill with any figure up to 30% of your actual income. The figures are illustrative, not binding.
(C) Consider not doing the fraud vs the fraud. If you and your buddy both do the fraud, you only expend the purchase price but deduct the higher price. As a result you have generated a deduction from thin air. As long as the higher price multiplied by your marginal tax rate is greater than the lower purchase price, you've made money. So at, say, a hypothetical 50% bracket, you need to inflate it by 100% to break even. At a 25% bracket, you'd need to inflate it by 300% to break even.
It's a profit, but it's definitely fraud and seems pretty obvious. It's essentially a pump and dump scheme, but instead of selling the inflated asset, you donate it while it's still inflated and deduct the difference against income.
Yeah, the only reason to charity-wash it would be if you thought it was more likely to go uncaught. I suspect you'd be caught in either version of the fraud. :-)
The argument seems to be that the donor is not making any actual financial sacrifice, and therefore shouldn't enjoy any publicity or goodwill for their non-sacrifice.
There's also this cynical idea that these donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good. But that's intangible and unquantifiable.
"donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good"
I dont understand this sentiment(not saying you agree with it). Let's express this as a contract: in exchange for 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause, $WEALTHY_PERSON agrees to donate $LARGE_AMOUNT to a charitable cause. Let's also assume that $WEALTHY_PERSON is proficient in business, and wont continue to contract with parties who do not honor their end of the bargain.
Assuming you want these charitable contributions to continue, would it not be prudent to give them their 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause??
Not that I am saying all wealthy people donate for no other reason than for pr. Just that if you think that, you might not want to go out of your way to tell them that they are not getting what they wanted.
Maybe. If Amazon buys $10B worth of electric trucks and clean energy (which coincidentally saves them money and increases the stock price) then Bezos hasn't sacrificed anything. But calling it a fund makes me think this is not the case. Anyway, philanthropy shouldn't be measured in terms of sacrifice.
I did _not_ say he's doing this just for tax reasons. I asked if the $10b are really $10b that won't result in any tax breaks? Is Bezos letting go of $10b, or will he get a deduction, perhaps using a similar formula to the one you posted?
We're being duped on headlines such as "Bezos commits to $10b" when his net worth won't be affected by that much.
The cynicism comes from the PR, sure, but also from a preservation perspective. I doubt any of the grants Bezos is giving will result in research that shows in any way what Amazon is doing is bad for the environment. It won't propose an increase in taxes on gas based engines like lawn mowers, shipping plastic from overseas, selling meat based products, or if Amazon moved Prime to 5 days shipping instead of 1, it could bundle deliveries and reduce trucks on the street and the gas it uses.
And for sure, it won't be a critical view of the American consumerism (which is fueled and promoted and enhanced by retailers like Amazon) and how if the world had even 1/10th of the standard of living of the US the planet would be in flames right now.
It will probably be something like investment in renewable energy, electric trucks, drone delivery. All new stuff, investment opportunities, things that coincidentally help Amazon while helping the world. Don't get me wrong, it's all stuff we need, but the cynicism comes from Bezos being committed to fighting climate change as long as it doesn't take his money, and actually, it should probably make him money in the process.
> the cynicism comes from Bezos being committed to fighting climate change as long as it doesn't take his money, and actually, it should probably make him money in the process.
If this is the way it works out, isn't that actually pretty great? I mean, I personally find Amazon to be quite useful, so it if could continue being an economically viable business while also fighting climate change, I'd be very happy.
You should read the book the OP mentioned. Most of the charities these billionaires donate to are also under their control. So the beneficiary and the benefactor are one and the same. Sometimes the moons align and the billionaire, the charity, and the public good are all served. Other times you get the Trumps' version of charity. And in some cases they can be harmful, such as the founder of Mozilla donating to charities that were anti CA Prop 8.
These charities are a way to bypass the democratic method of funding public goods. I don't believe the US military budget should be as big as it is. Yet I pay taxes that fund it whether I agree to it or not. If I was a millionaire I could fund a religious school that taught white Jesus as the one true religion instead of funding secular state schools.
The bigger problem is the people who have created many of these problems now want to be in control of the solutions.
He will definitely save a bit of money on taxes. I suspect his marginal tax rate is ~24% (20% Cap Gains + 4% Medicare). So this donation will lower his net worth by ~7.6B.
In any case, this is a giant amount of money by philanthropic standards. I doubt more than 4-5 people have ever given as much for all of the things they support.
Feel free to complain about "tax loss" as in the government getting less money than they would otherwise, but it's definitely not a "tax dodge" - tax dodging only makes sense if you actually end up with more money than you would otherwise - i.e. you "earn" $100m but then you "dodge tax" to pay only $10m tax instead of $20m, and end up with $90m after-tax income rather than $80m. Multiple ways of doing that - the obvious one is moving your tax residence to a 0% tax haven, the less obvious one is to artificially inflate the value of an asset (e.g. a work of art) and then "donate it" and write off that from tax (e.g. buy it for $10k, donate it when it's "worth" $10m, write that off as a "loss" and pay only $10m tax instead of $20m).
First of all, I searched and couldn't find he's actually giving $10b. What I mean is that I don't know if the $10b accounts for any Amazon investments / costs.
Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned. I know, still a lot of money! But he's not loosing $10b from his fortune.
Third, in this case you happen to think it's a win for society and the future of humanity. Other billionaires give money for causes they believe, like The Koch family for "advancing liberty and freedom", or Bloomberg advocating for a third term as mayor. The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern. We praise when they give to causes we believe, but the system that allows them to do this has nefarious byproducts. It's like we're watching billionaires shape our society and our culture and think that's alright.
> Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned
No. It's $10 billion. 10 billion that he won't pay tax on. But he gives $10 billion and the cause receives $10 billion. The $2.4 billion is money that the government won't get in taxes.
> The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern
The thing is, a lot of us like that what people do with their own money is not accountable to the government.
I think it's essential that not all of society is under control by a single central power.
EDIT: As someone said on Twitter - "Say what you want about billionaires, I doubt any of them would have decided to give farmers $10 billion to not grow crops."
This "single" central power is actually 250M potential voters, 130M actual voters, 20M workers, 90k, 50 states, and 20k cities / town / villages.
On the other side, 600 billionaires. Which because they figured out how to earn and keep a lot of money somehow makes them capable of fixing women's issues, racial conflicts, climate change, mass incarceration, homelessness, education, hunger, and healthcare problems. Somehow, they will do all that without influencing public policy, in a sustainable, ethical, morally justifiable and rightful way, so as long as we let them keep getting richer.
The US federal government is absolutely a single central power. That its leadership is selected democratically is good, but doesn't change that.
I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.
I think we can quibble on what central really means, but the fact that they're democratically elected is the important part here. We make the government, and can direct its actions to what should benefit us the most. None gets a saying on what the Koch family or Bezos do with their money other than themselves.
> I don't expect billionaires to be perfect, but so far none of them has invaded countries for mistaken reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people, or locked up millions in a War on Drugs.
I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.
The War on Drugs is a shame, and harder to blame on rich people, probably with the exception of private prisons, which is a relative recent development. Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem? Spending money to change policies so drugs get treated as a public health problem? Fighting against police brutality and racism? Curbing sales of opioids?
And inversely, are any billionaires fighting for the police state? Militarizing the police? Putting more and more opioids on the streets? Privatizing prisons? Selling junk food? Cigarettes? Animal factory farming? Massive student debt? Destroying elections? Fighting against unionization? Any of them against climate change?
Is all that we have left the hope that Bezos has more money than someone who owns a coal mining company so we get the climate change efforts we want? Are we betting the future of the planet on a hope that the richest people alive will be on our side?
I just think it's an important realization that while a democratically elected central government is much better than, say, one run by absolute hereditary monarchy, it is still one central government, and it will end up being run by a few people who make the their way to the top.
> I know a lot of people that would pin the gratuitous invasion of other countries on the industrial-military complex and control of oil and all the money that depends on it.
I don't know how you can square that view with the one where the voting public controls the government. Is the voters or the industrial-military complex in charge? Can't be both.
The human ability to hold completely opposite views at the same time truly is something!
> Are there any billionaires trying to solve this problem?
Well, the Koch brothers certainly do/did. A few quickly Google links:
It's always interesting that often those who yell the loudest about private power / monopolies (even when they're not), are always advocating for more power in the monopoly of violence - the government.
Maybe governments are good sometimes, but sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too. We can have it both ways, and we currently do.
> sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too
This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?
I think individuals that answer to no one is important for the 'random walk' aspect of solutions to problems. If someone fails then oh well. If they succeed it perhaps provides a model for less risk averse agencies to pursue, perhaps even governmental bodies.
Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government.
I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it.
Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects.
So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.
The people who make the "they're just doing it for tax deductions" argument give me the feeling that they don't understand what a tax deduction is.
All it means is that his taxable income will be whatever his income is minus that $10B. He's not getting a net benefit from doing this.
To make the math easier, consider someone making $100k and paying a 30% tax rate. If they donate $10k to charity, rather than pay 30k in taxes, they're paying 27k in taxes. They saved 3k in taxes, but they still donated $10k, so they're out 7k.
If his entire objective was to pay less in taxes, stashing it in the Cayman Islands would make way more sense than donating it.
As others said, why should it matter? I would be happy even if he got an 100% tax credit. what percent of tax revenue would have gone to climate change vs bombing some civilians in Afghanistan.
So far as 538 can figure out, our democratically-elected government has spent less than $10 billion fighting climate change in the past 25 years put together.
So personally I'm not impressed with our government's ability to allocate funds towards useful causes.
If another billionaire spends their money on a cause I don't care about so much, fine, at least they didn't spend my money on it. And they'd go to prison if they did anything near so offensive as some of the things the government has been up to lately.
The post you’re replying to already explained where the democratically elected government is choosing to spend the money. Billionaire seems to be making better decisions.
“Billionaire seems to be making better decisions.”
Don’t buy into that. Otherwise we’ll soon have a dictator who gets things “done”. Part of the problem with democratic governments not working well is that the system gets manipulated by rich guys pushing their personal agenda.
So you suggest taking power away from CEOs, putting into the hands of the government (effectively making it the CEO) which has police, military, and prisons? That is how you get a dictator.
Between CEOs and governments, which has a historically higher body count? Who's jailed more people for not agreeing with them?
You say the problem with democratic governments not working well is that it gets manipulated by rich guys.
What happens when big business and government are the same thing? That makes for even easier corruption.
What you have right now is crony capitalism, where CEOs have a massive influence over government, and use that to enact their agendas (corporate socialism). We're already at big business and government being the same thing.
I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting putting more power into the hands of the government. How about we let the billionaires spend money on the causes they want and just stay out of it (NO tax breaks). That's actually less government.
Because the government is doing a terrible job with the trillions it already spends? What difference would 10 billion make to the US government? Basically nothing.
This sort of knee-jerk antagonism against billionaires spending their money on philanthropic causes is so common these days. I think Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a very good piece on this [1].
Nonsense. Parent stated Bezo's should get a 100% tax rebate. I never voted to subsidize Bezo's philanthropy to the tune of 100% of tax revenue, and I like to think I live in a democracy. Nothing I said was knee-jerk antagonism.
I gave $100 to the Girl Guides last week without any expectation of a 100% tax rebate. Who am I to decide that tax payer revenue should 100% go towards the Girl Guides? Maybe other tax payers would prefer it went towards something else?
As far as $10 billion being basically nothing... we wouldn't be talking about it if it was $100, but my opinion wouldn't change.
Hey I don't care what he does with his money as long as it's legal. I'm not going to give him a big huge tax break so he can decide where my taxes go though.
I was using the bombing of civilians as a illustrative example and dont know the true cost, as it would depend on how you choose to measure it.
For example, if you divided the appropriated 750 billion for the war in Afghanistan by the 40k civilians killed,you would get around 50 million per civilian. This neglects the time value of money, so in that respect, it would be an underestimate.
However, this is all besides the point I stated in my last post. It seems you have on opinion on the subject, and if you would like to discuss it, I suggest you state it plainly.
We're pretty light on details. I take it as he will probably gift $10 billion dollars worth of stock from his personal portfolio to a 501(c), which they will use as an endowment. I think this would bypass capital gains altogether?
But 'pledge' could mean any number of things, like selling stock slowly over time.
Thanks, that's useful information in the context of this thread. Looks like the money will come straight from him and not any foundation - something unusual these days, but it does show his level of commitment.
> Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this?
I would think so with this sort of investment. It depends on what you mean by tomorrow. I like the 18 year cycle because that is how long it takes to produce a crop of tax paying voters. Years 0-5 atmosphere and nutrition quality carry more weight during that physical development term.
If he wants a "trillion human Solar system with a thousand Mozart and Einstein minds", then citizen factory Earth is a good first step?
>Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and lots of goodwill?
If ($10B to address climate change) is true, then why should anyone care if Bezos' $130b today becomes $120b tomorrow, or $200b tomorrow?
I care about whether the $10B will be spent effectively and efficiently to combat climate change, and that's it. Full stop.
Income tax deductions are limited to a fraction of income. I don't think that's a meaningful complaint there.
The perhaps more interesting complaint is that the fund is still ultimately controlled by Bezos; he can only spend it on some vaguely charitable things, but ultimately he can hire and pay cronies, choose to fund his choice of projects, etc, etc. It's both not his and still his money.
don't forget the necessity for major public relations efforts when your company is under fire for tax evasion, dangerous (sometimes lethal) work environments, not properly governing its platform leading to rampant fraud, and on and on. But hey. Always two ways to look at any situation.
The amount of conflict in the remarks is because both parties are right. It's very wonderful for Jeff Bezos to donate $10B dollars. But also it's right about private jets, which generate much carbon pollution.
It's fair to say that everyone has to do their part against climate problems. I for one make personal sacrifices yes. Less meat, less consuming, trying for local purchases as often as possible so the cheese I eat is not from France, driving a lot less, and also I fly much less. This year only one trip home instead of two.
For us to lift out of poverty many more people, it's worrying about the carbon costs of this. But now we have to behave smarter and people for whom sacrifices are easiest should make them first.
I recently did some calculations on car vs plane travel. For commuter flights, it surprised me to find out that for gasoline cars, car travel isn't better than a flight until you get to a carpool of four passengers. For electric cars, a solo driver is about the same as air travel (in an average airport flight) - a second passenger makes it better than air travel. (This was for a flight halfway across the country.)
So yeah, limiting long distance travel is the way to go. I just found it surprising because I think a lot of people might choose to drive instead of fly, thinking it's better for the environment - usually not unless you're carpooling.
Care to reproduce your calculations here? I'm certain you're off by a factor of 10 (at least). Flying is probably the worst thing you will do in your entire life as far as the environment is concerned.
Aviation Emissions, Impacts & Mitigation: A Primer
FAA Office of Environment and Energy
January 2015
Aviation stands out among transportation modes, however, in terms of improving fuel efficiency over the past decade. As shown in Figure 1: Comparison of Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, in 2004, automobiles and airlines operating in the U.S. had very similar energy intensities, with automobiles at 3,496 BTU/passenger mile versus airlines at 3,505 BTU/passenger mile. Between 2004 and 2012, auto energy intensity fell to 3,193 BTU/passenger mile, for an 8.8% improvement. For the same period, aviation energy intensity fell to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile, a 24.3% improvement and is now significantly lower than automobiles.
In addition to being more efficient flying is wildly safer. You have a 750x better chance of surviving a commercial flight than a car trip the same distance. (2000-2010)
This was literally a five-minute exercise with google queries and Calca, so I won't be surprised if you're right. For this trip I used 991 air miles, vs 1177 driving miles.
Co2PerMile = 53 (for a plane)
AirTravelMiles = 991
PeopleOnAirplane = 189 (average passengers per plane)
Or, very roughly, a plane is about 50 lbs/mile, and a car is 1 lb/mile, so it depends on number of passengers in each.
As for an electric car, they say an electric car is currently equivalent in emissions to an 80 mpg car, and the average gas car is 22mpg, so... about 4x.
So again very roughly, for that distance, air travel is better than car travel (in terms of CO2) unless you have a 4-person carpool for gas cars. If it's a one-person electric car, it's roughly equivalent.
Anyway still, the takeaway is that it's the travel distance that has the CO2 impact. Car vs Plane isn't really the point.
Local purchases may not be as green as you think. Only a small percent of carbon footprint from produce is due to transport. A centralized production could be more efficient and less carbon (and land) consuming overall.
I also would push back on the idea that this is a "goodwill move". He dumped $2b in homelessness issues and it did nothing to move the needle on his likability. If anything it seemed to give him a lot of bad press and coverage. It seems more likely that he is either a) thinking about his long term legacy (a la Bill Gates), or b) he may (gasp) actually care about this issue.
It's a huge initial endowment for sure. It would be a little more fair to include the other $50 billion the Gates Foundation has already given (ie they're up around $100 billion so far, with perhaps another $250 billion yet to come).
The Gates Foundation has ~$45-$50 billion in assets currently and has given away more than $50 billion thus far (~$23 billion of that giving is from Warren Buffett's contributions; Buffett's donations have to be used rapidly after they're given to the foundation (within the year or such if I recall), that money isn't allowed to pile up). The foundation as it's known today - The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - got started with $16 billion in 1999/2000.
Gates + Buffett = $210 billion currently. Due to the Buffett money pouring in, they basically can't give it all away as fast as Bill & Melinda had originally planned, so they're likely going to miss their timeline for giving the Gates fortune away (in their lifetimes was the first goal; that shifted to now being within 20 years after their passing).
On another, shipping cheap plastic junk from China all over the world, to finish up in landfill a few years later, is the very definition of environmental vandalism and is Amazon's core business model.
> On another, shipping cheap plastic junk from China all over the world, to finish up in landfill a few years later, is the very definition of environmental vandalism and is Amazon's core business model.
The systemic fix for this is to tax the externalities (carbon, cheap plastic, whatever) so that prices better reflect the costs to the environment.
I look forward to Jeff Bezos financially supporting pro climate change candidates for Congressional office who can implement the necessary legislation we can’t fix climate change without (carbon tax, depreciation of financial incentives for fossil fuel production and consumption, tax credits for renewables, nuclear, and EV charging infra, etc).
We need a World War 2 industrial movement (“you will no longer be building cars, you will only build tanks and aircraft for the war effort”) to fix climate change, and only nation states have the ability to mandate the effort required from industry. Market forces alone will not be sufficient.
Do we know how much emissions can be attributed to Amazon / AWS? I'm curious if this $10 billion fund could offset that or if it's too small to cover their own use.
Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:
> Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions by 2030.
It all depends on whether you're comparing to a counterfactual or not. If you compare the emissions caused by AWS to those emissions simply not happening then that's a pretty severe source of carbon. If you compare it to companies hosting all that computing themselves then I think it's a pretty clear economic win. If you think that a lot of that would be self-hosted but many of the uses simply wouldn't exist then it's hard to say.
For Amazon I really feel like I have no idea about it. With warehouses instead of big box stores you've got a lot less volume being lighted and heated plus a lot of individual cars driving to a central place are replaced by a few large delivery fans then that's the same sort of win you get from people switching to driving the bus. But two-day shipping for rare items that involves flying them across the country is terrible for the environment. So I don't think that I have any clue what the net environmental impact of Amazon has been.
The purpose of the CDP is precisely for this kind of public shaming or praising, for keeping track of which companies are reporting what. Amazon is really bad for not disclosing anything.
Attributing emissions to Amazon/AWS is not a trivial problem. What you'd really want to estimate is AmazonEmissions-CounterfactualEmissions, which is the emissions caused by companies that would jointly provide the services demanded by consumers from Amazon, in the counterfactual world where Amazon didn't exist.
If Amazon reported their emissions, we can corroborate their Scope 1 emissions with other companies' Scope 3 emissions and get an indication of just how much Amazon is directly responsible for.
Amazon, however, discloses nothing. This is the kind of thing that regulations are for. In other countries, disclosure is mandatory, and I would say for our survival as a species, absolutely essential. We need data before we can know what direction to take.
When we do our GHG assessment at the company where I work, we estimate our Scope 3 emissions based on what has been leaked about the location of Amazon's data centres and what we know about the electricity grid in those locations. We look at our CPU usage on the AWS console and estimate the energy required with some assumptions of the hardware.
It introduces a lot of uncertainty and we could do better if Amazon disclosed their emissions.
It's kind of irrelevant how much harm a single company does, since that company exists to serve a demand that would simply be filled by other companies if it didn't exist. Maybe those theoretical other companies would have marginally better business practices vis-a-vis the environment, but it's not like they would operate in a wholly alternative economic system.
simplifying down complex issues to fit "the curves" narrative often misses a lot of really important nuance.
to wit, let's imagine there's an incumbent company that serves out the demand in an incredibly efficient but environmentally harmful manner. further suppose this is a large national player that's willing to eat some losses in order to crowd out the whole "efficient allocation of resources" type new businesses that may spring up and serve that demand in an environmentally friendly manner.
according to "the curves", there's no room to displace that incumbent because they're stuck in a local maximum when it comes exclusively to satisfying demand. but it's pretty clear that there are externalities that, when considered, make it an attractive target for change by different players.
It's not irrelevant: a single company can undertake different economic activities that produce the same economic outputs with different ecological results. I've seen this first-hand in my line of work. When you make companies publish their greenhouse gas KPIs, they start to reduce them.
This says he "commits" 10B to a new initiative named after himself. What do terms like "commits" and "pledges" mean? From the article it looks like all he did was post on Instagram.
Is there more to this than an IG post? Is there anything legally binding, anything that actually moves the money outside of his control? Did his networth just drop 10B?
It’s really not expensive at all, but you have to have policymakers with the will to implement these policies.
Arby’s has more employees than there are coal miners in the United States, for example. The problem is there’s an enormous amount of investors and entrenched interests who are going to have trillions of dollars in stranded assets from these policies. Those folks should not be made whole for bad investment decisions.
This is an interesting idea but impractical to implement. Not all companies are for sale, there are still real uses for coal, and "forcing something to happen" doesn't always makes sense. It's his job to be the best capital allocator he can be, and buying a company just to shut it down is a way to lose a lot of money. Since they are sinking on their own, fighting to find better solutions for the future might have been a calculation he made that has better long term benefits.
You would find economic ways to disable these companies from operating. You mustn’t buy a whole company to do this. Maybe you buy a key piece of real estate they need and tie them up in court for years. Maybe you find key employees and hire them away and pay them to garden at the Spheres in Seattle. Maybe you convince a port to no longer allow the transfer of coal through there using economic coercion or donations to city hall. Or you acquire the water rights near a coal plant so it can’t run its cooling operations, forcing early retirement.
Lots of ways to skin a cat. Find the linchpin and apply as much force necessary with as little cash possible. One can be efficient and expedient simultaneously. I agree you have to do the math to pick the opportunities that allow for offsetting/retiring as much CO2 per dollar spent as possible.
I’ve put together notes along these lines if someone with deep pockets is interested. Economic warfare is the most exciting exertion of force imho.
Sure, and you stop coal from getting to a small town that used it to run it's power supplies, or heat, because you didn't offer a solution and suddenly removed it, or it jacks up the price for low-income/mid-income people. You need a solution, not just "shut down the company", people rely on those jobs. It needs to be an easing-out process.
That’s your job as a citizen to vote for representation that implements such policies. Don’t like the policies, run for office and vote.
I agree with you these people need to be taken care of (subsidizing energy efficiency programs, such as insulating their homes and installing heat pumps to get them off of coal or oil for thermal needs), but that’s the responsibility of their government (at the moment; I would of course like to see non government efforts if the resources can be mustered).
That's an incredibly optimistic perspective, as any minority will tell you.
To argue that businesses should shutdown current solutions without creating new ones lacks a huge amount of responsibility and will lead to mass chaos. New solutions to be discussed and in place before or immediately after dissolution that could put thousands on the street, in poverty or medical care.
I get mixed reactions from potential wealthy benefactors when I discuss these ideas. Some definitely shun them and would rather play a clean ballgame, but I have had exactly two who have asked who to make the check out to.
In front of the right audience, there is an appetite.
I wrote [1] a couple of months ago, a sort of 'clean baseball' version, under the overall auspices of a fund. I've also recently pitched an idea to win Senate seats, but haven't heard anything back on that one (major funding needed). Anyway, if there is interest, or just to brainstorm (as I enjoy this sorta thing), please drop me a line. grant AT eonias DOT (typical non-profit top level domain)
Not really. Coal is not economic to make new plants. New plants are generally natural gas or renewable. So shutting down old plants shifts demand to NG or solar/wind.
A lot of the worst polluters are state owned coal plants. There are some private energy producers, but from what I understand, most energy companies just act as interstate brokers between local agencies.
Then, buy the biggest coal mining companies and shut them down (or convert to renewables).
In 2016, Australia was the world's biggest net coal exporter[1] with 32% of global exports and the fourth highest producer. As far as I know, all coal mining in Australia is undertaken by private companies who hold a mining lease.
The $10billion could be used to buy controlling interests in some of the 10 biggest listed coal mining companies in Australia[2] and stop mining.
What I don't know is if the Australian Government can withdraw a coal mining lease if it's not being used (then just reduce production to miniscule levels) or what the impact would be when the lease expires. Still, I'd suggest such a move would have a crippling near term impact on the coal mining industry, which might be enough to kick renewables along further to fill the gap.
It's an interesting idea. Buy up any lease you can and sit on it. Probably a risky way to burn through a few billion, and at the risk that new companies pop up anyway and undo all your work.
I would rather they focus on drowning out coal on the supply side, or furthering carbon capture technology.
Don't forget to allow a few hundred million to donate to political parties (particularly the incumbents), as the current minerals/mining lobby is quite entrenched.
1. Startup costs for a coal company are high (I assume they are, but it depends on the region)
2. The company has exclusive right to their coal, and it's hard to find other sources of coal that aren't claimed by other companies (not sure on this one, but it also depends on the region)
(these first 2 conditions are in place to make sure that no one starts another coal company after the buyout)
3. The marginal cost of buying a coal company for that purpose is lower than the marginal cost of starting a company which has the same net amount of positive climate change externalities.
How do you get to that figure? As one example the US Government spends billions of dollars per year subsidizing renewable energy, ie fighting climate change. $6.7 billion in 2016 alone. I'm not arguing that's an appropriate sum, however your 25 year premise is drastically wrong.
Since 2010, I'd bet the US Government has spent in the neighborhood of $60-$100 billion on renewable energy subsidies. The EIA reports that for 2010 and 2013 the figures were a combined $30 billion.
Then throw in nuclear energy subsidies over the last 25 years, which is comparable to the Bezos figure by itself.
> $154 billion on climate-change-related activities since 1993 [but] 94 percent of the money was going to programs that weren’t primarily focused on climate change — things like nuclear energy. The money marked as climate spending wasn’t going to new initiatives. Instead, “it’s a bunch of related things we were already doing,”
So 6% of the money being actual new money focused on fixing climate, times $154 billion, is $9.24 billion.
I think that's an appropriate comparison since the Bezos money is new money specifically for fixing climate.
Well, better to take part of the money you made storing carbon in the atmosphere, and use it to mitigate carbon in the atmosphere, than to use it for something else..... riiiiight?
I think this money could be used much more effectively by attacking other more pressing issues (like child nutrition). Climate Change is not such a cut-and-dry situation, it's difficult to parse out the facts from the political commentary/posturing. Bjorn Lomborg articulates all this better than I ever could.
The money is great, of course, but a piece of me wonders every time I see this sort of thing if spending time managing these endeavors directly would be more impactful towards the goal.
I am a little worried that this initiative will only do things that don’t cost Bezos too much money. I feel the same when Silicon Valley guys push UBI. It often seems a way for them to keep their money while pretending to do something.
Maybe I am too cynical but these guys got to where they are by always looking out for themselves first.
We don't know the structure of "The Earth Fund" so here are some possibilities:
if its an actual fund then it can make more investments, no immediate tax consequences, but any long term capital losses, because nobody has a sustainability solution that makes any money, will serve to offset any taxes that he would have to pay on the long term capital gains of his Amazon stock sales.
if its another charitable foundation, then the whole $10B will offset up to 50% of his whole tax bill any year, rolling forward till there is no more to deduct. not just limited to any particular type of capital tax. he can also just donate his amazon shares without selling them first, gaining a charitable deduction on the entire value and no capital gains tax event, but depending on the type of charitable foundation the donation could be limited to his cost basis, instead of the current fair market value, another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible. Actually this could be genius because his cost basis might have become pegged to the fair market value in the divorce. The IRS allows divorcing couples to keep their original cost basis on split property but could be optional, given the nature of their settlement where it seems there were modifications onto what the stock contract actually is - with some shares transferred but voting rights retained.
So for example, there is almost no scenario where Jeff Bezos has to pay any taxes on the $4Billion in Amazon shares he sold earlier this year. Whether he converts another $10B shares to cash or not.
So even though he 'spends' on a cause and theoretically doesn't get to use that money for himself, even though its not paying the government either, he doesn't actually lose any money he ever actually had.
It's nice that a transaction towards this cause is occurring.
It's technically only 30% of his tax bill for gifts of appreciated capital, which Bezos will almost certainly prefer to 50% of the cost basis (approximately 0 for his shares). See IRS pub 526. Depending on the specifics of how qualified the donation is, the limit might be as low as 20%.
> another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible
It is fun to think about. Ever since I read that part of the tax code I’ve been taking a dim view on the 401(k) statutes since the 501(c)3 and 509(a) statutes are like supercharged tax deferrals and shelters if you have 6-figures annually to put into them
That seems like an important question, yes. If the fund aims to keep the biosphere from falling apart by sending some people lots of money, our evaluations should depend pretty heavily on who the people will be.
Unless he is able to lobby for laws that make carbon emitters responsible for their externalities, I'm sure the winners will be big-ass companies like Amazon.
I don't understand this. Backing a political movement is probably the worst thing he could do. He's completely distrusted politically, and polls terribly with the general public. He would only taint any movement he backed.
If he had backed (now suspended) Presidential candidate Andrew Yang early enough he could have aligned himself with Yang's message: highlighting too that Amazon paid $0 in taxes + is closing 30% of malls, etc. - which would be him acknowledging and responding to the issues at hand that Yang; allowing him to acknowledge the current system's structure - that all companies including Jeff's - must compete within, but that it's ultimately a problem for society (even if it's good for the economy/GDP).
Nobody trusts or likes oil companies or drug companies or media monopolies either but they are extremely successful at achieving their political goals.
Can you walk me through how it ends in anything other than Gates having given his money away through the Gates foundation? Also, for what it's worth (and I don't think this is even essential to the point), the Gates Foundation has an explicit mandate to spend down all reserves within 20 years of their death:
> Also announced was the decision to spend all of the foundation's resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths.[177][178][179][180] This was later lowered to within 20 years of their death.[181][182] This would close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
He doesn't 'give money away' no-string-attached. He uses the donations to control the way the economy deals with the externalities of capitalism. It's fundamentally anti-democratic for that share of the world's economy to be driven by the whims of one man.
Not saying everyone needs to have the same level of say in the outcome of the economy, but there's a minimum below which the system becomes unresponsive to real human need and a maximum above which diminishing returns sets in.
Billionaire invests $10B dollars to virtue signal and control the behavior of the poor, while not changing his lifestyle at all. 165M dollar environmentally excessive mansion, private jets, and a rocket program that dumps carbon into the air.
I’ll be impressed when billionaires actually make sacrifices themselves, rather than just write checks.
Checks are important, but let’s be real about these people.
>What do you think actually makes the most difference:
a) Donating $10B b) Reducing his personal environmental impact to zero
How does that Gandhi quote go: Be the change you want to see in the World... or was it pay for the change you want to see in the World?
You think Gandhi would have effected the change he did by paying others to engage in acts of civil disobedience? Paid others to break imperial laws and get arrested? Paid others to engage in hunger strikes?
Gandhi was a western educated and trained lawyer, but he boycotted western clothing and adopted the dhoti...it is not just a symbol (or virtue signaling) but it was a necessary act. Whereas $10B from Bezos for Climate change appears to be just a symbol, because he continues to head a Company that facilitates unbridled consumerism and global consumption and he seems unwilling to make personal sacrifices to his lavish lifestyle.
I dislike gross displays of privilege. Being rich and advocating for everyone else to reduce consumption while maintaining your own lavish, polluting lifestyle simply because you have the money to “offset” it is obscene.
I don't see any mention of Bezos agitating for consumption reduction in that article. I don't see any mention of his personal consumption habits so I'm curious where you got the data on which you are basing your claims (for all your know he has made personal sacrifices). Your entire argument appears unsound as a single individual's consumption has basically negligible impact on the environment (so it is trivial to "offset" it and massively reducing quality of life is basically just virtue signaling) whereas a cash grant of this magnitude could actually have an outsized impact.
> I dislike gross displays of privilege.
You appear to simply dislike people who have much more money than you.
Better to encourage it then, surely. If rich people are doing good things in order to win praise, what's the point of denying it to them? If enough of us react that way, we won't diminish the power of the rich people, we'll just get to watch them spend their money more selfishly.
This doesn't mean staying silent about the bad things they do. But if we only respond to the good things by bringing up the bad things, we end up perversely being more critical of the ones who do some good, and diverting our scrutiny away from those who don't even bother.
(I haven't looked into this pledge, so I'm just speaking on the hypothetical case where it is likely to do good, as you've acknowledged is at least possible.)
edit: I just noticed that you say in another comment you 'do not believe in climate change'. In which case I guess this line of reasoning won't have any force for you. But maybe you can understand why people who do see climate change as a serious problem are going to take a pragmatic view, and treat the investment of $10b as vastly more important than the lifestyle sacrifices of a single person.
I dislike when we have two standards of behavior. When someone is not destitute they are expected to conform to a multitude of societal norms, when they are poor every vice and misbehavior is excused.
I propose one standard of expectation and we make everyone follow it.
What does changing his lifestyle have to do with anything. He's just giving 10 billion dollars to a good cause and somehow you're using it to fuel an arbitrary vendetta with someone you've never met.
Maybe that is not a significant change in his spending account, but how many of us are truly making lifestyle sacrifices to support these causes? I think it's a very small number, and most people haven't given 10 billion dollars to the cause (or done any of the other amazing things Bezos' has done for this society).
You do have a point, but on the other hand, when some girl decided she had enough of the hypocrisy and sailed a yacht to cross the Atlantic, people still made fun of her for using plastic dishes in a train.
So, I think some people just don't like the message and will find any and every excuse to talk about the messengers instead.
I'm not that impressed by Jeff Bezos either, but I'll take a billionaire pledging $10B living in a lavish mansion over a billionaire pledging nothing and still living in the same mansion. It's a step in the right direction.
I do not believe in climate change. I also do not believe in a ruling elite advocating reduced consumption by others while consuming and emitting all they want simply because they have the money to “offset” it. It is an obscene display of privilege.
Discussing the proper response to a problem with someone who denies its existence is rarely productive, so people might have saved some time if they had known your position from the beginning.
>I’ll be impressed when billionaires actually make sacrifices themselves, rather than just write checks.
Why? Jeff Bezos donating that much money to combat climate change will have a much larger positive good than the negative things you outlined that he does.
He's also switching majority (I'm unsure as to the amount and the timeframe of his delivery trucks to electric). With pressure from someone like Bezos putting vehicle fleets on electric, that could put the US on the path to build a much needed electric vehicle infrastructure.
;) Maybe given Bezos' character, the endowment and the fleet upgrade is actually, well aside from being more cost effective for a lot of reasons .. also .. his best vehicle for scoring some long term points against the Saudis, since they 'didn't hack his phone, or whatever.
So then, at this point, there's nothing he can do to win you over that you can't come up with some conspiracy theory with an ulterior motive where he's bent on world domination?
Let me ask a more clarifying question, then, I guess? What could he do where you wouldn't think he was up to no good?
I think these kinds of opinions are really dangerous–we cannot just expect society to go back to the stone age. It's why the average human is blocking climate change out, the changes have to come in the form of e.g. CO2 taxes and broad regulation. Climate is not the responsibility of the individual citizen. It's bad enough as it is, we don't need to feel guilty every day about small things like using a plastic straw when the scale of the problem is so mind-bogglingly large
One thing we need to stop completely is emissions trading and carbon offsetting. Carbon emissions have to be decreased drastically by most large corporations and offsetting and trading does not reduce emissions & allows corporations and governments to greenwash constantly. Here in New Zealand the governments is praised as being pro environment when it is all just greenwashing. They are portrayed as left leaning when they are neo-liberal aka climate change denying capatilists. They don't understand economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are mutually exclusive.
Sharing shit information like this is why the average human is blocking climate change out. No one is suggesting going back to the Stone Age. Your plastic straw use isn’t warming the planet. But, you should consider the impact flying a jet has on the earth.
Or eating meat. Or drinking milk. Or eating cheese. or eating corn. Or the thousand and one little things that you can do to vote with your wallet. And remember the point of the exercise doesn't have to be to stop doing it completely, but to do less of it and to consider whether you really want or need that. It's a far cry between maybe ordering the 8 oz instead of the 12 oz steak versus burning your house down and knapping flints for the rest of your days.
Noone is perfect. Greta eschewed the plane for a yacht, and guess what, people like you are still complaining. This is why people are blocking it out and are angry at her. How the can anyone win with this logic?
We can't just shame ourselves into fixing the climate. Broad regulation is the only way this will get solved. It can't be up to each individual person to save the climate.
If that's your solution, we're even more fucked than we currently are. Even if everybody stopped flying or eating ribeyes or whatever, there's still a huge amount of carbon that needs to be sucked out of the atmosphere, and plenty of extremely large sources of carbon and methane that are still there. The world is going to shit and you want me to eschew the tiny bit of enjoyment I have left in the hopes that everybody else does the same thing? Not gonna happen.
Carbon emissions are fungible. Rockets are fine as long as we find ways to extract an equivalent amount of carbon. And carbon capture programs need a source of revenue to be built out, so this is more helpful than him turning down his personal emissions to zero.
It sounds more like you find it unfair that he gets to live the way he does.
Unfair in what way? If you wanted, you could preach limited consumption to everyone who listens and behave in the complete opposite manner of what you preach (to the greatest degree that your personal finances allow). Is it simply a matter of degree to you? Or is it a 'principle' thing? If the latter, there's plenty of hypocrisy to be found in the world - why focus on the billionaire who just pledged $10B to a cause that will benefit us all? Aren't there also wealthy people who preach limited consumption and don't make large private donations? At least Bezos is putting his money where his mouth is.
I've never seen Bezos push for personal austerity, have you? He's trying to move their fleets to EVs and transition data centers to renewable energy, those aren't a limited consumption measure.
Here, by your own admission, Bezos spent 165M on a mansion and 10B on climate funding, ~70x his personal outlay, and you chide him from not making sacrifices. He did make sacrifices. You just refuse to acknowledge them because 'evil rich people'.
Just to cynically correct you, he hasn’t do t anything. He’s “committed “ to giving 10B. I don’t see a timeframe or a plan. This is all talk currently.
Yes, relatively speaking, each launch contributes a "large" amount, but it is completely irrelevant when looking at the overall picture. There are ~100 launches a year, compared with 7 billion miles driven by automobiles per year [1] for example.
I don't have a source handy, but I remember hearing that each launch is the equivalent of the annual output of 2 passenger vehicles. So all rockets launches worldwide = 200 drivers.
Yes, some do. Blue Origin's BE-4 engine will run on methane, SpaceX' Raptor engine does as well, Falcon 9s are using refined kerosine instead (i.e. 'gas'). The total amount emitted is negligible compared to aviation or shipping though.
Depends on the fuel. With hydrogen powered rockets a la shuttle main engines, yes. Most of the recent pushes have been kerosene or methane fueled, though.
But in the scheme of things, it's really not worth complaining about them vs. our enormous vehicle fleets.
Depending on their fuel, they dump some carbon. I would expect that all the rockets launched since Goddard do not add up to significant amounts of carbon.
rpjguy seems to regard the rocket thing as Bezos's hobby, for his own entertainment, rather than as an actual attempt to get humanity into space in a meaningful way.
A rocket burning all its fuel dumps a lot more carbon than a plane, however, since there are so many more plane flights than rocket flights, the total amount is insignificant in comparison.
Having the CEO make decisions that change Amazon's climate impact is a much larger lever than donating money. I'm not opposed to donations, or lifestyles, but what the largest economic entities do on a day to day basis is where the real climate change action is... or isn't.
Just for your sake I included the market cap as well.
Edit: Seriously: this topic seems really hot. So many people seem to care about it when it's spoken about in a negative way. Maybe calm down a bit? Am I experiencing outright bullying right now? That's not a great visual for anyone, just saying.
Market cap is equally irrelevant. $10B is ~8% of his net worth. His biggest gain in net worth was 2017-2018 where it grew ~$80B, which would make $10B = 12.5% of his 'pre-tax income'. Donating 1/8th of your pre-tax income to charity would typically qualify as reasonably generous, no?
It’s incredibly difficult to present a dissenting opinion on certain topics here because of the downvoting system. It used to bother me to see points go down (upon reflection the upvote/downvote system really seems to reward groupthink). I think it would better to just have upvotes.
The way the system is designed today the only people who will present a dissenting opinion on a hot topic are either very inured to social pressure, or intentionally trolling.
Worlds richest man continues to pay zero tax while making fatuous annoucnements.
That should be the preface on every single Bezos article. Every time his name is mentioned, it should explained as follows "Jeff Bezos, who is the world's richest man and neither he nor is company have ever paid any tax at all."
Then people can effectively make their own mind up about whatever his PR team is pushing this week. It's impossible to be cynical enough, in my opinion. YMMV.
Disagree? Write down what you think this announcement means. Review it in a year and see if you were misled.
$10b of his own personal fortune? That won't results in tax breaks / deduction because can be considered a donation? Or does that include money Amazon-the-company is spending on "climate change" efforts, such as buying electric delivery trucks instead of gas ones? Investments in "green datacenters"? Is any of this new investment that's needed anyway for Amazon-the-company to operate, but now it's green so it gets added up to the $10b?
Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and lots of goodwill?