Its an odd amount as it way to much to build an art gallery or public park like some do, but to little to be like a second WHO that Bill Gates seems to aspire to.
Originally posted by Black Star Uchess You cynic! I didn't think of it like that though...
I think its great, I'm not sure how best they can use the money.
Charity is all well and good, but the US government would stand to collect billions in estate tax from those two without the 100% charitable deduction. I don't see why my income tax should have to be higher so Bill Gates can decide which charitable causes are more worthy than others.
Let Gates do what he wants with his money, but there's no policy justification for allowing this choice to reduce his estate tax to zero (or almost zero).
Maybe they should ... in the UK local councils are a great example of how govt waists / mis allocates resources. I think those two, especially with Buffetts skills could allocate resources better
The tax thing is funny.. I didn't realise that. But I would like to see some sharp minds like them look at the charity sector.
One thing that bugs me is the way charity is so linked to advertising. e.g . MacMillan eclipse similar medical charity's in the UK, in fairness publicity is part of their job but charitys like that get disproportionate attention. Plus the animal ones - I wonder if you put a kitten and a baby on a poster which would get the most sometimes.
Maybe they could allocate funds better? I checked out their website and it looks like a work in progress.