• floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/business/jeff-bezos-charity/index.html:

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos plans to give away the majority of his $124 billion net worth during his lifetime, telling CNN in an exclusive interview he will devote the bulk of his wealth to fighting climate change and supporting people who can unify humanity in the face of deep social and political divisions.

    Though Bezos’ vow was light on specifics, this marks the first time he has announced that he plans to give away most of his money. Critics have chided Bezos for not signing the Giving Pledge, a promise by hundreds of the world’s richest people to donate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes.

    So he made a vague promise, “light on specifics”, that he would give away “most” of his money to fighting the climate change that is exacerbated by his lifetime’s work and the social divisions that he has worked relentlessly to entrench? He could fight social divisions by treating his employees well and allowing them to unionize, but Amazon is notorious for mistreating its workers, it profits off forced labour in China, and he has fought dirty against unionization at every opportunity.

    Forgive me for suspecting he’s full of shit with his vague and noncommittal promise, after a self-serving lifetime of aggressively doing the opposite.

    • Changetheview@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the wealthy “giving it all away” is always a bullshit scheme in some way. If they really felt that way, they would have shared the profits with those who helped create them. This sort of wealth only happens in literally one situation: greed overcomes compassion for others.

      These schemes usually fall into one of three categories:

      1. I fucking hate my kids and don’t have anyone I think actually deserves this money, so I’m giving it to some random charities of my choosing when I die because I know damn well I can’t spend it all and I have to do something with it

      2. I’m just putting it all into a charitable trust that I still have full control over and likely won’t spend much out of it, unless it benefits me personally

      3. Straight up bullshit PR campaign about a future promise that is not binding

      Quite often, it’s a combination of 1 and 2, locking up the money for a loooong time and only to be used for a specific purpose.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Charitable trusts have to be donated to charity. You can’t pull the money back out. It’s like giving it away that year.

        Yeah, a ton of things can be a “charity”. You can donate the money to your friends at a church or a clubhouse for your friends and still have it be a “charity”.

        • Changetheview@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think we’re saying the same thing, but it’s definitely not like giving it to charity that year. They are irrevocable trusts so you can’t take the money back from it, but the majority money doesn’t immediately have to go anywhere.

          And even when money does flow out (beyond admin/establishment costs), there are TONS of creative ways to use it for personal benefit.

          See Rolex and Hershey for two of the biggest examples. Or giant charity galas.

          Many ways to use the funds for “non-profit” entertainment. Plenty of ways to get kickbacks from “charitable” donations. Non-profit status is not that high of a hurdle.