Why Warren Buffett Is Poorer Than Mark Zuckerberg (inc.com) 115
Facebook's soaring stock price isn't the only reason 34-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is now richer than 87-year-old Warren Buffett. An anonymous reader quotes Inc:
There's another, more important reason that Zuckerberg is now worth more: Buffett has been doing a great job of giving his money away, something that he, Zuckerberg, Gates, and most of the world's most well-known billionaires have pledged to do.
Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.
Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.
He's not poorer... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just less incredibly incredibly incredibly fucking rich.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:He's not poorer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's not poorer... (Score:4, Insightful)
One might if they've any hope or faith that the degree of wealth somehow correlates with effort or ability or contribution to society. Admittedly naive but one can still hope.
Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe one should begrudge them their fortune if their actual contribution to society falls well short of what they have amassed. But I’m careful with that sentiment, because the follow up question is: what ought to be done to make it right? Taxing the rich is a popular notion but not with me, because 1) the actual rich have no problem moving their wealth out of harm’s way, and 2) it invariably ends in classifying regular middle class folk with a bit of savings as “rich”. Because that’s where the real money is to be had. The middle class are docile, without much influence, without many options to flee heavy taxation, and they come in great numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely got poorer as of this morning's statement. :(
Some people do a better job than others (Score:2)
> In a proper free market economy, one that's relatively free of distortion, profit essentially gets driven down to nothing.
That's true, for the 99.9% of people who have a normal attitude about work and money, normal intelligence, normal levels of drive and dedication, etc.
There will always be a few people who are willing to give up everything else - family relationships, time off, weekends, social life, etc to compete in the "make money" game. They'll tend to make more money than people who lead a more
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe someone who made it past the intro to economics course would be more qualified to comment here.
Re: (Score:2)
In a proper free market economy, one that's relatively free of distortion, profit essentially gets driven down to nothing.
Fortunately for those seeking to profit, there is no such thing as a "proper free market". A truly free market is unstable - it will always devolve into a state of equilibrium in which big players have incumbent advantages that allow them to suppress competition, and thus raise prices such that they profit. That's why it's so essential to have governance capable of maintaining a level playing field, breaking up trusts, and curtailing the worst excesses of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the stock price is not directly related to profits.
Unless it's Tesla.
When you're Elon Musk your company's stock price is supposed to be related to profits.
(on Slashdot at least)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook was already worth a lot before it made any profit at all. Ditto Google, Amazon, and many other tech companies. The stock value of a company is based not only on current performance but on future potential.
Tesla inventors are betting that the company will successfully become a high volume car maker, and become one of the major brands in our electric car future. To a lesser extent they're also betting on Tesla's other product lines like solar roofs and the Powerwall. If they are right they stand to m
That's mean! (Score:3, Informative)
The ends justify the means. Find the 30 richest people and take 99% of their money and redistribute it to everyone equally. Problems solved.
Zuckerberg would be left with only $810,000,000! I mean come on! Think of how little he has contributed to society, after all. The World needed another advertising platform! Another place for people to waste their lives away! And he helped get Trump elected!
And realize that the Forbes 400 is made up with quite a few billionaires. I think you need to expand your scope.
Eisenhower era income tax rates (inflation adjusted of course) and a 1% tax on capital over say 2 million dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a list of historical revenues [taxpolicycenter.org] for the Federal Government in current and constant dollars. In constant 2009 dollars, we see the revenue for 1957 was $634 billion. In 2017, revenues were $2,940 billion - about 5 times.
The population of the US [population.us] went from ~171 million in 1957 to ~326 million in 2017. A little less than doubling.
Revenue per capita in 1957, in 2009 dollars, was about ($634 billion / 171 million) $3700. Revenue per capita in 2017, in 2009 dollars, was about ($2940 billion / 326 million
Re: (Score:2)
I would start by eliminating add Federal Departments [wikipedia.org] created after 1950. Then I would prune back all Federal agencies created after 1950 [usa.gov] as well.
Then, recognizing that the largest share of Federal spending is on Healthcare (2nd place is pensions - 99% of which is SSI), I would cut Federal healthcare spending back to 1% of GDP maximum as it was in the 1950s [usgovernmentspending.com]. This one change alone would cut Federal spending by approximately $1 trillion - our entire deficit. The Federal Government dominates all healthcare s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
Re: (Score:1)
If I were uber rich (Score:2)
more than anything - way more than the fast cars and mansions and yachts - I would love to have my own charitable foundation.
Not sure what higher purpose anyone could ever aspire to in life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
African or European?
Garden.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end... everything they did to gain all of those riches and now that they feel the knock of death approach they have only just learned what the poor have known all along, but oddly, envied the rich for never having known.
A wise person knows of a great many things a person can aspire to in life that are far higher than a charitable foundation as the only purpose of a charitable foundation is only to buy public opinion and though cheap as it comes, the ask is never ending.
Re: If I were uber rich (Score:1)
Your ignorance is embarrassing. Buffet lives in a very modest house in a nice but not rich part of Omaha. He drives a Kate model generic sedan that he replaces every ten years or so. He waves back when driving home from work. The money he's given directly is impressive, but not they large contribution. For example, Omaha has a world scale zoo due to buffets influence on UP and mutual of Omaha.
Re: (Score:3)
Your post only proves mine. Public opinion can "easily" be bought. Poorer people have given more to Buffet than Buffet will ever return.
Would you also herald my name should I destroy a few people and build you a world scale zoo? What does it take to buy your admiration? Apparently Buffet has found that price.
Re: (Score:2)
Poorer people have given more to Buffet than Buffet will ever return.
They have? I guess if you mean the fact they drink Coca Cola, use freight delivered by UP and BN, use Bank of America, or fly Delta, then sure - the "poor" have given him money. In exchange for goods and services. And many of those companies would have shuttered or failed (and their employees lost their jobs) If Berkshire Hathaway wasn't an investor in them. I guess you take from poor people more than you return, too - since you most likely live better than those in say Haiti or Laos.
Re: (Score:1)
The only reason he paid for the zoo is to satisfy his craving for polar bear steak with soft-boiled eagle eggs to the side. The ONLY reason.
Re: (Score:2)
A thing to keep in mind about paper values (Score:5, Insightful)
So the composition of their holdings really matters to tell how much their wealth really means if they actually want to do something with it or are faced with downward pressure. $10 billion in Tesla or Facebook stock is a lot more precarious than $10 billion in cash or well diversified holdings, even though the topline number is the same.
Re: (Score:1)
What is it about the human condition that the more venal one is and more badly one behaves, the more one is rewarded?
Meanwhile ... (Score:1)
... I haven't seen one goddam motherfucking difference.
Re: (Score:1)
Charity is a scam (Score:5, Interesting)
These charitable foundations that are set up by these billionaires are to avoid taxation upon the billionaires' death. Rather than transfer the wealth directly to their children when they die, which would trigger death tax, they instead give the money to the foundation, and then make sure the foundation will be under their children's control. No death tax, they get to write the 'gift' off on their ongoing taxes, and it's all legal smegal. The children then skim off the foundation for all their lives.
Yeah, they actually do some real charity work, as part of the cover. But it sure as hell is less money going out for real charity works than they'd lose to taxation if they didn't set up the foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the enormous wealth is based in stocks. What do you think would happen to the market if Bill Gates decided to sell off a few billion?
Re: (Score:1)
Warren is relatively stingy with his kids even now. Why would that change when he dies? Although, I do agree that many charities are fronts.
Some charity is great... (Score:1)
Re: Some charity is great... (Score:2)
Retarditors (Score:2)
You, would have, a lot more time, if you didn't, put a comma, every three words, or, so.
Re:Retarditors (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. William Shatner is, after all, 87.
Re: (Score:1)
He's, living, long, and, ..... prospering.
Re: (Score:2)
William! Shatner!. Does! Not! Use! A! Comma!
Re: (Score:2)
" Actually distribute the wealth to the other 90%."
He's given 50 billion away. Assuming you mean other American's, would a $150 cheque really change your life? Or maybe he should be thinking globally, where would you like your cheque for $7 sent ?
"Or even just write a giant check to the treasury."
Woohoo, the US will only slip $935 billion further into debt this year instead of $985 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
....would a $150 cheque really change your life?
Absolutely. I never let myself spend that much on the lottery! And if I spent that much, how could I not win?
I know...I know... I know... (Score:2)
Warren Buffett versus the Widow (Score:2)
He (Jesus) sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, 'Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.'[
Hey Elon! (Score:5, Funny)
Girl: "Hey Elon! Are you going to give all your money away like those press-release-loving-aw-shucks other billionaires?"
Elon: "No way! I need every penny to build my DeathSt.... Er. Yeah. Giving away every dime!!!"
15 years ago I was eating Ramen (Score:2)
FFS
Let my ramen noodles get soft before you expect me to invest like guys who have been doing this for 40+ years.
Not a Zuck fan, but on this issue he gets a pass from me.
waa, waa, waa. They have more money then I do (Score:2)
And, yes sir!! (Score:2)
"Give away" from these self-serving douches is intriguing to me. If we give the benefit of the doubt and suppose Gates and Buffet are $250 billion in providing give-aways. And there are 7 billion of us on Earth.
Then I want my freaking $35 today. In CASH, not flippin' BitCoin or whatever you folks deal in!
Easy peasey way to give it away. (Score:2)
"Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes."
Hey, there is an easy way to do that EVERY YEAR. There's is a line on your 1040 form that lets you pay as much extra tax as you want. I dare them to put that 99% down there and stop bitching about how the rich don't pay their fair share.