Talk:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Americans - born with a silver knife in our backs

Currently per capita GDP is $42,000 per year as per the cia's web site. That means that every year Americans produce $42,000 in new goods and services for every american man, woman, and child. Canada has per capita GDP of $34,000 per the cia's website. Nevertheless 88.4% of children in america in 2002 were without any health insurance (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/healthins.htm). Canada has universal health insurance. How can these charitable organizations claim to be a boon to humanity when in reality they shelter money from taxes so that American children must go without health insurance?

BTW a family of four produces 168,000 worth of GDP, but the median before tax household income is $40,000. After tax it is much much lower. I guess that a hard working family of four is getting about 1/8th GDP. But the good news is that there are more billionaires in america then ever before.

In order to make this article NPOV instead of public relations hype, don't we need to point these kinds of facts out?

I believe your information on the number of uninsured children is inaccurate. Government sources indicate that the number of uninsured children was less than 10 percent at some points in 2002. (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20021231.html) (71.114.131.171 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

---

The numbers I quoted are from the U.S. Census. They are usually pretty good at counting. I think the Health and Human Services people work for the office of the President. They may have a political reason for counting differently.

---

Yes Health and Human Services is a cabinet level position. I have as much faith in their accuracy as I have in FEMA.

---

I would agree that America is screwed up socially I have no idea what any of this has to do with the foundation or for that matter Bill Gates Nil Einne 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that wealthy people and corporations do anything they can to not to pay taxes. Therefore the federal and state budgets don't have the funds for programs like healthcare. Charity is wonderful, but if we as a nation, did what we should do, we wouldn't need handouts. Unfortunately, the people with the power to make changes lobby to make billionaires instead of a fair system. Look at companies like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. They have policies that disallow the top earners to make more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. They, and I consider this an important ethical principle. So, once again, why can a country with a fraction of our GDP have national healthcare, and we can't. I think it is because they have ethical leaders and we do not. If the Gates want to show real leadership, they should work toward real fairness. It seems to me that there is just too much of having their cake and eating it too. They have so much power to effect the world negatively, but if they put a good face on it everyone says they are wonderful. I don't think that great wealth is good for the country. Monopolies are a bad thing no matter how much good press can be obtained. And corporations and the wealthy should pay large amounts of taxes so we can at least have the standard of living that they have in Canada. Great wealth can be like a cholesteral clot in the economic system. It strangles innovation. competition, and if unchecked can distroy a system. Look back to the great depression. This country used taxes and public works to breath life back into a dying system. Of course, we have a fiat economy now, but unchecked accumulation of wealth can lead to similar problems or inflation.

Therefore I think that this article needs to show some of the possible downsides of being the largest, wealthiest, foundation ini order to be NPOV.

How we accomplish this in this article while remaining fair will not be easy. That is why I have started this conversation in this discussion area- to get multiple points of view.

---

Giving the minimum

I found the following statistics on the Foundation's website:

Statistics*

Number of employees: 241 Endowment: $29.2 billion Total grant commitments since inception: $10.5 billion Total 2005 grant payments: $1.36 billion

If the foundation gave 1.36 billion and had 29.2 billion in assets, by my math that means they gave 4.657% to charity. I'm guessing that the foundations endowment was less at the beginning of the year; so the foundation gave around the minimum 5% needed to maintain its tax exempt status. Shouldn't the article point this out?

---

If I understand this, it's worse on second glance. Below is the foundation timeline taken directly from the Foundation's website. It shows that less than 5% of the foundtion's endowent has been given as new grants awarded each year. unless some grants are ongoing year to year and so not counted, awards seem to be under the required 5%. See below:

Foundation Timeline

2006 The foundation reorganizes into three program areas—Global Development, Global Health, and U.S. Programs—and a core-operations group.

Endowment: $29.2 billion New grants awarded: $325.4 million (through 3/31/06)

2005 Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and foundation CEO Patty Stonesifer announce that the foundation will build new headquarters on land near the city's landmark Space Needle. The foundation plans to move into its new campus in the winter of 2010.

Endowment: $29.2 billion New grants awarded: $1.6 billion

2004 Endowment: $28.8 billion New grants awarded: $1.5 billion

2003 Endowment: $26.8 billion New grants awarded: $1.1 billion

2002 Endowment: $24.1 billion New grants awarded: $1 billion

2001 Endowment: $23.3 billion New grants awarded: $748.5 million

2000 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation merges with the Gates Learning Foundation. The goal of the merger is to increase efficiency and communication between four main initiatives: Global Health, Education, Libraries, and Pacific Northwest. Patty Stonesifer and William H. Gates Sr. serve as the foundation’s co-chairs.

Endowment: $21.1 billion New grants awarded: $1.3 billion

1999 With a broadening commitment to education, the Gates Library Foundation becomes the Gates Learning Foundation. The William H. Gates Foundation is renamed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill and Melinda Gates contribute nearly $16 billion to the foundations, which move from offices in Bill Gates Sr.’s basement to a new facility in Seattle.

Endowment (foundations combined): $16.9 billion New grants awarded (foundations combined): $2.5 billion

1998 Endowments William H. Gates Foundation: $312.4 million (as of 3/31/98) Gates Learning Foundation: $265.2 million (as of 7/31/98) Combined new grants awarded: $252.5 million

1997 Bill and Melinda Gates launch the Gates Library Foundation to bring computers and Internet access to public libraries in low-income communities in the United States and Canada. Former Microsoft executive Patty Stonesifer takes on the foundation’s leadership. The William H. Gates Foundation continues as a separate entity.

Endowments William H. Gates Foundation: $296.6 million (as of 3/31/97) Gates Learning Foundation: $1.4 million (as of 7/31/97) Combined new grants awarded: $35.4 million

1996 Endowment: $191 million (as of 3/31/96) New grants awarded: $14.6 million

1995 Endowment: $107.3 million (as of 3/31/95) New grants awarded: $28.8 million

1994 After years of contributing to charitable causes, Bill and Melinda Gates consolidate their giving to address two main initiatives: Global Health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest. Bill’s father, William H. Gates Sr., agrees to manage the new William H. Gates Foundation, formed in December 1994 with an initial stock gift of about $94 million.

Note: Endowment figures includes total assets

---

Not sure where this "5%" number is coming from. It's a lot more complex than that when you look at how a private foundation retains its tax-exempt status. Also, something for the naysayers in this thread talking about Gates escaping taxes, private foundations still must usually pay a ~1% excise tax on their investment profits. JD79 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The 5% figure comes directly from this article. Please read it.

I did read it; I am challenging it and requesting that someone elaborate. There should be a Wikipedia Rule that one must assume that other users are at least mildly intelligent.

Sorry, I see what you mean. I don't know the law in detail either. Based on the fact that the amounts given (mostly) are less than 5%, you are probably right and the law is different. I'll try to have thicker skin and be more thoughtful nexttime.

24.206.125.213 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Also, please sign your comments. JD79 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1%! Wow how can I get that rate for my taxes! Can I set myself up as a charitable foundation, give away 5% a year to the gates foundation, pay a 1% tax, and build a fabulous campus full of servants all tax free:-)

You seem to be misunderstanding the 5%. The 5% is the amount the foundation has to give away each year (actually according to the above it's more complex then that). Note that Bill Gates himself still pays whatever taxes he owes on his personal wealth which probably isn't much since I suspect he's using numerous tricks to avoid paying tax as do most of the wealthy (although the foundation isn't one of those tricks). Nil Einne 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Charity Rating Foundation

I could not find a rating for this charity from the American Institute of Philanthropy. Has any external charity watchdog reviewed the books of this charity?

---

How were monies sheltered

Did Bill Gates donate dollars or shares? If shares were donated - as is the case with the Berkshire H. shares, doesn't that mean that no tax would be paid to the US government, the shares could be sold to diversify the total assests controlled by the Gates without tax consequences, future profits would be free of taxes, and the world's richest man would still control the worlds wealthiest foundation?

This is basically correct. When one donates an appreciated capital asset to a NPO then the donor is allowed to take a tax deduction for the fair market value and the recipient then holds the asset at this stepped-up basis. Of course when the foundation sells the asset it (usually) will not be paying any tax because it is tax-exempt. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with your comment...you seem to be implying that Bill Gates is somehow "avoiding" tax, but if he did not sell the shares and personally see the cash proceeds, then he did not actually receive any money (an "accession to wealth" in tax parlance), and therefore has nothing that can/should be taxed. The "future profits" (do you mean dividends?) would be flowing to the NPO, not to Gates, and the fact that he controls the "wealthiest foundation" is not really relevant because he does not personally profit it from it in his duties as a trustee. (He may take a director's/trustee's salary from the Foundation, but I highly doubt it.) (Really, a lot of this goes back to valuing someone based on their "paper" worth vs. their actual "cash" worth.) JD79 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But he does profit from it. From the minute he walks in the door of his new fabulous campus, an army of servants see to his every wish. No doubt transportation and all travelling expenses for him and others will be at the foundation's expense.

Besides, isn't it all about being the biggest? If this is a way to accumulate more, as is suggested about IKEA in the link given by this article

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6919139

Then, don't you think Bill Gates is smart enough to figure this out. If he gave away enough, so that the foundation wasn't the wealthies, most powerful, etc. Then I might start to believe that it can be taken at face value. He does, however, seem to be giving just the minimum. Just as Warren Buffett seems to be giving the minimum of 5% per year as per this article. I don't see how the inequities of poverty can be addressed when these foundations seem to be a way to create greater inequities by sheltering money from the distributive effect of taxes. 5% doesn't even cover the vig the credit card companies charge.

Hi, whatever your opinions on Bill Gates and the foundation, the fact remains the foundation is intrinsicly different from the Ikea/INKGA case. They operate under a different set of laws. It's quite clear that most of the money the foundation makes goes to charity purposes. While you could argue that Bill Gates benefits from the foundation via the clout, power and perks he receives, it's not anywhere like the INKGA case. Also, be aware that if the foundation wants to last, it has to control the rate it gives away. If it gives away 100% of it's assets, the foundation will be bankcrupt unless someone puts more money in. Bill Gates' networth is currently going down so eventually he is going to run out of money if he keeps giving it away. Also the Warren Buffet case is different. AFAIK, after 2 years, ALL the money he puts in has to be donated/given away. The charity is NOT going to get much (any?) richer via Warren Buffet. Nil Einne 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL Time Warner are strategic partners with Microsoft

Should the article mention that Time magazine is owned by one of Microsoft's strategic partners?

Breakout what goes in and what goes out

This article would be much better if it differentiated what monies were transferred from Mr. Gate's before tax income into the charity and what monies were spent from that charity on charitable work. A further breakdown of what monies spent from the charity went to recipients as opposed to intermediaries would also give greater clarity.

---

Investment

Is this charity currently investing its assests in a socially conscious manner?

---

I found that in 2004 large holdings were in Exxon Mobile. Here;s a little bit of information on Exxon

ANWR driller, Nigerian Environmental Damage, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, refuses to pay EV spill damages, no responsibility taken for spill, 1990 Staten Island oil spill, Clean Air Act violations, toxic dumping suit, human rights violations, Chad pipeline, MM's 10 Worst List (x4), MM's Top 100 Corp Criminals (#5), HRC Equality Laggard, Greenpeace Boycott, Corporate Responsibility Intl Boycott, Sierra Club Boycott, Top 25 Superfund Polluters, Only Top 50 company to discriminate based on sexuality, evidence of political manipulation, responsible for 5% of all global greenhouse gases, Indonesian human rights abuses, New York toxic dumping, Louisiana radioactive waste suit, MTBE lawsusit, Kazakhstan toxic sulphur suit, Louisiana air pollution suit, Califronia oil spill, silenced shareholder resolutions, price-gouging suit, deceptive practices suit, Alabama fraud suit, Angola "Arms For Oil" scandal, Foreign bribery charges, highest emissions in the industry, Australian safety suit, Canadian sour gas death suits, Top 10 Greenwashers

BTW, I would push my car for mile to avoid buying gas and supporting these people.

Please don't fund via investment the company that Money Magazine calls their top 100 Corporate Criminals

Since This is an open transparent foundation, where can one find the lists of companie the Foundation invest in?

If the foundation lends via credit cards, I hope it is humane and follows the old usery laws and tries to have those laws reenacted for fairness sake. After all, we put the Mob in jail for too high interest rate and penalties. Banks and credit car companies need to be controlled to. So if the foundation does lend any of your billions through banks and credit cards, please don't put the screws on too tight.

Does the foundation have holdings in gambling operations like investment firms or vegas? Does it invest in local farming - not as a grant but as loans? Local farming is important. Americans grow far too many ornimental plants. Then we need to import food from out of the country. For example, in vietnam, many people are starving becaue rice paddies have been converted to shrimp farms. All the shrimp is sent to America, and the vietnamese no longer have the rice crop they need to survive. Therefore, it is important to maximize local production so we do'nt take too much from the third world. This becomes even more important now when a large part of the corn crop may be taken away from being food to make ethenol. More may starve when this happens

Has the foundation considered investing in low income housing - perhaps with President Carter's group?

I hope that I am 100% wrong, and that Mr. Gates is the next Mother Teresa, but I'm from missouri as the saying goes. If I am wrong, I also promise to apologize in any reasonable way suggested by the foundation. But until then, I have very grave doubts. And also in the spirit of being fair. I think he has chosen admirable projects.

Consumption

I think that charity has to be looked at from two sides: How much does a man give and how much does he take? Is a man generous if it really costs him nothing? For example, Mr. Gates has enourmous amounts of personal real estate. He must have rooms in his house that he never uses. How can this sort of consumption be justified when so many are so many homeless?

I found this text in an article printed in the Seattle Times:

...Over the past decade, Bill Gates has quietly bought up 11 properties, including nine houses, that surround his 5-acre Medina estate, creating a buffer zone that is increasingly turning a small hillside neighborhood into a private holding of the richest man on Earth. Enormous houses — dubbed "megamansions" — are nothing new to Medina, including Gates' 48,000-square-foot spread, which he moved into in 1997. But this is the first evidence of one of the town's many industry magnates actually buying portions of a neighborhood. ...

This over consumption might easily be seen as greed gone rampant. It seems to me that a further analysis of the foundation should be considered before naming Mr. Gates "man of the year." How many people have been disposessed by market changes due to the acquisition of these properties - either directly or indirectly? How many acres of rain forest or similar ecosystems were pillaged to make his 48,000 squarefoot palace? How many employees maintain the status quo rather than producing food?

Additionally, if all moneys donated are sheltered from paying any taxes, and if only 5% of these funds must be spent yearly to maintain the charitable status, isn't it the case that Mr. Gates is able to keep much more of his assets under his control through this charity? How many tax dollars do the people of this country lose each year because of tax shelters for wealthy charities? Wouldn't these monies be spent on social programs, etc. if paid into the government? How many fancy offices are maintained by this charity? How many friends and relatives of the Gate's have high paying jobs in the foundation?

I have seen too much in my life to believe without more evidence that this charity is so right.

Should I add a consumption section in to keep this article NPOV?

---

nah.

-- Please reply seriously or not at all

That material doesn't really belong in the article on the Foundation. Information about Gates' consumption might go in his personal entry, if anywhere. -- pde 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

I was very interested to read how the Gates foundation wants to help high school students. Is the Gates foundation working to put curricula on the web? I have been following MIT's commitment to open courseware for the improvement of educational methods and open access to first class materials. It is fascinating to me that with the billion dollar budgets of the various states' departments of education, the federal department of education, all the charitable foundations that focus on education, etc, only the corporation for public broadcasting, the Annenberg CPB (www.learner.org) and the opencourseware offerings fom MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and some few others, have put open access videos of mathematics lectures on the web. Is the Gates foundation currently working to put high quality video lectures for high school mathematics on the web? Does the Gates Foundation or Microsoft donate high bandwidth server space to teachers who would videotape their lectures for high school students? It amazes me, that there does not seem to be a single governmental or charitable organization currently offering a series of calculus lectures online. The closest I can find is the Carnegie Mellon Applet based Calculus I course.

How is it possible that the Gates Foundation that owes its existence to Microsoft's domination of distributed technology has not joined the crusade to open education and provide students, communities, and the world the materials needed to obtain a basic education?

I have found a large number of lecture videos being served by Microsoft, but they do not seem to be targeted to junior and senior high school students.

It is a wonderful thing that Nobel prize winner's lectures are freely available in abundance on the internet, but basic education is not offered in an intelligent systemized manner.

As a result, there are many many companies like Neil Bush's Ignite Learning cashing in on the United States' failure to distribute high quality lectures, applets, and textbooks. Other countries seem to be doing a much better job. Consider Irelands skoool.ie and the BBC's asguru online programs.

These seem to be cost effective programs available globally. These programs even offer homework assistance via chat.

I believe this article would be much more interesting and helpful, if any of these kinds of activities could be pointed out. That is, if the Gates Foundation is actually active in this kind of educational assistance. I did have a look at their web site. Like the various DOE websites, there are nice pictures and text about how they are helping students, but I can never seem to find links to material that is actually helpful and usable. For example, where should a student go who is having trouble? To whom should he or she talk? Is there a chat site? What governmental agencies are available that actually help? What should a troubled student expect if he or she contacts a particular agency? Will he or she get help or the run around?

==

Question: How much did bill gates donate in total? 20 billion

If Bill Gates sheltered 20 billion and the charity is currently worth 27 billion, how much could this foundation have given to the needy? What percentage per year has spent on actual charity?

Language

• "Is the world's largest charitable foundation" in terms of WHAT? Assets? Endowments? Donations? Flunkies? - Jerryseinfeld 18:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The foundation made total grant donations of US£3 million to various charities to help with the aid effort for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake.

US dollar or UK pound? There is no compromise. Tomtomtomtomtom 03:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

US pounds... didn't you hear at some point of time while everyone was sleeping the American Government what the courntcy to pounds and then back to dollars within 0.0000001 seconds. 220.233.48.200 11:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

When was the Foundation founded?

Please see my comment on the Bill Gates discussion page. --Haruo 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the same note: "In June 1999, Gates and his wife donated US$5 billion to the foundation" is confusing since the article says the foundation was established in 2000 ... 203.59.198.126 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I have added some info to the article, I have refractoried it a bit, and have uploaded an image.

I have a bullet list in the top of the article, I'd like it to have an infobox along with the image, but have no idea how to make an easy one.... thanks —Mineralè 2006-06-20 04:04Z

You would use {{Infobox Company}}. An example of where it is used is at Autodesk. Or if you don't want to do it yourself ask me on my talk page :-) --Commander Keane 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add something about the billions to plaedge to the foundation by Warren Buffet today? 6.23.06

I would like to see two bits of information: 1.) How much tax money was sheltered by this? Are the funds going to remain in the current preferred stock?

A corollary to this would be: Are these funds going to be invested in a socially responsible manner?

Points about Ikea comparison, Buffet donation

Here are two key paragraphs I introduced:

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest transparently-operated charitable foundation in the world. It was founded by Bill Gates, and as of 2006 it has an endowment of approximately $27 billion; based on one estimate by The Economist, this is second only to Stichting INGKA Foundation in valuation, though the Gates Foundation "wins hands down" when "measured by good works."

This paragraph attempts to highlight key findings from the Economist story about the foundation established by the IKEA founder. The lack of transparency for the INGKA Foundation and its acknowledged lack of emphasis on what the magazine calls "good works" led to the language I chose. More details about this comparison could merit a section of its own if someone wanted to do so, but such details don't belong in the introduction.

• In June 2006, Warren Buffett announced plans to set aside 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares for Gates Foundation contributions, worth approximately US$30 billion at the time of the announcement. The Gates Foundation will receive 5% (500,000) of the shares in 2006, and will receive 5% of the remaining earmarked shares each year (475,000 in 2007, 451,250 in 2008, and so on).

Class B shares as of the announcement are worth about 30.7 billion. Note that the shares really are being donated with the idea of being spent right away, and thus they don't affect the valuation comparison vis-a-vis INGKA Foundation. They do very much affect the "good works" that Gates Foundation will continue to emphasize. Note also the number of shares declines each year.

66.167.136.215 06:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm sure you've read the Economist article if you're bringing up Stichting INGKA but if you draw any comparisons between it and the Gates Foundation it is absolutely essentially that you include the part of the article where it discusses the extemely twisted accounting/governance issues of Stichting INGKA. After reading that article Stichting INGKA appears to be nothing more than a tax shelter due to the various tax-shelter jurisdictions that it winds its way through. Compare this to the Gates Foundation where, contrary to what some people are saying on this Talk page, the assets are truly out of Gates' personal control (in that he cannot benefit from them directly). JD79 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

What does it mean "out of his control" Isn't he on the board? Doesn't he have something to say about how the foundation uses its funds, where they are invested, and who benefits from salaries, benefits, and awards? In fact, isn't he leaving Microsoft to run the foundation? Please explain how these funds are out of his control.

Thank you .....

I think what was mention is he can't use them for his direct personal gain. For example, whatever control he may have of the foundation, he couldn't AFAIK get the foundation to upgrade his extremely large house. Nor could he use the foundation's money for his daily life if he bet's all his money on England winning the world and loses. Etc etc Nil Einne 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Nil Einne. Gates may control the Foundation, but it's not as if he can use it as his own personal pocketbook. He does not have a "pecuniary interest" to once again use financial lingo; if the Gates Foundation were to dissolve tomorrow, the billions would not be allowed to go back to Bill Gates without being heavily taxed. He could vote himself a large salary as an officer of the Gates Foundation, but this could cause a problem with the tax-exempt status. Also, to the person above, please sign your comments. JD79 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)