this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1313 points (97.3% liked)

Clever Comebacks

1373 readers
1 users here now

Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
  2. Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
  6. Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 259 points 2 years ago (5 children)
[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 74 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

If the charity itself is doing proper work, that makes sense tbh. I mean, if you had billions to donate, would you give it to some random ass organisation... Or set up your own thing to do things that you personally agree with?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 114 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If the charity itself is doing proper work

I would be utterly shocked if it was.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

You'll know when these billionaire charity trusts actually have an impact because they will do everything in their power to scream it in your ear.

[–] marco@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

I'd you want to see how it's done, check out what his Ex-wife did with her money from the divorce

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/15/mackenzie-scott-billionaire-donations-non-profits

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Honestly, I’d go for the middle option: donate to existing charities that appeal to me. I don’t want to run a charity, it sounds like a massive headache.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You’re probably a different demographic. I’d guess the kind of people that become billionaires, assuming they actually want to be philanthropic, think that they can do a better job of managing their charities than existing charities would do managing their donations.

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago

It’s definitely fair to say I’m in the “extremely unlikely to ever be a millionaire, let alone a billionaire” demographic!

[–] McJonalds@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

i would definitely do the latter but that is not whats happening here

[–] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 13 points 2 years ago

Because of course they do. Thanks for the additional info!

[–] oocdc2@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

And there it is...

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean if you donate billions you kinda don't want someone do a extit scam or it going to some very sketchy places... Tax reduction is a point but pretty far down the list.

And even if its for tax purposes, the money is then tied to certain purposes and will definitely do more good than as regular taxes. (and its way more than regular taxes)

Man i hate that guy but this bashing isn't justified.

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 13 points 2 years ago

I wasn’t bashing him, just providing additional information as the headline is makes him sound like an altruistic hero “uniting humanity”. He isn’t. He will benefit from this in one way or another or else he wouldn’t do it.