Sure, rich or poor, we all put on our pants one leg at a time. Yes, we all need to eat, sleep, and use the bathroom. True, we’re all human beings.
But are the über-wealthy really like the rest of us?
I’m pondering this question as the result of an interview of Melinda Gates that appears in Germany’s Spiegel. The reporters pull no punches, and for those of us used to the American press, we might find the pointed questions both admirable and surprising.
In “Interview with Melinda Gates, Simple Things Can Have a Huge Effect,” decision-making and donations concerning aid and charity are discussed in a conversation that makes for an excellent read.
Noting that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is “the largest private global development organization in the world” and addressing “the unique responsibility of the wealthy,” journalists Samiha Shafy and Mathieu von Rohr take Ms. Gates through questions on philanthropic philosophy, on inequity, and what it’s like to be so rich that they can influence millions of lives.
After noting that Warren Buffet gave $31 billion to the Gates Foundation several years ago – yes, that was $31 billion – one of the Spiegel reporters poses this question:
SPIEGEL: In your speech at the WHO, you said that you and your husband despise inequity. But isn’t it strange when you return from your trips to your luxurious mansion on Lake Washington outside of Seattle? A property for which you have to pay more than a million dollars a year in taxes.
I don’t know whether to be more impressed by the pointed question, or dumbstruck at the concept of a cool mil a year in property taxes. It’s simply something I never thought of before. (Have you?)
Ms. Gates responds that she and her husband wouldn’t build such a place today, and she clarifies:
… it’s a matter of what are you doing to battle those inequities and for Bill and me, we have now oriented our life around that.
The follow-up from the interviewers then refers to [philanthropic] guilt. Again, that’s pretty ballsy.
Ms. Gates explains that it isn’t guilt, but a sense of responsibility.
Here, I would like to express my contradictory feelings. That individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates not only feel responsibility to “do good” with their extraordinary wealth, but act on it in such significant ways, eases my cynicism with regard to an era of institutionalized selfishness and dwindling compassion. The Gates’ commitment to doing good and achieving results is obvious, and an example of moral leadership.
Yet I share the concerns voiced by the Spiegel interviewers: Should any individuals wield such power? Why must we rely on private choices as to where such massive funds are directed? Should a relative handful of people influence the welfare of so many lives? Isn’t this precisely what elected governments are designed to do with tax revenues, at least in theory?
You will say I’m being naive. (Power has always been concentrated in the hands of the few.) I’m not naive, but I am posing questions as more of us are these days.
The discussion then turns to economics and billionaires, as Ms. Gates responds with her views:
If you’re in the upper quartile of income in any of these wealthy economies, you ought to give back more than other people. Bill, Warren Buffett and I are quite involved in trying to get people of substantial wealth to commit to giving half back, either in their lifetime or at their death… we have 127 billionaires — and they’re global now, not just in the US…
Interesting, no? Do you think the Gates’ have a chance? And just how many billionaires are there in the world today?
I checked: According to the Forbes Billionaires list, 2014 boasts 1,645 individuals in this category, with Bill Gates leading the pack ($79.1 billion) and Warren Buffet at Number Four ($65.1 billion).
Of course, I come back to the realities of money and power as well as money and the political process, and I wonder if I should throw my hands up in the air. At least I agree with the philosophy of The Gates Foundation, which is “guided by the belief that every life has equal value.”
Dare I even whisper Hobby Lobby today, the notion of corporation as “person,” and grimace at yesterday’s appalling and short-sighted Supreme Court decision? Might I add that Hobby Lobby founder, David Green, appears on the Billionaires list? He’s #305, with $5.1 billion.
So what do you think? Are the rich like the rest of us?
You May Also Enjoy
Must say, I am not impressed. Folks have more money than they know what to do with, and they have acquired it by a great theft from the people. To give some of it back, to give much of it back, to give most of it back, and you’re still filthy rich. Sorry, although some come off better in my opinion than others (Koch brothers are at the bottom), at the end of the day, they will all die rich by the standards of 99% of the people. And it’s not right. We can do better.
Well, I completely disagree with Paul that the people of great wealth “acquired it by a great theft from the people.” Paul, you should look to the politicians in DC with that same statement. Yes, of course, those of great wealth are different. The Gates and Mr. Buffet are exceptional people with far ranging ideas for humanity. They are trying to change the world for the good. I’m doing my tiny part. But, yes, they are quite different, mostly in the way they spend their money on personal things which most of us will never realize. But the art museums, the performing arts arenas & viability would not exist without benefactors. And, neither would Neiman-Marcus & Sak’s 5th Avenue or the New England Patriots!
I married into an uber wealthy family who socialized with uber wealthy folks. I saw first-hand how these folks became wealthy… off the backs of others who were less fortunate. So, Paul has it right.
And I’m not so sure that the Gates are trying to change the world for good or, if they are, they are going about it in the wrong way.
They have a grant up for grabs now to study, via a research program, the changes in dietary practices in poor countries Really? How does such research change the world for the better? Why not throw some of those liquid assets at food banks instead of research? If 1 in 4 children are going hungry, identify those children and fill their bellies.
Art museums and performing arts, all important aspects of our society but what good are they, how do hungry children and cash strapped parents take advantage of what they have to offer? We have people in this country who will never see the inside of a museum and not for lack of desire but for lack of financial ability. Feed a hungry kid, develop a program that enables underprivileged children to visit museums and then they will change the world for good
I guess also the Clintons are considered rich!!!! You almost imply that these people don’t have the right to their wealth, really did not work for their wealth, envy is the primary purpose of all these comments, I am an immigrant who came here with nothing, took nothing from the government and worked like a dog, I am not rich but this country gave me the opportunities to make me, not rich but grateful…
As for the supreme court decision yesterday it had nothing to do with the wealth of the owners of Hobby Lobby. You forgot to mention one thing: religious freedom. If you don’t like their health policy go work somewhere else…
A v.
I’m not an immigrant, I’m a natural born citizen. I’ve worked since I was 15 years old and got a job washing dishes in a hospital kitchen. I’ve taken advantage of every opportunity given me and have never taken a hand-out from the government. I don’t envy anyone their wealth but I do resent the fact that the middle class in this country carries the majority of the burden for the country, and I highly resent the lack of empathy and compassion shown by the uber wealthy toward their own country.
I’m happy your experience here has been a positive one. But get back to me when you suffer a debilitating health problem and can’t get healthcare. Or, you lose your job and can’t pay your bills. Then you won’t find our government or the uber wealthy ready and eager to go to bat for you.
And, you are off based about Hobby Lobby and their win with the supreme court having nothing to do with wealth. It was all about money and a wealthy family wanting to control others with their religious beliefs. Do you honestly think that you or I could bring such a suit before the supreme court? Do you have the money… millions of dollars, that it would take to stand and fight in court for what you felt was right or wrong? No, you don’t! And because you don’t, you will live out your life in our wonderful country based on how those who do think you should live.
Last but not least, if someone working at Hobby Lobby or flipping burgers at a fast food joint didn’t like their job or their employers religious beliefs don’t you think they would “go somewhere else” if they could? Are you under the impression that a minimum wage job at Hobby Lobby is a career goal that was chosen and not the only option someone had when needing to put food on the table?
“Go somewhere else.” I sincerely hope you are never in a position to not having anywhere else to go. If you ever are, you will become fully aware of just how shallow and callous your comment comes across.
I think that Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett are fine people with good intentions. All three recognize that wealthy people should give back to society. However, their giving back is like tax deductible charity. They pay a ridiculously small amount in taxes as they minimize them through deductions (a form of theft from society as a whole) while their capital grows 5%+ per year. Yes, we are quickly returning to a society where the top 1% controls more and more of the nation’s wealth; currently, an estimated 35% and growing. Between 1990 and 2010, Bill Gates increased his fortune from $4 billion to $50 billion. I agree with Melinda, the rich should pay back society. How about starting with paying income tax at the same rate as the poor who make minimum wage? How about a tax on capital as an incentive for the rich to reinvest it as opposed to living off of it since clearly trickle down economics is what it is, without any deductions and a tax on capital as well?
Bill and Melinda are doing good things. It is wonderful for them to be able to decide where the money goes. However, I believe that most citizens would allocate their money differently, like a US healthcare system free of profiteers, that delivers services efficiently and equitably, similar to other industrialized countries.
No, the rich are not like the rest of us. They get richer and enjoy life while more and more of the people struggle. At the rate wealth is being accumulated at the top, the US will have the profile of a third world country; one that will not be attractive to immigrants any longer.
Life can be difficult for the very wealthy. Unless they isolate themselves with other very wealthy people, they are constantly confronted by the reality that they have so much when others of equal or more “merit” have so little, and they suffer the resulting guilt. And if they isolate themselves with other very wealthy people, they risk losing (or never developing) the perspective that allows them to feel any connection with, much less compassion toward, those who have been unfortunate in life, and they sink into the morass of believing that they deserve what they have and that those who do not have much do not deserve any more. The Gates’ and Mr. Buffet try to temper whatever isolation their wealth and lifestyle choices may bring with a great deal of personal education and good works. While I may rue the political systems that do not make more personal wealth available for public spending, I admire and applaud what the Gates’ and Mr. Buffet are attempting to do with their wealth. It all comes down to whether or not one believes, as the Gates’ Foundation does, that “every life has equal value.”
As for the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, I defer to, and suggest reading, the dissent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of our country’s most brilliant thinkers and articulate writers on civil rights.
Re this line, Leslie: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude…” – an old friend made precisely this remark to me shortly after the ruling, though in his words, the ruling “clashes with the spirit of a fundamental tenet of our Constitution – separation of church and state.” Ie, religious freedom.
Justice Ginsberg’s dissent you mention, here. I note this statement: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” I also note her mention that the cost of an IUD is roughly equivalent to one month’s pay for a minimum wage worker.
I’m not sure what your point is about the statement “Approving…preclude,” which appears at page 35 of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. She made this point in support of her dissent to the decision.
I understand that. Forgive my clumsy attempt to paraphase. Her words need to be read, with context.