Microsoft's Bill Gates Is Richest Tech Billionaire With $78 Billion Fortune (gulfnews.com) 102
An anonymous reader quotes a report from GulfNews: The "100 Richest Tech Billionaires In The World 2016" list has been topped by Microsoft founder Bill Gates with an estimated fortune of $78 billion. The titans on Forbes' second annual list of the world's richest in technology are worth a combined $892 billion, six percent more than a year ago. Just over half of the 100 richest in tech are from the U.S., including eight of the top 10 richest on the list. Forbes said the second richest person in tech Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is also the biggest gainer on the list this year and has an estimated $66.2 billion fortune, an increase of $18.4 billion since this list was released last year. That puts him ahead of Oracle chairman Larry Ellison, who comes in on the fourth spot. Ellison was also beaten by Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who climbed from fourth to third place thanks to a 30 percent jump in the value of Facebook's stock; he is now also California's richest person, another title that previously belonged to Ellison.
Bill, you're doing it wrong (Score:1)
If you're really trying to give away your fortune by way of the Gates Foundation, you are definitely doing something wrong.
Eggs and baskets (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes because spending all of your money at once is the smart thing to do. Nevermind what may arise in the future.
He's focused on shit that can actually have an impact like sanitation, drinking water and disease which has great impact such polio and malaria. Unlike these other charity foundations which rely on donations and do jack shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His kids will inherit it, without having done any effort and not having learned about the value of anything.
We all know what happens to spoiled little rich kids like that; they end up as reality TV stars or running for political offices.
In the worst cases they end up doing both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you're being satirical by pretending to be obnoxious, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that you were being serious.
It's clear that I never advocated such a thing as "100% inheritance tax" or anything even remotely close to that.
Nor did I even mention hand outs or welfare. Besides; that argument confuses the person providing the inheritance with the person receiving it.
I was merely stating that inheriting billions of dollars (i.e. "sitting on your ass collecting inheritance") might me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, the first 10 million dollars inherited is tax-free. And that's per child.
After that, yeah, the money starts getting taxed. If it doesn't, that money that funds stuff you like (like interstates, military defense, whatever) has to come from somewhere else. Who ends up paying the difference? People that actually worked for the money.
So yeah, I think an inheritance tax is a fair thing. In fact, with the first $10 million tax free, it's really really fair right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eggs and baskets (Score:5, Funny)
He's focused on shit that can actually have an impact like sanitation
I see what you did there.
Re: Eggs and baskets (Score:3)
Matter of fact, before Bill's wife came along he was hardly any kind of philantropist. She should be thanked for being the brains behind the goodwill.
Secondly, Slashdot, reading about the richest top 2% is *not* "news that matters".
I really wish for a \. content voting mechanism.
Re: (Score:3)
He just gave away a $million to his "kids' computer education sucks, that's why we need more H1B visa's" fund.
That's, like almost 0.0013% of his bank balance.
It's like I gave away about $1.50 of my fortune and was lauded for it in the press as a philantropist.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the value of money is relative to your own net worth, in philanthropy or anything else. Nobody cares about your $1.50 because it's just $1.50.
$78,000,000,000 (Score:1)
I don't understand why someone even needs a million dollars, let alone 78 billion, esp. with needy and homeless people all over the world.
Re:$78,000,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if they ended up with nothing, that's still a lot of money being injected into the economy. Assuming he even invests it, it's not circulating around like it's suppose to for a healthy economy to work, and it's not trickling down. The trickle down system isn't designed to have that much money taken out of the economy if you add up all the mega wealthy people like that economists are not giving accurate projections. That's a significant amount of money too, he's practically an economic terrorists collect
Re: (Score:1)
It will not be useless at all, and certainly should not be "pooled up again". It will be a part of the economy, which serves to improve everyone's lot. When your 5kg of rice is distributed, it will be used to grow more rice, which ultimately helps everyone. The rich hording money (or rice) in offshore investment accounts is a drain on everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
When your 5kg of rice is distributed, it will be used to grow more rice, which ultimately helps everyone.
Not if the amount of rice you get is less than the amount needed to grow more rice.
Re: (Score:2)
But I saw THIS on Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
If Bill took half of his money, gave $10 million to me, and then gave the rest to people at risk at $1000 each, that would keep 38,990,000 people off the streets for two years or more [slashdot.org]. And he'd still have the other half to play with, plenty... to build a space elevator [extremetech.com] or something.
Come to think of it, if Bill took 3/4 of his money, gave $100 million to me, and then gave the rest to people at risk at $1000 each, that would keep 58,400,000 people off the streets for two years or more [slashdot.org]. And he'd still have $19,500,000,000 to invest in honorable charities around the world.
My friends, if Bill took 7/8 of his money, gave $250 million to me, and then gave the rest to people at risk at $1000 each, that would keep 68,000,000 people off the streets for two years or more [slashdot.org]. And he'd still have the $9,750,000,000 to spread peace and love around the globe.
The great thing about it, the more Bill gives to me, the more people get help. Win-win, from the guy who gave us C:\WIN.
Now, if Bill took 15/16 of his money...
Technically (Score:2)
Wasn't this the guy that said 640k should be good enough for anyone?
Time to him to put his money where his mouth is!
Re: $78,000,000,000 (Score:3)
Re:$78,000,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he could give each and every person $10.50 and have nothing - and we'd still have needy and homeless people all over the world
900 million people live under the global poverty line of $1.90 a day.
That is 1.71 billion dollars a day to lift the entire planet out of poverty.
The fact alone that one person could do that for a month and still have more money left over than he can spend in a lifetime just boggles the mind.
If you further assume that most of these people don't have nothing, they just have less than $1.90 it becomes more crazy. My old statistics professor said that if you have no information, assume the average. So let's assume it takes 95 cents on average to bring someone just above the poverty line. That means Bill Gates alone could lift the entire planet out of poverty for three months before his fortune runs out.
While that shows how little these crazy fortunes are in global contexts, it also shows how crazy rich these people are compared to everyone else. It means the richest top ten could end poverty for a year and still be rich. Can you even imagine what it could mean to the poor of the world to not be poor for a year? How many of them would use the opportunity to secure a better future? At the end of that year, many of the poor would not go back to being poor. Millions would be permanently enabled to have a better life.
I applaud Melanie Gates to convince Bill to use a good part of his fortune like this, even if there's a lot of shady deals involved that the future will judge (largely, the crowding out of other organisations that try to help).
But the real problem is not that this money could be used to feed the poor. The real problem is that this money, if it had not been taken by the super-rich, would circulate much faster within the economy and would create more wealth. After the "trickle down" bullshit, a number of real economists have done the checking and they all come to the conclusion that money given to the rich hurts the economy while money given to the average people stimulates it.
Or in other words: In Bill Gates hands, these are 78 billion. In the hands of ordinary people, this would be 90, 100 or more billions. That is the real damage the super-rich do to all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like another poster, you confuse monetary or economic value with the value of education. These are not the same things and they don't cleanly exchange into each other.
The reason we spend money on a childs education is that education takes time. If you could get the same education in, say, one day via brain implants, it would be smarter to wait it out until you are 18 and can decide by yourself which education you want. But since it takes years, you need to start early because life time is limited.
These are
Re: (Score:2)
Like another poster, you confuse monetary or economic value with the value of education. These are not the same things and they don't cleanly exchange into each other.
The reason we spend money on a childs education is that education takes time. If you could get the same education in, say, one day via brain implants, it would be smarter to wait it out until you are 18 and can decide by yourself which education you want. But since it takes years, you need to start early because life time is limited.
These are really trivial arguments to follow. Why do I have to spell it out?
Yes the trivial arguements for/against brain implants?
I guess I have to spell it out: Which is better, giving someone $X or spending $X on their education?
Re: (Score:2)
Or in other words: In Bill Gates hands, these are 78 billion. In the hands of ordinary people, this would be 90, 100 or more billions. That is the real damage the super-rich do to all of us.
lol what? Do you really believe that nonsense?
It would still be $78 billion. You may be thinking of economic impact or something because it circulates more.
Please don't conflate economic measures with "damage to all of us" though. The economy is just an approximation of value. The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet. If I spend $10 on electricity, that's giving someone else $10 to spend, plus I get light and
Re: (Score:2)
lol what? Do you really believe that nonsense?
Scientific evidence is not a belief. We understand a little bit about economy, you know? It's taught at universities.
The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.
That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time.
The reason circulating money adds to the economy is that if I spend $100 at your shop, you can now spend $100 on buying something, and the person you buy it from can spend $100 on some service and that person can donate $100 to the poor and they go to ten shops, spending those $100 and those shops come to me to buy something for $100. A
Re: (Score:2)
The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.
That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time. [...] Or, in other words: Those $100 of money have turned into $700 of wealth.
That's what I said.
You are clearly confusing cultural value with economic value.
I'm not confusing it, I'm distinguishing it. Economic value is an approximation of cultural or moral value or whatever you want to call it. Quality of life basically. We can do things to economic measures to bring it more in line with something meaningful by applying things like inflation and PPP adjustments. It's still just an approximation which we bear out of necessity.
When it comes down to a single individual and a small list of actions, though, it is possible to make more precise jud
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't advocate it as a program. The point was to illustrate just how crazy rich these people are. If one person can have such a global effect, you understand how poor everyone else is compared to them. He could literally pay for the life of millions of people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with that argument is that the rich get to shape the policy of countries in a completely undemocratic manner, as we are seeing in this country. The rich own this place, along with our elected representatives. They write the legislation that the rest of us live under. I'm not really interested in kissing the ass of a billionaire in order to get clean water. Providing infrastructure, sanitation and clean water should be the job of government, not of a capitalist. $78 billion dollars is an ins
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A 5% return on 1,000,000 is 50K a year. That doesn't go very far when you have to cover your medical expenses, housing, food, and hopefully seeing your grandkids.
1,000,000 dollars isn't really all that much. Take an average 40 year working life, invest/save 25K a year - 40 years later... magic 1,000,000. Rather than complain about someone who provided value to millions of customers - why don't you go after the football/basketball/baseball players that get paid millions a ye
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have any idea how many people survive on half that? Christ, some people are spoiled.
Re: $78,000,000,000 (Score:2)
The point is the dude said that he doesn't know what he'd do with a million. Turns out not as much as most people would think. And remember: $50k a year isn't going to be much on 20 years
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but a 5% withdrawal rate is generally not considered sustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what percentage of the US population have the means to save 25K a year, regardless of their spending habits. I'm thinking median income after taxes and basic accommodation, used car, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't that was a good example. $25k * 40 years is $1 million straight up. Assuming you get interest and growth, you don't need to set aside anywhere near that much. Running some overly simplistic calculations in a spreadsheet, I think more like $4k/year at 8% growth will hit $1m in 40 years. If you want to assume 6% growth, it's a bit over $6k/year. That's still difficult to save, especially early on, but it's not ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously... sign me up!
Secure/guaranteed investments right now seem to be getting closer and closer to 0%, and market volatility makes things like mutual funds a crap shoot. 8% year over year... I dare to dream.
Re: (Score:2)
"Right now" isn't really pertinent to the discussion about a 40-year average. I don't know if 8% is realistic for that, but given historical trends it's a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - a million bucks isn't that much any more, particularly in the context of retirement. They say you should plan for long term care costs of $7k/month, and there are health problems that can cost a couple hundred grand in one go.
You can't get a 5% return these days without taking on significant risk, either.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll probably be retiring in another eleven years, presuming I can remain employed for the duration. Between Social Security and what I've saved so far, I'll need another $2-3M in order to have the same income in retirement that I have now.
It might be argued that I don't, or won't, need to have the same income. Personally, I don't want to test that theory. And I pity those who have saved less than me, or worse, who have saved nothing.
But I agree, I don't believe anyone needs $78B. If he can't figure out how
Re: $78,000,000,000 (Score:2)
Where I live a million will barely get you a house in the suburbs , let alone a mansion , boat and the rest of your life off on holidays.
Re: (Score:2)
My grandmother is 99. She's been living off investments for thirty or forty years. A million spread over that much time doesn't really give you that much. Of course, the money's been invested and wasn't just a pile of cash, but on the other hand inflation over that long has cut the value of the money down to a third of what it used to be. By the time I retire in 20 or 30 more years, a single million isn't likely to be anywhere near enough.
Timing (Score:1)
This story posted on Slashdot right after one that's entitled, "A Bit of Cash Can Keep Someone Off the Streets For 2 Years or More"....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's just an advisor. John Thompson is the chairman.
Ups and Downs (Score:4, Interesting)
That's only because he gives so much to the poor (Score:2)
This is how you give to the poor (Score:2)
It's really quite simple. You invite in some poor, give them some loot, give 'em each a good punch in the mouth, and off they go, considerably less poor [youtube.com].
Jolly good.
Re: (Score:3)
People are starving while Gate$ hoards 78 billion dollars in cash. That makes sense.
Somewhere, a computer has { BillGates: 78,000,000,000 }. So what?
Interest rates are effectively zero right now. Hoarding is obviously not a way to make money, nor does it impact anyone's ability to borrow money and be productive.
Hoarding corn, or gold, or Titan-X graphics cards, or elephants, or opera singers would be a dick move. Hoarding money is pretty value neutral.
Not impressed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He'd be a whole load more impressive if he hadn't shit all over us for decades before turning 'nice'. I dread to think of the number of companies that went out of business as a result of his company's actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should read up on what his foundation has already done. Most of his wealth is tied to stock. He can only cash out so much before it causes an upset on the exchange.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gates is probably the most effective philanthropist ever, which is why Buffett gave his foundation so much money.
He couldn't do that if he wanted to - you can't run your own foreign policy under US law, and even if he could people like you would criticize him for it. Daesh exists for a reason, and even if you were able to eliminate the group you'
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to understand why you would think of a person you don't know in those terms. Gates has already done more for destitute people in Africa than you our your descendants will ever do. What would make you think he's a "worthless piece of shit"?
Hey now. If we stripped Bill Gates of his wealth and distributed it equally to everyone, OP would take his share (about $11) and do AMAZING THINGS with it. He would spend his $11 to solve world hunger and create a global education system.
He just hasn't done it yet because Bill Gates has his $11!
So, who do they support for president? (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that the huge gains of these individuals have been made during the administration of a president who had as wealth redistribution, a la Robin Hood, as a stated goal of his presidency. Now, go look at who each of these billionaires, with a b, is supporting for president, and ask yourself if that candidate is really going to "stick it to the rich, and help the middle class" or if the rich will keep getting richer.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for people being compensated for their efforts and have nothing against people taking risk and profiting from the risk taking. But, if you happen to think that these folks got where they are by acting against their own interests, you are definitely kidding yourself.
Re:So, who do they support for president? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am all for people being compensated for their efforts and have nothing against people taking risk and profiting from the risk taking.
Me neither. Sadly, this discussion is always brought to an end with the oldest strawman in the world. Because apparently if you point out that the differences are just crazy, it means you are against differences at all.
Where is the proper wording to say that "I want rich to be rich, I'm fine with that. I just want them to be rich, not super-crazy insanely-boggles-the-mind beyond-all-imagination hyper-rich." ?
There is no amount of personal effort or risk taking that justifies taking in billions. If you want to know how much personal risk is actually worth, look at what the hazard pay we give to people whose job includes risking their lives. There's no greater risk than that.
I'd be completely ok with someone having 78 million of personal fortune, or even of someone making 18.4 million profit in a good year. But we are talking about people who make a thousand times that. The only reason we are not on the street to hang them when thousands of people are actually in starvation poverty is that the mind boggles and we simply can't comprehend this amount of money.
The divide between the rich and the poor today is much bigger than it was at the time when the famous "if the people don't have bread, why don't they eat cake?" quote was allegedly made.
Re: (Score:2)
the huge gains of these individuals have been made during the administration of a president who had as wealth redistribution, a la Robin Hood, as a stated goal of his presidency.
Which country's president do you mean? The people on the list have/had careers in multinationals which were perfectly capable of moving cash across borders to suit their goals.
Re: (Score:2)
The voting preference of some tech CEO's does really say almost nothing about the likeliness that some candidate is not going to follow up on their campaign promises. You pretend it is a logical truth, but it is nothing more then poor reasoning, basically simplifying everyones political views being 100% dependant on ones living conditions, which is insanely shortsighted.
Some of those extremely rich people have publicly called for increased taxing, and I personally know some wealthy people that support such
ITT armchair wealth redistributors (Score:1)
There is Scandinavian style social democracy, which gives everyone a reasonable standard of living, and then there is "take all the money off the rich and give it to the poor", which gives you Zimbabwe. This thread is full of the latter.
1) This wealth is a valuation of his investments. He couldn't just realise all the cash. For example, to sell shares, someone else has to want to buy them. He couldn't just magically sell all his Microsoft shares at the current price on the secondary market.
2) He invests his
Just 1%... (Score:2)
Interesting to see this as the next article after https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org] - 1% or so and he could keep a million people from becoming homeless...
seems like something is out of balance... (Score:2)
crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that this article comes right above the "A Bit of Cash Can Keep Someone Off the Streets For 2 Years or More " one says a lot.
So from the gain of one year alone, one of these guys by himself could save 18.4 million people from being homeless for two years, meaning he could do that every other year and his net worth would still rise.
But the USA has less than 600,000 homeless. I understand the other article is about people who are on the edge of becoming homeless, so it's hard to apply it in general, but let's just do it anyway because everyone who is homeless at one point became homeless. Let's also imagine that on average, such a person would need 2-3 such cash infusions to permanently turn their life around and not end on the street at all. Meaning it takes around 900 million a year to end homelessness forever. Or in other words, with the money that one of these super-rich people make in two weeks, homelessness within the USA would be over.
Which begs only one question: Why is homelessness still a thing?
$78bn from Windows (Score:2)
Just imagine what Windows could be - a half decent Operating System, if Bill Gates spent some of that $78bn fixing Windows and stop being a whore for the media companies / feds.
you know you are rich when... (Score:1)
Print Money (Score:1)
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." --Rothschild, 1744