MacKenzie Scott donates $640M -- more than double her initial plan -- to nonprofits
Billionaire philanthropist and author MacKenzie Scott announced Tuesday she is giving $640 million to 361 small nonprofits that responded to an open call for applications.
Yield Giving’s first round of donations is more than double what Scott had initially pledged to give away through the application process. Since she began giving away billions in 2019, Scott and her team have researched and selected organizations without an application process and provided them with large, unrestricted gifts.
In a brief note on her website, Scott wrote she was grateful to Lever for Change, the organization that managed the open call, and the evaluators for “their roles in creating this pathway to support for people working to improve access to foundational resources in their communities. They are vital agents of change.”
I know general consensus is fuck billionaires, and I'm not exactly desputing that, but I work in IT for a rural school district and a donation from her foundation allowed the district to set up a foundation and now 50 of our students can attend a local community College on full scholarship each year.
To be fair, she took a billionaire’s (Jeff Bezos) money and is now redistributing $38b of his wealth. She’s one of the good ones.
It was her money too, as she was a core founding member of Amazon, but until their divorce it was locked up in shares.
It does sure seem like she wanted to give a lot of it away, probably for a long time. I'm glad his midlife crisis is helping so many people.
If you look into the matter, she very much helped to earn that money. It's hers, not taken from anyone.
Nobody actually earns that much, and I doubt that her labor directly created that much real value.
Well if we ignore all the exploitation of workers and public infastructure/resources we can say they earned their money.
The exception that proves the rule.
That's not what that means.
I don't think I've ever agreed with any usage of that phrase, correct or incorrect. People just use it to dismiss counter-evidence to their pet theories.
Why would you disagree with correct usage?
Because she is simply an "exception." Use of the phrase would require there to be a general understanding that "billionaires are bad except when...", but the prevailing notion is simply that "billionaires are bad." Therefore, she is an "exception", and a good one at that, not an "exception that proves the rule".
edit Oops, replied to the wrong one, but leaving this here because I'm lazy. I am the rule.
I'm not sure what the tone/intention was here but I'll take it as a normal question. I disagree because I think people use it as an easy way to improperly dismiss evidence that disagrees with their views, even when they use it correctly in a sentence.
Can you provide an example of correct usage that does this?
I think we have a mismatch of definitions. By "correct usage", I mean it's grammatically correct, but not necessarily that the exception does actually "prove the rule". Anything that fits the sentence but doesn't actually provide a rule-proving exception is what I'm referring to as "incorrect usage".
Although come to think of it, I don't think any exception can prove a rule by itself, actually. The only time it would work is if the entity enforcing the rule explicitly calls something out as an exception-- in which case, the thing proving the rule is that they acknowledged the rule by explicitly calling something an exception.
The definition you provided in the second paragraph is the correct usage.
Oh, okay. I guess that works, but in that case people use it incorrectly nearly every time.
Yeah, that's part of the problem.
Iirc, the word "prove" in this context is the archaic definition "test" e.g. the proving ground. This would imply the original meaning of the phrase is in fact the opposite of how it is normally used today: "the exception proves the rule "means 'an exception tests [whether or not it is] a rule.' As you say, people now use it in this strange fashion where the existence of counter evidence somehow proves the point
Ooh that's interesting
She's strategically working on no longer being a billionaire.
And we could do the same without the billionaires. Since they don't create value, we can skip the part where the money goes to them, and directly support our communities. Eliminate billionaires as a drain on our society.
I see both sides of this. I agree with you in principle, but practically the US can't get its shit together. Would you trust the government with an influx of cash? They'd probably turn it into weapons.
The thing I like most about what she is doing unlike other billionaire philanthropists is that her money is given with no strings attached.
Sure, it's great, but I'd rather them not have to beg for it and instead take the money they're leaching from society by force. They should just be forced to give that money in taxes, not have the schools beg for scraps.
This is the answer. Philanthropy is great and all. But how awesome would it be if philanthropy wasn't needed. And who tends to make philanthropy necessary? The wealthy and billionaires taking far more than their share.
Whilst commendable, that is not the job of billionaires.
Other countries have free access to adult education. Some are even paid to attend
Who downvotes this?
Every billionaire's priority should be to not be a billionaire anymore. She's doing a great job so far both trying to get to that goal and being an example of what we should expect from these people.
As a side note it should not even be up to them. Billionaires should be taxed enough that it's not possible to be a billionaire but in the absence of an effective government I'm glad she's doing this instead.
Disagree. I'm happy for billionaires to be taxed at 80% effective or higher.
100% inheritance tax on billionaires though.
Cool. Please explain how it's possible for someone to work hard enough to deserve 1000 years worth of earning 1 million dollars a year. That's 1 billion dollars. No one deserves that kind of money. Period. If you work hard and are very talented you should earn more than others. Fine. A billion dollars though? Not possible to work that hard or be that talented.
Invent something that 1bn people will pay. $1 for.
What is immoral about numbers greater than 10**9 specifically? Plenty of houses in Japan cost more than 1bn JPY.
Millions of Taylor Swift fans disagree with you.
HOWEVER
My initial statement was based around economics. Billionaires are very mobile and can live almost anywhere in the world. Would we prefer to tax 80% of 100 Billionaires or 100% of zero Billionaires?
There's nothing immoral about a number you dimwit. The immoral part is that one billion AMERICAN DOLLARS (capitalized so you understand that numbers tend have labels attached to them that make them mean something different depending on the label) represents an amount of resources that no person needs in even a hundred lifetimes.
Humanity is generating enough resources for every person on the planet to be fed, housed, provided healthcare and have extra for non necessities. So why are children still starving to death? Why are people homeless and without healthcare? Why are people working for slave wages for 80 hours a week when all of these resources exist with plenty to go around? It's because the richest people have concentrated this wealth for themselves even though they could never use it all.
It doesn't matter how many people like Taylor Swift's music or how many one dollar things Jeff Bezos has used those making slave wages to create for five cents. That amount of money should not ever be in the hands of one individual. Or in this case the hundreds of billionaires who control the resources that were generated by the billions of people on this planet that actually create those resources. You've been brainwashed into thinking that it's normal but it is a crime against humanity.
Your final statement is the most ignorant of all. It doesn't matter where billionaires live if they're not able to exist. Force them to share the resources that they have extorted from the people who created that wealth or relieve them of their heads. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
So why are you are fixated on the billion number?
Not when you used them.
So why not also target multimillionaires?
OK, so it's poverty you are against, not billionaires.
No. Billionaires are small potatoes. The federal government spent $6.13 trillion in FY 2022. $1.62 Trillion on the militarily PER YEAR. A billionaires life's work owns less than 0.1% of that.
Yes it does. It's an excellent example of hard work and skill that is valued >1Bn. It is empirical evidence that your opinion is incorrect.
OK, so now you are back on poverty. Not billionaires.
Poverty, yes. Billionaires no. I'm not actually defending billionaires. I'm trying to show that your anger is not correctly targeted.
So you are proposing a worldwide movement against billionaires, overriding all national sovereignty. You are more likely to get support for poverty to be outlawed than billionaires.
You're just being obtuse now and straw manning even harder than before. I don't actually believe you're stupid enough to not understand that I'm not upset with the existence of a number instead of what the number represents in context. I don't actually think you're stupid enough to not understand that concentration of wealth is causing poverty. I don't think you're stupid enough to believe that government spending on an entire nation should be compared to a single person's wealth (Although I agree that the military budget is far too high, it employs millions of people so your comparison is moronic). You're a troll and a capitalist simp. Kindly go fuck yourself.
If there are any actual humans reading this I'm sure they understand what I'm talking about since it was stated quite plainly.
You've been blocked as you're not worth conversing with. Cheers!
You picked a billion. People with 50 million have more money than they need.
Weath Inequality and poverty are completely different topics. You can have no poverty and many billionaires. You can have no billionaires and also have poverty.
Sure it can. It illustrates that there are bigger, better targets than 750 people.
I'm pointing out that maximising income from billionaires doesn't occur when you tax them at 100%.
Calling for an 80% tax bracket is not simping for capitalism.
Go get your toys and put them back in the pram.
Because you can't handle a different opinion.
Sadly, I suspect some assholes will be along any moment to tell us all about how evil she is and how she's infecting kids with 5g or some such.
Billionaire philanthropy is undemocratic and governments just need to tax better and put that GDP towards things we prioritize together as nations
But where will we get the classic "Billionaire saves orphans from orphan crushing machine" that never follows up on who built the orphan crushing machine?
Instead we'd just get the classic news headline "Imagine the worst person you can, we found that guy and he's getting free money from the government welfare program" Which I would add barely happens to most CEOs and billionaires today (they do own most the press, after all)
She's quite literally the opposite of those evil billionaires. She's a shining example that should be praised and used as a model.
"But billionnaire bad cause has the money!" is how people typically respond. I don't even think being able to get billions is bad. The number itself is whatever. Actions are what's important. A handful of the whatever-naires aren't steaming piles of ass, so we should support them.
Translates to
Everyone wants fix now! Fixes take time and resources. Often a number of small changes that work towards a larger, positive outcome. The issue I often see, if it is an issue and not my own blindness, is how so many people see the bricks and not the wall. A tremendous number of people can identify single, needed changes. Many more cannot link those changes to the necessary effort and other necessary changes that need to be made to get there. I'm certainly not smart enough to connect all the threads either. I do know, however, that alienating potential allies is a mistake. We have to work within the means that exist today, not within a dream of what we wish for tomorrow. Move towards that dream, just don't exist within it hoping for better without accepting the resources we can use now.
She needs to deposit 10k only my bank account. That'll take care of my rent for 6 months.
It's crazy how little it would take to change all our lives.
Mere 2k would put me so far ahead, it's basically 2 years worth of saving.
And then you try to comprehend what a billion is like and it's intangible. A million we can imagine, it's a fancy ass house. But a billion? I simply can't imagine how much money that is.
ya know the difference between a billion and a million?
About a billion.
20 fancy ass houses in every single state in the USA. I’d never thought of it that way until now and that’s obscene.
A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 32 years.
Coffee break, vacation, career, two thirds of the time humans have been around: thousand, million, billion, trillion
(Roughly)
She needs to be my sugar mommy. That will take care of my whole life.
I'll take that, too
Welcome to the family
Trump:hi it's me your non profit
Bless
Leave this person to get it on with this.
"Person richer than you uses their wealth to influence the world more than you."
"Yay!!!!!!!!" - useful idiots
There's no such thing as a philanthropist. She didnt make billions of dollars doing good deeds.
Would you consider divorcing Bezos a good deed?..
For the record, I would. Also, what she is doing is great. Regardless of what you and I think about it.
Either this is a wild take, or you accidentally a word there
Like going around a bar and pickpocketing enough to buy several rounds for everyone, then being cheered as you buy everyone one round. What is everyone suddenly fans of Amazon wealth now?
Reread what you wrote. I think you meant to say there are no billionaire philanthropists, but you said there are no philanthropists at all.
Someone having money isn't providing any benefits to society. The hungry cant eat it, the unsheltered cant live in it, the sick arent treated by it. There are a lot of people that do selflessly help society, we call them humanitarians. Building shelters, giving food, providing treatment, doing the work that needs to be done. If someone rich is donating to the people that do these things, all they are doing is returning what should have gone to these groups in the first place. They are returning what they stole, not doing anything good for anyone.