Microsoft Starts Its Own Charity Organization: Microsoft Philanthropies (microsoft.com)

SmartAboutThings writes: Bill Gates is known as a big philanthropist, and now his own company will commit to even more charity work by launching a new organization, Microsoft Philanthropies. Microsoft's president and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith outlined the goals for the new organization, saying it will partner with nonprofit organizations to help expand technology projects to people who need it. He said, "Just as there is an extremely effective commercial ecosystem which brings the promise of technology to life in the marketplace, there must be a strong societal ecosystem that brings the promise of technology to life in the community space, especially where there is the greatest need." Mary Snapp, who joined Microsoft as its first female attorney in 1988, will lead Microsoft Philanthropies report directly to Smith.

Comments

So now /. is slashvertising for Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just... wow

Need some Zunes, Surface RTs and Windows phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you do. We'll send you 3 million of them!

Ugh? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a thinly-veiled attempt to get lock-in on even the poorest members of society that I want to throw up.

Just die, Microsoft. Just roll over and die already.

We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Pet charity projects throwing money haphazardly at random causes a few billionaires feel strongly about is an undemocratic disgrace. Had more of their largesse been taxed, we the people could've put it to better use dealing with our deficit, fixing our failing infrastructure, or even using it to help pay for ambitious new programs like universal basic income and single payer healthcare. Those ideas have the potential to totally end poverty. Pet charity projects like Gates' or Zuckerberg's hold no such potential.

Instead of praising this, we should be asking ourselves what kind of society we want to live in.

From the article: "Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money."

See also: public vs. private social expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Wow, what a bunch of leftist claptrap

Last I checked, democracy was not a leftist idea. Concentrating disproportionate power in the hands of a few billionaires is undemocratic.

Government is the absolute worst way to do charity

And yet the governments with the strongest safety nets are the best at reducing poverty. Seems to me government is pretty good at it, when properly funded.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.

That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.

taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living.

I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)

Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.

But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns.

Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."

The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress...

First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.

Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.

Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people.

That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."

Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.

The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Read the articles I linked to.

Private charities fund the pet issues of their rich benefactors.

They don't fund the vital needs of society.

Using the democratic process to decide how to spend the money produces better results.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

If you want to raise the standard of living of the poor, you don't confiscate the wealth from others and give it to them. You enact policies that encourage economic growth so they can get jobs and aren't dependent on the government.

Generally speaking, providing a lifestyle floor for everyone does encourage economic growth.

Suppose, for instance, we had a universal basic income indexed to right at what a bare minimum living wage is. In that case, 100% of that money is spent, and circulates through the economy, producing demand in a whole host of economic sectors, creating jobs.

In addition, it would improve productivity by removing unwilling labor from the labor pool. Those working would do so because they want to, not because they're forced to under thread of death from homelessness or starvation.

That would remove a small number of people from the labor force, but make those who remain far more productive because they'd be more motivated.

Moreover, it would also let us remove wasteful economic distortions like means testing for the safety net (which the left hates) because UBI replaces the safety net and the minimum wage (which the right hates) as it would no longer be necessary either.

As far as those "unwilling to fish"....screw those lazy bastards.

Translation: "I'm perfectly okay with letting poor people die from exposure or starve to death."

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

You think you have limits? I don't think you do.

There are countries in this world which do NOT have the resources to do what you want for their people, what makes you think the USA will always have enough or that we could hope to even do it now?

Go take a look at the falling labor participation rate in this country, consider the demographics we face and then tell me we have the resources to do what you want to do over the next 20 years. Take a look at the example of Greece and Argentina, even Venezuela proves that what you suggest is not workable in the long term. The government cannot tax enough to provide enough without killing their economies. If we go down *your* path, we are actually condemning more people to the ravages of poverty, citizens of THIS country as well as in the world. You would wreck our economy though confiscatory tax rates, smother economic development in your vain attempts to fight poverty.

No you have no limits, All it takes is one more sob story about how there are poor suffering because the don't have what you own that makes you feel guilty and you are off to vote in politicians who dupe you into supporting their next vote buying welfare give away to sooth your consonance. Even if it means that we ALL will eventually suffer and multitudes of people will die needlessly, only because you and people like you have no limits because you have no forethought and don't pay attention to what is really going on.

So tell me again how you have limits? Tell the pensioners in Greece how it's all going to work out, that the promises made by their bankrupt government will get kept, how the social security and Medicare entitlements are going to work as the labor participation rate continues to fall and you don't have to confiscate more and more of working people's paychecks or reduce benefits and put folks back into poverty? How in the face of this you intend to fund the growing welfare roles which support a lot of able bodied people who *could* work but don't have to? And still have limits to what you think the government should take? You have no limits.

Your idea of government amounts to wealth redistribution, which is the basic idea of communism. Face it. Your idea of government can take EVERYTHING away from you for no other reason than you are alive and live in the country. That form of government doesn't work out so well historically....

May I suggest you examine the principles of this country's founding and find out how the forefathers approached this? I think you will find that they where about self reliance and got pretty sensitive about taxes... Clearly THEY had limits... I have limits... You? Not so much I'm afraid.

Re:Need some Zunes, Surface RTs and Windows phones

[bobbied]

Sure you do. We'll send you 3 million of them!

Oh... And don't forget the free upgrade to Windows 10.. Now sign this donation form so we can get the tax write-off.

Just like Gate's charity

[WindBourne]

This is NOT about Charity, but about finding new ways to improve public image of the company and increase Microsoft Sales. Gate's Charity has always tied MS sales to his money. Total BS.