Why Warren Buffett Is Poorer Than Mark Zuckerberg (inc.com)

Facebook's soaring stock price isn't the only reason 34-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is now richer than 87-year-old Warren Buffett. An anonymous reader quotes Inc: There's another, more important reason that Zuckerberg is now worth more: Buffett has been doing a great job of giving his money away, something that he, Zuckerberg, Gates, and most of the world's most well-known billionaires have pledged to do.

Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.

Comments

He's not poorer...

[Patent Lover]

He's just less incredibly incredibly incredibly fucking rich.

Re:He's not poorer...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Exactly. Who gives a rat's arse? I don't begrudge either person their fortune, but their net worth is not a matter of competition nor a measure of their worth as a person.

Re:He's not poorer...

[JaredOfEuropa]

One might if they've any hope or faith that the degree of wealth somehow correlates with effort or ability or contribution to society. Admittedly naive but one can still hope.

Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe one should begrudge them their fortune if their actual contribution to society falls well short of what they have amassed. But I’m careful with that sentiment, because the follow up question is: what ought to be done to make it right? Taxing the rich is a popular notion but not with me, because 1) the actual rich have no problem moving their wealth out of harm’s way, and 2) it invariably ends in classifying regular middle class folk with a bit of savings as “rich”. Because that’s where the real money is to be had. The middle class are docile, without much influence, without many options to flee heavy taxation, and they come in great numbers.

That's mean!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ends justify the means. Find the 30 richest people and take 99% of their money and redistribute it to everyone equally. Problems solved.

Zuckerberg would be left with only $810,000,000! I mean come on! Think of how little he has contributed to society, after all. The World needed another advertising platform! Another place for people to waste their lives away! And he helped get Trump elected!

And realize that the Forbes 400 is made up with quite a few billionaires. I think you need to expand your scope.

Eisenhower era income tax rates (inflation adjusted of course) and a 1% tax on capital over say 2 million dollars.

Re:That's mean!

[LynnwoodRooster]

Eisenhower rates, adjusted for inflation, had the Federal Government receiving about 50% per capita of what it does today. And yet it was able to turn a real surplus and pay down the debt (which hasn't happened since Ike was in office). Going back to the tax policies of the 1950s would be great, because it would literally halve the income of the Federal Government. Perhaps that would finally force it back to where it is supposed to be - limited, not all-encompassing.

A thing to keep in mind about paper values

[GrimSavant]

With these valuations of things based on stock prices, remember that the listed prices are based on what it last traded for, or sometimes what the offers are for buying or selling some are at the moment (bid and ask). But if push came to shove, and he wanted to realize the value of that stock and sell a bunch of it to get cash, the price he'd get would go down, how much depending upon liquidity and how deep or shallow the demand for the asset was.

So the composition of their holdings really matters to tell how much their wealth really means if they actually want to do something with it or are faced with downward pressure. $10 billion in Tesla or Facebook stock is a lot more precarious than $10 billion in cash or well diversified holdings, even though the topline number is the same.

Re:If I were uber rich

[rojash]

have a buncha hoes around u fool

Charity is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

These charitable foundations that are set up by these billionaires are to avoid taxation upon the billionaires' death. Rather than transfer the wealth directly to their children when they die, which would trigger death tax, they instead give the money to the foundation, and then make sure the foundation will be under their children's control. No death tax, they get to write the 'gift' off on their ongoing taxes, and it's all legal smegal. The children then skim off the foundation for all their lives.

Yeah, they actually do some real charity work, as part of the cover. But it sure as hell is less money going out for real charity works than they'd lose to taxation if they didn't set up the foundation.

Re: If I were uber rich

[SirAstral]

Your post only proves mine. Public opinion can "easily" be bought. Poorer people have given more to Buffet than Buffet will ever return.

Would you also herald my name should I destroy a few people and build you a world scale zoo? What does it take to buy your admiration? Apparently Buffet has found that price.

Hey Elon!

[moehoward]

Girl: "Hey Elon! Are you going to give all your money away like those press-release-loving-aw-shucks other billionaires?"

Elon: "No way! I need every penny to build my DeathSt.... Er. Yeah. Giving away every dime!!!"

Re:Retarditors

[Chris Mattern]

You, would have, a lot more time, if you didn't, put a comma, every three words, or, so.

I dunno. William Shatner is, after all, 87.

Re: We should just take their money

[LynnwoodRooster]

So you think the rich just sit on their money, and it doesn't work for them? They don't buy nice things, or reinvest money into the economy via buying/investing in other companies?