The foundation doesn't have to be cushy in itself. The family members already inherit enough money to satisfy all of their material desires. You don't even need to be a billionaire to satisfy all of your material desires. Beyond a certain point, wealth is simply power, and the foundations give power to the families.
What I see from the billionaires is a desire to undermine democratically elected governments, starving them of funding by cutting taxes, and making them dysfunctional by financing the campaigns of dysfunctional politicians. When the masses lose faith in democratically elected governments, the so-called "charitable" foundations swoop in to become the trusted providers of social services to the masses. The ultimate result is the elimination of democracy and the restoration of hereditary aristocracy, with the foundations ruling the world as undemocratic governments.
I would be more impressed if billionaires gave away 99% of their wealth to somewhere that is completely out of the control of themselves and their families.
The world's wealthiest people aren't looking to buy more stuff. There are only so many mansions and yachts you can buy before you'd had enough with that and get bored. For the purposes of buying stuff, wealth has diminishing returns. What they're looking for in accumulating unlimited wealth is to increase their power relative to everyone else, to perpetuate social inequality. Power is a kind of zero sum game, because if we all accumulate the same amount, we're still all equal.
>> I would be more impressed if billionaires gave away 99% of their wealth to somewhere that is completely out of the control of themselves and their families
Warren Buffett has already given away stock worth more than his current net worth, and the main beneficiary has been the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. His will gives more than 99% of his remaining net worth to philanthropy.
> the main beneficiary has been the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In other words, a billionaire-controlled foundation.
But also: "Warren Buffett is donating about $870 million to four family-run foundations" "the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which is named after his wife" "three charities run by his children" "Last year, he donated about $750 million to the same foundations. He’s been making the same donations yearly since 2006." https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/business/warren-buffett-thank...
That's kind of a strange question. It would be a confirmed theory rather than a conspiracy theory if there were empirical evidence. I would say, though, in support of the theory: (1) this is how the ultra-wealthy have always behaved throughout history, to advance the interests of their own social class, to preserve and enhance their social inequality, and (2) I have a hard time trusting the motives of the people who have set up these foundations, because they've always been ruthless and greedy throughout their lives. Gates has never stopped accumulating personal wealth; his net worth is higher now than when he "retired" and claimed he was going to give most of his wealth away! Buffett has never stopped accumulating personal wealth either. It's a cop-out to claim that you're going to give everything away to charity, but only after you're dead. Moreover, your pledges are worthless when your dead, because your children who now control your money via the foundations may behave in ways that you didn't intend (which is often the way with children).
If you're going to give most of your wealth away to charity, and by that I mean to actual people who need the money, not to a "foundation", then give it away now, before you die. I do not trust Bill Gates one bit, not even one tiny bit. I don't even trust the foundations to do good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
So you can say that my conspiracy theory is the most cynical interpretation of the situation, due to my cynicism about the billionaires themselves.
Did I make up the theory? Yes, of course, by definition. All theories are made up.
Am I cynical about the motives of billionaires? Yes.
Was my theory inspired by my cynicism? Yes.
Did my theory "confirm" anything? No, I don't know what it would confirm.
The purpose of the theory is to explain the existence of all these family-run "charitable" foundations that every ultra-wealthy person seems to be setting up nowadays, regardless of how terrible that person might have been in the past or continues to be in the present. Don't you think that's a bit suspicious?
Honestly, I have a hard time believing that these foundations could do any more good than simply writing $10k checks to millions of poor people. That would immediately and dramatically improve their lives.
What I see from the billionaires is a desire to undermine democratically elected governments, starving them of funding by cutting taxes, and making them dysfunctional by financing the campaigns of dysfunctional politicians. When the masses lose faith in democratically elected governments, the so-called "charitable" foundations swoop in to become the trusted providers of social services to the masses. The ultimate result is the elimination of democracy and the restoration of hereditary aristocracy, with the foundations ruling the world as undemocratic governments.
I would be more impressed if billionaires gave away 99% of their wealth to somewhere that is completely out of the control of themselves and their families.
The world's wealthiest people aren't looking to buy more stuff. There are only so many mansions and yachts you can buy before you'd had enough with that and get bored. For the purposes of buying stuff, wealth has diminishing returns. What they're looking for in accumulating unlimited wealth is to increase their power relative to everyone else, to perpetuate social inequality. Power is a kind of zero sum game, because if we all accumulate the same amount, we're still all equal.