My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

Wealth, returns & “how much is he really giving?”

• Several comments revisit earlier pledges, noting his net worth still tripled; others counter that MSFT and markets rose far more, so his wealth is ~70% lower than it would’ve been with no giving.
• Some argue compounding makes this estimate misleading; others reply that order of “earn vs give” doesn’t matter for final % given.
• There’s confusion over timelines (5-year vs multi-decade giving) and skepticism about taking his numbers at face value.
• “Virtually” all his wealth is read as legal/PR hedging: impossible to literally reach 0, admin has to be funded, and people would nitpick if he kept even small luxuries.

Foundations, dynasties & taxes

• Many see giving via a private foundation as better than inheritance or pure hoarding, but others call foundations dynasty-preserving tax shelters with a long history of policy influence.
• Some say this money should have been taxed and spent democratically rather than routed through a private vehicle; others argue governments are wasteful, politically captured, or focused on domestic voters, while the foundation targets global poor.
• Donor Advised Funds, capital-gains avoidance, and US rules (5% payout) are discussed as structuring tools that can both encourage and distort philanthropy.

Impact & criticisms of the Gates Foundation

• Supportive comments credit the foundation with large-scale gains in vaccination, disease reduction (especially polio), and “effective altruism”-style focus on health, poverty, and measurable outcomes.
• Other threads emphasize limits and harms: vaccine-derived polio, pharma-centric approaches, IP protection during COVID, “Green Revolution” agriculture in Africa, and “philanthropic colonialism” or top‑down interventions.
• Several say he gets too much personal credit for multinational efforts involving millions of workers and governments.

Billionaire power, democracy & government failure

• Many express unease that life-and-death global health now depends on a handful of ultra‑rich individuals whose priorities and politics are unaccountable.
• Some argue this only exists because rich interests weakened public institutions and foreign aid, then step in as “saviors.”
• Others respond that governments already spend far more than his foundation on aid, but are slow, politicized, and often sabotaged, so private efforts fill real gaps.

Motives, reputation & double standards

• A recurring theme: is this moral redemption, PR, or genuine concern? Commenters cite past monopolistic behavior, harsh management, his association with a notorious financier, and climate hypocrisy (yachts/jets vs climate work).
• Defenders say earlier business ruthlessness doesn’t negate current large-scale good, and that insisting on personal purity (no private jet, perfect politics) sets an impossible standard.
• Anti-vaccine and conspiracy narratives appear; others dismiss them as fringe yet politically influential.

Strategy: spend-down vs perpetual endowment

• Many applaud the decision to liquidate the foundation by ~2045 rather than become an immortal, mission-drifting “tax-exempt hedge fund.”
• Others note this is “shock therapy” philanthropy: big concentrated pushes (eradication campaigns, infrastructure, AI-for-health) instead of slow trickles—while warning that problems will recur if underlying political systems aren’t fixed.