OverHereBill

There has been a recent trend among the super rich not to leave their offspring money. Not only do they reach this decision, it seems as though they deem it necessary to let us poor folks know. Bill Gates was one of the more recent to take this action. Despite his being worth many tens of billions of dollars he has concluded that his kids would be best served by not having huge wealth to inherit. Bill, thanks for the information but I was hoping you might want to adopt me, as I’m clearly too old to be spoilt by the experience, whilst still fit and healthy enough to make a pretty healthy dent in one or two of the billion.

Bill made his money from owning and developing Microsoft. He was clearly a business and computing genius, a nerd with attitude, and totally adept at making money and crushing the opposition. Gates has a reputation of being tough, explosive and intimidating. Isn’t it strange that such a person sees no moral paradox in his stance on inheritance?

Is Bill just being a good guy, or has he looked in the mirror and decided he needs to give something back to the society that he has so ruthlessly and successfully exploited?

It appears to the sign of a man looking to establish his place in history, in much the same way as one of the greatest philanthropists ever, Andrew Carnegie. This Scottish man made his fortune in the American steel industry in the 1870s; he founded the Carnegie Steel Company, a step that cemented his name as one of the “Captains of Industry”. By the 1890s, the company was the largest, most profitable industrial enterprise in the world. Carnegie sold it to J.P. Morgan in 1901, and he went on to create US Steel.

Carnegie almost totally devoted the remainder of his life to large-scale philanthropy, with an emphasis on world peace, local libraries, education and scientific research. It looks like Bill has been studying his history and decided on the same course.

We all realize that giving away more than $50 billion is a full time job, and that you don’t want to spoil your kids, but isn’t this all a bit excessive?

Warren Buffett, possibly the canniest investor, businessmen and philanthropist in America since World War Two, amassed a fortune that is estimated to be even bigger than that of Bill. He expressed a desire for Bill to spend some time helping to run his immensely successful investment company. Carnegie has an estimated net worth of around US$62 billion, and Forbes magazine ranked him the richest person in the world on February 11, 2008.

Buffett is called the "Oracle of Omaha," and is noted for his almost total adherence to the value investing philosophy and for his personal frugality despite his immense wealth.

Buffett is also a noted philanthropist. In 2006, he announced that he was going to give away his entire fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2007, he was listed among Time's 100 Most Influential People in The World.

These men understood how capitalism works better than any of their peers, and worked out how to harness it to their dreams and aspirations. They then went on to create more wealth than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. They each had more money than anyone could spend or want, and in their wisdom they decided, after experience of such extreme wealth, that they didn’t want that life for their children. This surely proves that some money, to meet your obligations is great, but too much and it’s trouble. Imagine the people begging for help, threatening blackmail, kidnap. Imagine the fear you have of everyone’s true motive, unless they’re as rich as you, and can’t want anything from you. Perhaps the super rich giving away their money is the best defense they can erect around their family.

Isn’t it also bizarre and somewhat gratifying, that all of these ultra successful capitalists choose to give away their fortunes in such an obviously social liberal and almost, whisper this quietly, socialist method?

But Bill, I could handle just a little bit of cash, I promise.