MacKenzie Bezos signs the Giving Pledge, will donate at least half of her fortune to charity

[Shawn Knight]

What just happened? MacKenzie Bezos, now the world's third richest woman, has pledged to give away at least half of her fortune to charity. In her Giving Pledge letter, MacKenzie said she has a disproportionate amount of money to share and "will keep at it until the safe is empty."

MacKenzie Bezos on Tuesday announced intentions to give away at least half of her fortune to charity, joining more than 200 of the world's wealthiest individuals and couples that have vowed to do the same through the Giving Pledge.

The Giving Pledge is a charitable organization founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010 that encourages wealthy individuals and couples to contribute at least half of their net worth to philanthropic causes, either during their lifetime or when they die.

MacKenzie's divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was finalized last month. The two were married in 1993, a year before Amazon was incorporated. As part of the divorce, Jeff kept 75 percent of their joint Amazon stock as well as their interests in Blue Origin and The Washington Post.

Even still, MacKenzie's stake in Amazon is estimated to be worth north of $35 billion, making her the third richest woman and the 22nd richest person in the world.

MacKenzie is going to be amazing and thoughtful and effective at philanthropy, and I'm proud of her. Her letter is so beautiful. Go get 'em MacKenzie. https://t.co/S2gLLBQyRQ

--- Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) May 28, 2019

Bloomberg has Jeff Bezos listed as the world's richest person with a total net worth of around $114 billion. To date, he has not signed the Giving Pledge put praised MacKenzie's decision earlier today on Twitter.

Image credit: Elena Sibert

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80262-mackenzie-bezos-signs-giving-pledge-donate-least-half.html

 

[TomSEA]

That's mighty big of her considering it leaves her with only 17.5 billion dollars to make her way through life on.

 

[gusticles41]

To put this into some kind of perspective, every single person in the US (children/babies included) would have to donate ~$53.51 to match her donating half of her wealth.

This can make you mad/envious/jealous/happy/whatever, but it should definitely make you feel something.

 

[kira setsu]

There's a terribly brutal joke to tell here, but I'll let someone braver than me go down that dark road.

 

[Evernessince]

The only sad part here is that in the US, the Charity will take 90% and 10% will actually make it to people in need.

People complain about the government's use of tax dollars but charities are on a whole different level when it comes to blowing other people's money.

Giving that much money away is a bad idea that's bound to attract vultures. If you are rich and wish to change the world, it is much better to use the money directly or to lobby for systemic changes that will break the cycle.

This old saying

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime

certainly applies to charities in the US right now.

 

[Karlos95]

To put this into some kind of perspective, every single person in the US (children/babies included) would have to donate ~$53.51 to match her donating half of her wealth.

This can make you mad/envious/jealous/happy/whatever, but it should definitely make you feel something.

That is sad, because most of those people could afford a lot more than that.

I reckon her money would be better off going to the bottom 20% of income earners. That would go a lot more way than some charity that is most likely doing the bare minimum so they pay their CEOs a stupid amount of money and get huge tax write offs.

 

[Kashim]

That's mighty big of her considering it leaves her with only 17.5 billion dollars to make her way through life on.

And I suppose you'd give it ALL away if you had what she has, right?

 

[toooooot]

Thank you, you beautiful woman.
This is rare because there are many many very rich people who wouldn't donate a dime to those in need, rich and not very rich.

 

[PEnnn]

Mighty generous of her

But the number of fake charities in the US will expand exponentially to grab most of the money for themselves.

 

[wiyosaya]

The only sad part here is that in the US, the Charity will take 90% and 10% will actually make it to people in need.

People complain about the government's use of tax dollars but charities are on a whole different level when it comes to blowing other people's money.

Giving that much money away is a bad idea that's bound to attract vultures. If you are rich and wish to change the world, it is much better to use the money directly or to lobby for systemic changes that will break the cycle.

This old saying

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime

certainly applies to charities in the US right now.

There are a number of organizations out there the keep a close eye on charities whether those charities are located in the US or elsewhere. For instance, http://www.give.org and https://www.charitynavigator.org as only two examples.

This is only a promise by her to give away 1/2 of her wealth, and the promise says nothing of what charities she will donate to, so I think it a bit premature to suggest that she will only give her money to US charities and the worst of the crop at that. Not all US charities are bad.

While this may not be true, I would like to think that she will get some trusted advice in one form or another and make some wise choices as to where her money will best be put to use.

I commend her for her pledge of generosity and wonder why Jeff Bezos has not pledged the same.

Edit: There are charities out there that are breaking the cycle: For instance - https://www.ideglobal.org/

 

[wiyosaya]

And I suppose you'd give it ALL away if you had what she has, right?

I'd keep $100 million.

 

[Evernessince]

There are a number of organizations out there the keep a close eye on charities whether those charities are located in the US or elsewhere. For instance, http://www.give.org and https://www.charitynavigator.org as only two examples.

This is only a promise by her to give away 1/2 of her wealth, and the promise says nothing of what charities she will donate to, so I think it a bit premature to suggest that she will only give her money to US charities and the worst of the crop at that. Not all US charities are bad.

While this may not be true, I would like to think that she will get some trusted advice in one form or another and make some wise choices as to where her money will best be put to use.

I commend her for her pledge of generosity and wonder why Jeff Bezos has not pledged the same.

Edit: There are charities out there that are breaking the cycle: For instance - https://www.ideglobal.org/

I'll pass on Give.org, which is an affiliate of the BBB. The BBB has gotten in hot water in the past over it's favoring of businesses. The fact that Give.org charges these charities for the assessment raises red flags about whether they are financially incentivized to give good ratings.

Charity Navigator is fine, except they rely on government tax disclosure forms for their financial assessment. Those very same forms which are highly subject to manipulation as charity expenses are not required to be itemized and instead only require broad categories. In the end, they don't really have any power to validate any of the information they obtain due to the piss poor charity laws. Then again, if there were better laws, there wouldn't be a need for Charity Navigator in the first place.

Mind you I was describing systemic issues, not saying there won't be at least a few charities that buck the trend. In the end though, human nature will undoubtedly ensure these issues continue until the system is changed. Machiavelli knew a long time ago that any system able to be exploited, will be exploited.

 

[captaincranky]

TBH, I think at least part of this is a ploy to make her ex husband look like the greedy, self absorbed, sociopath that he is.

Oh look, Mackenzie is so very nice, but that damned Jeff is keeping all of his billions, and still looking for ways to make more. (Works for me).

This is on a par with Bill Gates sudden turnabout to a giving nature.

I'm thinking about petitioning the WHO to recognize this as a "disorder". Let's call it "top one percenter's guilt".

Or maybe it's already recognized as part of the, "survivor's guilt" spectrum.

Survivor's guilt, "I'm alive and they're not, the emotional impact on me has been a horrific ordeal".

Corporate mogul's guilt, "I'm filthy rich, and they're begging on street corners, the emotional impact on me has been a horrific ordeal".

At least there's one thing I'm completely certain of, we'll never be reading a story like this about Elon Musk.

 

[VitalyT]

The only sad part here is that in the US, the Charity will take 90% and 10% will actually make it to people in need.

People complain about the government's use of tax dollars but charities are on a whole different level when it comes to blowing other people's money.

Giving that much money away is a bad idea that's bound to attract vultures. If you are rich and wish to change the world, it is much better to use the money directly or to lobby for systemic changes that will break the cycle.

This old saying

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime

certainly applies to charities in the US right now.

Totally agree. If you want to help people, you go and do it yourself, or at least oversee it personally. But if you just want to look charitable, you give it to charity, without much care what happens to the money afterwards.

Charitable foundations are the biggest scam on earth, hiding their evil deeds under the blanket of good intentions.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...good intentions.

I hear those are what the road to hell is paved with.

OK look, help me out here. I know you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. But does the correct syntax, "good intentions, I hear those are what pave the road to hell", lose the feeling of the original platitude?

 

[fktech]

I would be impressed if she gave it all away and then lived like the rest of us....

 

[VitalyT]

I hear those are what the road to hell is paved with.

OK look, help me out here. I know you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. But does the correct syntax, "good intentions, I hear those are what pave the road to hell", lose the feeling of the original platitude?

In the context I used it, good intentions are insincere. And if sincere good intentions can lead to hell, according to the proverb, then insincere ones should lead to a place far worse.

 

[captaincranky]

In the context I used it, good intentions are insincere. And if sincere good intentions can lead to hell, according to the proverb, then insincere ones should lead to a place far worse.

In all "sincerity", I think she's doing it to piss her ex husband off.

I which case, another old adage should to be changed to, "revenge is a dish best served to charity, with your ex husband's money".

With those mean crazy things I say out of the way, it does ask the question, "what would you or I do, if I suddenly either of us won the Mega Millions Lottery jackpot"? How would we manage to treat our security? How many "friends", "relatives", and, "old school buddies", would come climbing out of the woodwork at "claim their just share", of the new found wealth.
I have no doubt the woman is extremely confused and afraid, while every grifter in the country and around the world, is eyeballing her windfall.

Every Bernie Madoff Ponzie scheme hedge fund operator, every crooked lawyer would want to "manage her estate".

As an example they just handed down an indictment on porn star Stormy Daniels lawyer, for money laundering, theft, and a raft of other charges https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rauding-stormy-daniels-book-money/3770321002/

 

[wiyosaya]

I'll pass on Give.org, which is an affiliate of the BBB. The BBB has gotten in hot water in the past over it's favoring of businesses. The fact that Give.org charges these charities for the assessment raises red flags about whether they are financially incentivized to give good ratings.

Charity Navigator is fine, except they rely on government tax disclosure forms for their financial assessment. Those very same forms which are highly subject to manipulation as charity expenses are not required to be itemized and instead only require broad categories. In the end, they don't really have any power to validate any of the information they obtain due to the piss poor charity laws. Then again, if there were better laws, there wouldn't be a need for Charity Navigator in the first place.

Mind you I was describing systemic issues, not saying there won't be at least a few charities that buck the trend. In the end though, human nature will undoubtedly ensure these issues continue until the system is changed. Machiavelli knew a long time ago that any system able to be exploited, will be exploited.

Yes, who watches the watchmen. I agree. Even the watchdogs need to be watched.

And I also agree about systemic changes. From my viewpoint, more would be served if their stack was not mounted on the backs of low-wage workers - in other words - if more of the success were shared with the employees that helped foster that success.

Its the same everywhere, as we both well know. The problem is how to change that. Western civilization has been this way for centuries and there are still staunch supporters of "the one who has the most toys wins." In fact, I would have to say that the majority of western civilization seems to think that the value of a person rests solely in the size of their bank account - no matter who was stepped on in the process of getting that bank account. And worse yet, many who reach that plateau seem to think their does not stink and that they are stable geniuses for having reached that plateau.

To me, that kind of change will require a fundamental reshaping of western mindset. However, it is not only western mindset - it is any mindset where beating others down for profit is the accepted practice. As I see it, it would be a huge change. I would like to think it is possible but my limited mind does not presently see that as a likely, near-term path.

It would have been really interesting is she were giving away that money to Amazon employees. That would have really said something.

TBH, I think at least part of this is a ploy to make her ex husband look like the greedy, self absorbed, sociopath that he is.

Oh look, Mackenzie is so very nice, but that damned Jeff is keeping all of his billions, and still looking for ways to make more. (Works for me).

This is on a par with Bill Gates sudden turnabout to a giving nature.

IIRC, Gates turn-about came when he got married. To the best of my understanding, he was Scrooge personified, or worse, before getting married. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though you may be right about Mackenzie, it may be just an aspect of the feminine nature to nurture. I am definitely not saying all women are as nurturing.

I agree. For anyone with such a bank account, for them to think that they need all of that to live should be considered a disease.

 

[Shawn Knight]

TBH, I think at least part of this is a ploy to make her ex husband look like the greedy, self absorbed, sociopath that he is.

Oh look, Mackenzie is so very nice, but that damned Jeff is keeping all of his billions, and still looking for ways to make more. (Works for me).

This is on a par with Bill Gates sudden turnabout to a giving nature.

I'm thinking about petitioning the WHO to recognize this as a "disorder". Let's call it "top one percenter's guilt".

Or maybe it's already recognized as part of the, "survivor's guilt" spectrum.

Survivor's guilt, "I'm alive and they're not, the emotional impact on me has been a horrific ordeal".

Corporate mogul's guilt, "I'm filthy rich, and they're begging on street corners, the emotional impact on me has been a horrific ordeal".

At least there's one thing I'm completely certain of, we'll never be reading a story like this about Elon Musk.

Musk has already signed the Giving Pledge

 

[Capaill]

Hi MacKenzie. I'm starting a charity that will cure Cancer, AIDS, all Sexual diseases and even Hunger. I call it CASH - it's going to be amazing. I just need a measly $1bn to make all that magic happen. I promise up to .99% of it will go to the suffering people.

 

[captaincranky]

Musk has already signed the Giving Pledge

Has he actually given, or was it a publicity stunt?

He did give the universe his Tesla roadster. But, if it's true as he claims, Tesla has only months to "live", there'll be no joy coming from those coffers.

He's also prone to grandiose gestures, such as offering to rewire Puerto Rico, or rushing in to save those boys with his, "miracle mini submarine".

Mark Zuckerberg also gave some interesting answers when approached about the topic of "giving". I believe that article is somewhere in Techspot's archives.

These "giving pledge" press conferences I imagine, can be quite a zoo, with the press corps trying to guilt a wealthy person into impoverishing themselves.

Charitable trusts have been an outlet (and tax shelter), for the rich and powerful for ages.

Giving is also a path to immortality. Consider that fact that there will never be a "Shawn Knight" or, "captaincranky hall", but there's a real famous and prestigious one in New York City, IIRC, it's called "Carnegie Hall".

Supporting the arts has always been a province of the ultra wealthy. It completes the sociological "trifecta" As they already have money and, power, they immerse themselves into gaining "prestige".

(Ambassadorships work well in that regard as well).

CODA, If my dislike of Musk has caused me to make some faulty statements, please feel free, if not obligated to correct me.

I will say that sociopaths are noted to have the capacity to be quite charming, so that presenting themselves as "people persons", is likely high on the narcissist's agenda.

After all, Donald Trump would have you believe he's a, "people person", now wouldn't he?.

 

[netman]

"MacKenzie Bezos on Tuesday announced intentions to give away at least half of her fortune to charity,"

Jeff praised her on surface, but deep inside he will have a heart attack!

 

[netman]

Is she available to re-marry?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Wow, so much hate in here... A woman decides to give billions to help needy people and everyone rips her for it?! Makes you wonder what it takes to win some public approval.

The good news is however, there will be many many people helped, regardless of how much jealousy and spite is thrown at her.

And in response the cynical assumptions about charities - I'm not worried that her money won't get to the poor. there's so much of it, she could set up her own charity. Most of the big ones are pretty honest too. If you really don't want your money to be wasted - don't give it to a Political Action group.