> spanning more than 200 surviving individuals

> collective net worth of about $10 billion

You are taking his individual contribution as a percentage of the combined net worth of 200 individuals.

They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income.

Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you think he should have donated more?

No, I prefer just to point out the hypocrisy surrounding getting acclaims for "philantrophy" in the US.

Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical European country.

Depending on tax law throughout his life, and his ability to find loopholes, that $900M was _on top of_ what he paid in tax. So unless you have evidence that he paid no or very low taxes, what you're saying just doesn't hold water.

Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M to David Rockefeller's net worth, not that and all his very-extended family.

Anyone in the US is paying very low taxes compared to what "high-income" tax payers pay in e.g. Scandinavian countries like Sweden. The treshold for "high income" is (simplified) at about $80k per year.

Stock option profits are taxed as income as well. (In Sweden we also have to pay social security fees on our stock option profits - the end result typically being at least a 62% taxation level on that income.).

Gotcha. I still don't see any evidence for what you're saying, though. What was David Rockefeller's income during the period he worked and gave money to charitable causes? If you want to look at it mathematically:

income * (tax rate + giving rate) = "total given"

Obviously you have two important variables there that determine what the total percent of income ends up being. I don't see any evidence that the parenthetical totals above are less or greater than each other when you consider your average European vs. Rockefeller, so you can't really say anything about how much he gave out of his income in comparison to your average European. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but you automatically assuming it's less is a bit disingenuous.

There's also the question of required vs. optional. If your average European had a tax rate similar to an American, would they then (on average) give the "savings" away as philanthropy? My guess would be it'd end up somewhere in the middle. Philanthropy is only philanthropy if it's voluntary and isn't forced by your government. That's pretty much its definition.

> Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical European country.

You're somehow confusing money that someone intentionally gave away to philanthropic causes with money that a state takes away forcefully from anyone's income, as if everyone would wilfully give it away to charitable causes even if the state didn't took it from them, and also somehow assuming that Americans don't pay taxes as well.

Tell me, when was the last time you gave away over 10% of your income to philanthropic causes?

Then you should make yourself aware of the regular taxation laws in force at the time those fortunes were amassed.

The difference I guess is that in the US the rich give away most of their money (often for favorable tax treatment on the remainder of their estate) and in Europe they just pass it along to their children to maintain the nominal level of Eurotrash the world seems to require. </s>

I wasn't claiming rich Europeans are any better. :)

I'm simply claiming that this insanely rich american guy

a) percentage-wise gave away quite a bit less of his fortune than e.g. myself has given away in taxes/wealth-distribution in Sweden.

b) get's to be called a "philantrophist".

The difference is that the money was given away willingly, was personally directed to beneficial causes, and was orders of magnitude more than you have "donated."

You're not doing the same thing - and, while we can debate how the meaning of the word "philanthropist" has changed, this is the widely understood modern definition.

> They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income.

For people who create our the net worth by means of income (that is the most of us) the end result is pretty much the same.

That's a stupid statement. Net worth is not income. Surely you understand the difference between the money you deposit in a checking account and the interest the bank pays on your deposit. Furthermore, net worth are just estimates of the monetary worth of all property belonging to someone.

Just admit you were wrong.

To be fair, in Europe we pay more exactly because we recognise that, if left to their own benevolence, the rich will never pay enough.

(And, the guy donated in addition to paying his fair share of taxes, one would hope. At one point, pre-Reagan, US taxes on wealth were as high as in Europe, possibly even higher).

In Europe, you don't leave the rich to their own benevolence. It's much worse. By and large, European countries have laws forbidding the rich from donating too much of their money to charity, especially upon their deaths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_heirship for a pretty bare-bones description of the setup. https://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/facts/DICE/Public-Sector... has more details by country; see the "Restrictions on the freedom to dispose of one’s succession by will" section.

Under these laws, heirs have been able to claw back donations made before death (including many years before death), in addition to ones made in the will. Note that if you accept the premise of the forced heirship laws, this is an obvious consequence; otherwise people will just structure their finances to make most of the donations they want before they die.

Anyway, the upshot is that the European legal system takes great pains to make sure that currently wealthy families stay wealthy instead of managing to give the money away. It's just not talked about much, and I suspect many people don't really know about it.

> $900M out of $10B is 9%.

The $10B is spread across 200 people.

His personal net worth at the time of his death was about $3.3 billion according to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller>. But it's hard to compare that to the $900 million number because that number adds dollars from different time periods, which are worth different amounts. This is especially important if any of it happened in the 60s or early 70s, given the subsequent high inflation.

Also, that $900 million number doesn't seem to include the bequests in his will.

And I suspect he did in fact pay taxes too.

Now, I agree that it's easier to give money away when you have so much you don't really need it for anything. So I'm not sure about giving out trophies for doing so.