>Money is power and power comes with moral responsibility.

I don't know if I agree with that. Are they actually qualified to be wielding that much power? Maybe it's better to just let them spend it on personal luxury or passive philanthropy than to have them start twiddling society's levers just because they have a strong urge to "do something".

You think directing your massive fortune towards spending on luxury goods isn't in itself "twiddling society's levers"?

Yeah, you don't build a yacht in isolation, you need labor, resources, it has a cultural and environmental impact.

Whatever you do with so much dough is gonna have consequences, there's no staying neutral.

It's not the same because it's within the bounds of what the economy "wants" you to do. It's an option that's available, instead of modifying the fabric of society to create an option that was previously unimaginable.

I think that's a completely broken idea of how an economy works. There's no neutral position where your cooperating with an economy "wants".

They're not qualified, but they wield it anyway.

Billions of dollars are billions of dollars that could be spent building schools, housing the homeless, feeding starving people, etc. Saying that it's better that these people starve, freeze and die because of a vague fear that Man shouldn't meddle with certain things and spending on personal luxury and yachts is the better option seems like philosophical lazyness.

Or doing Koch Brothers stuff.

Don't think of it as spending on yachts.

Think of it as make-work income for inner city shipyard workers, metal workers, and countless other legacy professions.

At the end of the day, the guy doesn't have the money any more, they all do. So they're happy, and he has a boat.

Indeed, money spent drives economies. Money not spent is simply wasted. One reason why people advocate for more taxes for the rich is to make sure that the money circulates in an economy and thus progress society.

But taxes goes into govt and its inefficiencies rather than into economy

Gates had started their foundation to transfer the assets to children without paying estate tax.

Theory doesn't make any sense, if he wanted to transfer assets to his children, he'll just do that directly rather than start a foundation that has disbursed $66 billion in grants [1].

Note that I'm not saying Gates is a good guy and doesn't use his foundation to exert influence. But, saying he started a foundation to transfer assets while dodging estate tax reeks of "they just write it off...". Wouldn't he have been better off handing over that $66 billion to his children and paying 18% to 40% as taxes?

1- https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/foundation-fact-sheet