[quote=AN]There are way too many what ifs in your post to know for sure. But what we know is, he does give more $ to charity as a % of his total life time income/wealth than an average American.
FYI, Microsoft didn’t put a gun to their customers’ head and force them to buy Windows. Windows became a monopoly because it was the cheapest and easiest OS to use at the time. They were held back for many years because they were afraid of being broken up due to the monopoly lawsuit. Now that they no longer are as dominant, they can finally bundle more of their services together. Even if Windows gotten 100% of the market share, Android will still happen and the move to portable devices would still happen. But if they were allowed to bundle more of their services together, end user would have given a more cohesive user experience earlier, instead of having to wait till the last few years to have that.[/quote]
Of course he gives a greater percentage of his income/wealth to charity than the average American. It’s much easier to do that when you have a net worth in the billions and annual earnings in the millions, as opposed to a net worth in the tens or hundreds of thousands (if one is lucky).
But charity isn’t the only “good” way to spend money. How about putting more money into the hands of “regular” people, like customers and employees — money that is more likely to be spent on goods and services…creating a greater demand for goods and serives…thereby, creating more jobs.
I would rather have a good job than be the recipient of charity. But that might not garner the idol worship for the rich that highly concentrated wealth (and their “benevolent generosity”) tends to generate.
