On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:02:05 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
> On 2008-02-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>
>> Gates owns Cascade Investment LLC. It's not hidden or secret. It's merely
>> a liability management company. He doesn't control it by Proxy, he
>> controls it totally. And, he only owns 10% of another investment company
>> according to the article, which is not "controlling" it.
>
> Didn't read the article. No comment on your characterization of the
> article.
>
> But owning 10% of a company can make the owner hold a piece larger
> than any others, leading to the ability to wield a lot of influence. Or
> 10% could be equal with one or more others. Or 10% could be just below
> the largest owner, giving the 10% owner a lot of influence.
>
> Whether any of that's the case here isn't known to me. But I wasn't
> commenting on the article in the first place.
The paranoia in COLA aside, I would suspect that Gates, or Linus, or
Palisamo (IBM) would have more influence just based upon who they are.
However, this slamming of people because they give to charity is just plain
wrong.
I'm sure all of you have receipts for the IRS to back up your claims on
your 1040.
Sure.
We all go to church each Sunday and pop $25.00 in the plate.
Yep.
It's the same thing, only on a higher level.
The bottom line is who cares what tax benefits Gates is getting?
People are benefiting from his donations.
That's all that really counts in my book.
The tax code (which should be abolished IMHO) is designed to allow tax
breaks to people who give.
So what's wrong with that?
Do you think Schestowitz even drops a dime in the Salvation Army kettle
during Christmas season.
I doubt it.
He's too nasty and too cheap.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
|
