Bill Gates says he has no more personal use for money

Bill Gates is, without a doubt, a very wealthy man. The co-founder and Chairman of Microsoft is currently the richest man in the US and the second richest man in the world, with an approximate net worth of $63.4 billion. However, in a new interview Gates says that all that money doesn't mean much to him on a personal level.

In a chat with the Telegraph website, Gates says bluntly:

I’m certainly well taken care of in terms of food and clothes. Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point. Its utility is entirely in building an organization and getting the resources out to the poorest in the world.

That organization is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has used its resources to help fund efforts to stop deadly diseases in third world countries along with efforts to improve education in the US. So far, the group has given out a whopping $28  billion. Gates says that 95 percent of his wealth will go towards the foundation and that the money will all be spent within 20 years of his and his wife' death.

Gates says there is no specific religious reason for wanting to help others with his vast wealth, saying, "... it’s about human dignity and equality. The golden rule that all lives have equal value and we should treat people as we would like to be treated."

Source: Telegraph | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Galaga comes to Android devices for free

Next Story

Microsoft Surface Pro launch may get its own TV commercial

85 Comments

View more comments

I wish I could say the same about money, right now, I have to be watching every penny that comes in and out. Kudos to Gates though for really using money to make key decisions that can have a lasting positive impact on the less fortunate.

Too bad he rejected my family's desperate cry for help. My dad has stage 4 cancer and we were being crushed by a motor home debt. But I rose above it and sacrificed a lot just to get us at a bareable level. Charities are nice, but man they don't do **** for people that really need help that don't have autism or diabetes or whatever bull****

Charities, always crying for more money, but when it's time to give, somehow, you never fit the criteria and are never a good candidate.

And when you question how many of those charities are managed, you start to see that the money don't often end where it's the most needed. People get paid to run those things....

"But I rose above it and sacrificed a lot just to get us at a bareable level."

I'm sorry for your problems but you don't sound like the kind of person this particular charity is trying to help. They usually say people become stronger overcoming hardships but... . I know a lot of charities don't give the money they recieve to those who need it (a reason I refuse to donate to the red cross), but someone who is planning on giving up 95% of his own personal wealth is a good person at heart.

Shadow 024 said,
"But I rose above it and sacrificed a lot just to get us at a bareable level."

I'm sorry for your problems but you don't sound like the kind of person this particular charity is trying to help. They usually say people become stronger overcoming hardships but... . I know a lot of charities don't give the money they recieve to those who need it (a reason I refuse to donate to the red cross), but someone who is planning on giving up 95% of his own personal wealth is a good person at heart.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

I don't see bailing out people from debt, individualized cancer treatment, autism or diabetes on their web site anywhere, so I think you're right. Also, I think the red cross are a bunch of vampires.

And Steve Jobs, a selfish ahole billionaire who was opposed to charity in principle and never did a damn thing to help anyone, is idolized as a saint. What a sick world we live in.

Steve Jobs didn't believe corporations should give to charity. Corporations after all have one sole purpose: create value for their shareholders.

markti said,
Steve Jobs didn't believe corporations should give to charity. Corporations after all have one sole purpose: create value for their shareholders.

You don't understand. Bill Gates is giving away his own money, not the corporation money. Who was holding Jobs to do the same thing?

Defcon said,
And Steve Jobs, a selfish ahole billionaire who was opposed to charity in principle and never did a damn thing to help anyone, is idolized as a saint. What a sick world we live in.

Charity begins at home. He probably wanted to make sure his family was alright.

And how do you know he didn't donate privately?

it's the destruction of wealth on people who could never understand or use it while simultaneously prolonging lifespans putting an even larger drain on already heavily limited resources. I can't think of a kinder way of helping end modern civilization.

I don't know why people talk about Steve Jobs when there is an article about Bill Gates. Just because the man didn't disclose how much he donated, that doesn't mean he never did or was a selfish person. Completely pointless talking about him.

StandingInAlley said,
I don't know why people talk about Steve Jobs when there is an article about Bill Gates. Just because the man didn't disclose how much he donated, that doesn't mean he never did or was a selfish person. Completely pointless talking about him.

Jobs is on record saying he doesn't believe in charity. He was a very selfish, obsessed person. Why shouldn't he be mentioned. The general public thinks Jobs changed the world by selling shiny luxury overpriced electronics, while Bill Gates is often caricatured because he's 'evil Microsoft', yet he has saved millions of poor people who need the help.

Defcon said,

Jobs is on record saying he doesn't believe in charity. He was a very selfish, obsessed person. Why shouldn't he be mentioned. The general public thinks Jobs changed the world by selling shiny luxury overpriced electronics, while Bill Gates is often caricatured because he's 'evil Microsoft', yet he has saved millions of poor people who need the help.

it's as arbitrary as listing off the charity work of 100's of other ceo's... why aren't we talking about how much charity was given by the ceo's of exxon, ge, starbucks, amazon, walmart, dell, etc. etc...

pes2013 said,

Link to that quote please?

There is a quote, but Defcon took it out of context. Jobs believed in charity, he just had a different view on it.

CEO-author Walter Isaacson, who wrote Steve Jobs' eponymous, authorised biography, says the iconic co-founder of Apple Inc didn't believe in throwing his money away in charity and instead thought his products would help people live better.

"(While writing Steve Jobs) I asked him about charity. He said that he would be able to do more to reform education, for example, by creating an iPad that had interactive textbooks than by being a philanthropist giving his money away.

http://articles.economictimes....s-steve-jobs-apple-products

Nice. Even though Gates says he will donate 95% of his wealth to charity, with my calculation 5% of $63 billion is $3.15 billion that will remain for the kids. To think about how much money $63 billion is just mind boggling.

> Gates says that 95 percent of his wealth will go towards the foundation and that the money will all be spent within 20 years of his and his wife' death

I'm surprised nobody's commented on this.

When Bill started his foundation years ago, I thought his stated goal was sustainability--his idea being that if you just spend money until it's all gone, then you've only gained short-term benefits...whereas if there's a sustainable model, you get to keep helping people in perpetuity. This goes against what I clearly remember him saying. But I do remember him saying that most of his money would be the foundation's when he was gone.

If ever there was a relevant link, that was it. Thanks for digging this up.

I noticed however that this was from 2010. I wonder if he changed his mind over the years, or I just misremembered from some much older interview.

"The gratification of wealth is not found in mere possession or in lavish expenditure, but in its wise application."
Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)

seems Bill is confirming this.

Commenting is disabled on this article.