#philantropie

  • Quels #impôts les #milliardaires paient-ils ?
    (publié juin 2023)

    A l’aide de données administratives inédites, reliant les déclarations de revenus des particuliers aux #déclarations_fiscales des entreprises en #France en 2016, les auteurs mesurent les #taux_d’imposition directe effectifs des ménages situés au sommet de la distribution des revenus. Cette nouvelle mesure, distincte du traditionnel revenu fiscal de référence en ce qu’elle intègre notamment les revenus non distribués des sociétés détenues par ces ménages, les amène à interroger la réalité de la progressivité de l’impôt.


    Enseignements clés

    - Le taux d’imposition effectif des ménages français apparaît en 2016 progressif jusqu’à des niveaux élevés de revenu. Il atteint 46 % pour les foyers appartenant aux 0,1 % les plus riches.
    - Le taux d’imposition effectif devient régressif au sommet de la distribution, passant de 46 % pour les 0,1 % les plus riches, à 26 % pour les 0,0002 % les plus riches.
    – Pour les « milliardaires », l’impôt sur le revenu ou l’ISF ne représentent qu’une fraction négligeable de leurs revenus globaux, alors que l’impôt sur les sociétés est le principal impôt acquitté.
    - Le taux plus faible d’imposition des plus hauts revenus s’explique par le fait que l’imposition des bénéfices des sociétés est plus faible que l’imposition des revenus personnels.

    https://www.ipp.eu/publication/16253

    #riches #fisc #fiscalité

    • The billionaire’s guide to doing taxes

      Do you want to pay less taxes? Great. Step one, be a rich person. Then, buy a yacht. Or a sports team. Give a lot to charity. Lose some money in the stock market. Above all, make sure most of your money exists in the form of assets, not cash — stocks, real estate, a Dutch master painting, fine jewelry, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

      They say that money is a universal language, but it speaks at different volumes. When you have a fathomless bounty of wealth, money doesn’t quite register as an expense until you add a lot of zeros to the end — so spending a lot to save a lot is a no brainer. It’s why the mega-rich often hire expensive tax lawyers, wealth managers, or even set up a whole office dedicated to tax strategy. “It’s not just preparing the return,” says Paul Wieseneck, a tax accountant and director of the Fuoco Group. “There’s so much more involved in planning, in accumulating, offsetting, and trying to mitigate the taxes as best as possible.”

      For the rich, taxes aren’t a springtime affair with a quick visit to H&R Block, but a year-round endeavor.

      How much tax a wealthy person owes in a given year is a complex tapestry threaded with exemptions, deductions, credits, and obscure loopholes you’ve never heard of. The ideal is to owe zilch. If that sounds impossible to achieve, just look at the leaked tax returns of the wealthiest Americans that nonprofit news site ProPublica analyzed in 2021: Over several years, billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, among others, paid no federal income taxes at all.

      How do they do it? Here are some basic rules they live by.
      Don’t take a paycheck

      If your income is earned through wages paid to you by an employer, chances are your taxes are on the simpler side of the spectrum. Not as simple as it is for wage earners in other countries, where the government simply tells you how much you owe, but getting a paycheck from your boss means your taxes are automatically withheld each pay period. Filing your tax return might be as easy as filling out one form.

      You can pick and choose which deductions to take (like for student loan interest, or for having a home office), but the vast majority of households take the simpler standard deduction, which this year erases $14,600 from your tax bill. For tax year 2024, you’ll pay a 37 percent tax on any income you rake in over $609,350. That sounds like it would add up to a sizable amount for multimillionaires and billionaires — unless that income is just a minuscule share of their increasing wealth.

      Jeff Bezos, when he was still Amazon CEO, had a base salary of around $80,000 a year. Elon Musk doesn’t take a salary at all at Tesla. Apple CEO Tim Cook does get a $3 million salary, but it’s a small slice of the $63 million he received overall last year. Most wealthy entrepreneurs are paid in bountiful stock rewards; Musk is currently fighting to keep his record-breaking Tesla pay package, made up of a bunch of stock options and now valued at almost $56 billion. ProPublica found that, because their income fell below the threshold, at least 18 billionaires got a Covid-19 stimulus check.

      Paul Kiel, a ProPublica reporter who was an integral part of the newsroom’s billionaire tax return stories, says the income versus wealth divide was crucial in helping the public understand how differently the wealthy operate. “If you can avoid income as it’s defined in our system, and still get richer, that’s the best route,” he tells Vox.

      Stocks aren’t taxed until they’re sold — and even then, what’s taxed is the profit on the sale, called a capital gains tax. Billionaires (usually) don’t sell valuable stock. So how do they afford the daily expenses of life, whether it’s a new pleasure boat or a social media company? They borrow against their stock. This revolving door of credit allows them to buy what they want without incurring a capital gains tax. Though the “buy, borrow, die” strategy isn’t quite as sweet right now because interest rates are high, a Wall Street Journal piece from 2021 notes that those with $100 million or more could get interest rates as low as 0.87 percent at Merrill Lynch. The taxable value of a stock also resets when it’s passed on to an heir, so that if a wealthy scion chooses to sell their inherited stock, they’d only pay a tax on the increase in value since the original owner’s death.
      Plan on losing money

      If you do, regrettably, have to sell assets, fret not: just lose a lot of money, too, and pile on the offsets. “We do what’s called tax-loss harvesting,” says Wieseneck, using a simple example to illustrate. Say someone owns Pepsi stock, and it tanks. They sell at a loss, but then buy about the same amount of Coca Cola stock. The Pepsi loss can erase some (or even all, if you play your cards right) of the taxes owed on the gains made on Coca Cola stock.

      “During the year we try to accumulate losses,” says Wieseneck. “At the end of the year, if I know you have a capital gain on a sale of a property or a house or another investment, I’ll accumulate some losses for you that can offset [it].” Capital losses don’t also have to be applied in the same year — if you know you’ll be selling more assets next year, you can bank them for later.

      It’s illegal to quickly sell and then buy the same stock again — a practice called a “wash sale” — just to save on taxes, but the key word is “same.” Public companies often offer different classes of stock that essentially trade the same, and it’s not hard to trade similar-enough stocks back and forth. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs), for example, are like buckets containing a mix of stocks that can themselves be traded like a stock. A few different ETFs might perform roughly the same on the stock market; a person could sell one ETF and quickly buy another while avoiding the “do not sell and buy the same stock within 30 days” rule.
      Play tax rate arbitrage

      Another tool in the tax shrinking arsenal: leveraging the differences in tax rates, which vary based on the type of asset and how long someone owned it. Long-term gains — assets held for longer than a year — from the sale of stocks and bonds are taxed at rates as low as zero percent and as high as 25 percent. Short-term gains, meanwhile, can face a tax as high as 37 percent. Collectibles, which include art, antiques, cards, comic books, and more, have a max rate of 28 percent.

      The basic strategy here is to always get the lowest tax rate possible for your gains. A favorite tactic of billionaire investor Jeff Yass, according to reporting from ProPublica, is to place bets both for and against large companies, trying to amass a bunch of short-term losses on one end and long-term gains, which already enjoy a lower tax rate, on the other.

      Another kind of magic trick is to place high-tax income into lower-tax or no-tax wrappers, which can include things like tax-advantaged retirement accounts. One example is what’s called the private placement life insurance policy, a niche product that only the very wealthiest of the wealthy use. It can cost millions of dollars to set up, so it’s not worth it unless you’re rich, but the premiums a policyholder pays into the policy can be invested in high-growth investment options, such as hedge funds. The money you’d get back if you decide to cancel the policy isn’t taxed, but it’s not even necessary to take the money out. You can borrow money from the policy at low interest rates, and its benefits pass on tax-free to beneficiaries upon the original holder’s death. It’s insurance, says Michael Kosnitzky, co-chair of the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s Private Client & Family Office practice group, “but it also holds investment assets and, like any permanent insurance policy, the cash surrender value grows tax free.”

      A recent report from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, laid out how big the scheme had gotten, currently sheltering at least $40 billion. The report found that the average net worth of people with such life insurance policies was over $100 million.
      Business or pleasure?

      When you’re very rich, it’s important to treat everything as a business expense. Private jets are expensive luxuries, but the cost can be fully tax deductible if the plane is mostly being used for business — and what counts as “mostly business” isn’t clear cut. Maybe you take a trip on your jet partly to take a business meeting, but also to spend a few relaxing days in a beautiful getaway spot. Private jet owners often set up LLCs and rent out their planes when they’re not personally using them to take advantage of the tax deduction, reported ProPublica.

      In fact, many expensive hobbies of the ultra-rich coincidentally turn into business expenses — yachts, racehorses, golf courses, and more. They’re often run very professionally, says Kiel, “but never quite seem to make a profit.”

      “Generally you’re not supposed to write stuff off that’s a hobby,” he continues. “But the wealthier you are, the more your hobbies appear to be businesses or are operated like businesses.”

      Despite the ubiquity of this practice, there’s risk to it, especially as the IRS ramps up audits of tax write-offs for private jets. If the wealthy are going to buy exorbitantly expensive yachts and claim it’s being used for a business, says Kosnitzky, “you’d better be on very solid ground.”
      Philanthropy pays

      Charity is a time-worn way the ultra-rich reduce their taxes — and it has the added bonus of putting a nice luster on their reputation. Many charitable organizations set up by billionaires are tax-exempt, and charitable donations are tax deductible. You can completely control when to make a donation, and of what size, depending on how much taxable income you have in a given year; it’s a nimble method of offsetting taxes.

      But the worthiness of charitable deductions can be questionable, because they’re “very, very loosely regulated,” says Kiel. The donations themselves can range from buying mosquito nets to prevent malaria to “paying for your kid’s private school.” Recall, for example, that former President Donald Trump once used money from his foundation to buy a painting of himself. Often, the wealthy can pour money into foundations and funds with philanthropic aims without actually distributing that money to anyone. One popular charitable medium today is called a donor-advised fund. Rich people put their money into these funds, and “advisers” who manage the account eventually give away the money — eventually being the key word. Even if the money hasn’t gone to a good cause yet, donors can take the tax deduction right away.

      In other cases, what raises eyebrows is whether an ostensibly charitable organization actually serves a public good. These charities get tax-exempt status because they’re supposed to have a “pro-social” purpose, says Daniel Reck, an economics professor at the University of Maryland who recently co-authored a paper analyzing tax evasion among the ultra-rich. Some billionaires claim their foundations qualify because they’re opening up a historical mansion or private art collection to the public. In fact, there are many examples of tax-exempt organizations not holding up their end of the bargain. As ProPublica reported, the historic landmark Carolands Chateau enjoys tax benefits but is open to the public just two hours per week. A private art gallery established by the late billionaire Sheldon Solow only recently became open to visitors, despite some of the art being held in a tax-exempt foundation.

      Also crucial to utilizing charity as a tax avoidance strategy is pumping up the value of your generosity. “You donate some fancy piece of fine art to a museum, you get an assessment for the art, it’s much more than you could actually ever sell it for,” explains Reck. “You get a big tax write-off.” It’s not just fine art, either — one popular form of overvaluation (until Congress passed a bill putting an end to it last year) involved inflating the value of land. Called a “syndicated conservation easement,” it took advantage of an incentive for environmental conservation, in which landowners who agree not to develop their land would get a tax break proportional to the fair market value of the land. “The game is that people just massively, ludicrously inflate these fair market values,” says Reck. In the syndicated version of this tax break, a group of investors buys land, gets an overvalued assessment on it, and shares the tax write-off between themselves. “Now there are a bunch of court cases about it,” Reck says.
      The gray area and the illegal stuff

      Some of the above tactics occupy an ambiguous, blurry zone of legality — it might be okay or not on a case-by-case basis. Some wealthy people may be alright with the risk, but Kosnitzky notes that it isn’t wise to play the “audit lottery” — there’s also reputational risk to consider. For those determined to take an “aggressive” tax position, a lot of documentation and even having their lawyer prepare a memo defending their tax strategy may be necessary. They might still end up paying a penalty and owing taxes, but exactly how much is up for negotiation.

      The paper Reck co-authored found that sophisticated tax evasion methods used by the very wealthy, including evasion through pass-through businesses or offshore accounts, often goes undetected by random audits. This suggests that current estimates of the “tax gap,” or the difference between taxes paid to the IRS and the amount it’s actually owed, is very likely an undercount.

      The difference between avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal) is hard to untangle at times because wealthy people will dispute their audit, deploying brilliant tax lawyers to argue that the government is mistaken. These battles can take years to settle. It’s not just that the IRS needs a bigger budget to do all the audits it wants to — it did get extra funding in the Inflation Reduction Act — but that auditing a wealthy taxpayer is costlier, and much more time-consuming, than auditing a poor one. The structures of the well-off’s businesses are often extremely complex, too, which also makes auditing them more expensive.

      Reck noted that rich people dispute a greater share of the tax that the IRS says they should pay after an audit. In the middle of the income distribution, about 10 percent of the auditor’s recommended adjustment is disputed, says Reck. Among people with the highest income, however, the disputed share exceeds 50 percent. “That suggests that the taxpayer and their advisers, at least, believe that they’re either in some gray area or were allowed to do what they did.”

      “We’ve talked to a lot of former IRS agents, and they would often hear the line that for wealthy taxpayers, their tax return is like an opening offer,” says Kiel.

      How the very rich lose money, overvalue art, buy very expensive life insurance, and somehow profit.

      https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes
      #philantropie

      via @freakonometrics

  • Dennis McFadden un architecte conseil de l’université de Santa Barbara démissionne pour protester contre un projet de #résidence_étudiante où 90% des étudiants vivraient dans une chambre sans fenêtre.
    https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/02/architect-resigns-grotesque-design-university-california-munger-hall

    Architect Dennis McFadden has stepped down from a University of California committee in protest over designs for a university dormitory at its Santa Barbara campus where over 90 per cent of its 4,500 students would reportedly live in windowless rooms.

    Certaines critiques dénoncent un #univers_carcéral.
    En réponse aux critiques Charles Munger le milliardaire « concepteur » (sans formation d’architecte) et partiellement financeur répond qu’il y a des fenêtres « virtuelles ».
    #architecture

  • A Paris, inauguration en grande pompes d’un laboratoire de la philantropie
    https://www.lemonde.fr/m-le-mag/article/2021/09/30/a-paris-inauguration-en-grande-pompes-d-un-laboratoire-de-la-philantropie_60


    Le Philanthro Lab, dans le 5e arrondissement de Paris. STEPHANE LAGOUTTE/CHALLENGES-REA

    ÉCONOMIE FRANÇAISE

    Le tout premier Philanthro-Lab, un environnement entièrement consacré aux projets philanthropiques, sera inauguré par Anne Hidalgo, Valérie Pécresse et Gabriel Attal ce jeudi 30 septembre dans le 5e arrondissement de #Paris.

    C’est Phillipe Journo (Compagnie de Phalsbourg) qui régale

    « Philippe Journo est un patron « très exigeant », « sur le terrain en permanence » mais « loyal et généreux, c’est son côté méditerranéen » et -« profondément humain », confient ses collaborateurs, qui lui doivent une disponibilité vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre « voire quarante-huit heures sur vingt-quatre ». (...) J’ai alors découvert qu’être investisseur dans l’immobilier commercial, c’était le rêve »

    https://justpaste.it/7oe88

    Présenté comme un self made man à la Tapie, ce fils d’instituteur et de petit commerçant s’est lancé avec 500 000 francs fournit par son père, commerçant pas si « petit » semble-t-il.

    #immobilier #centres_commerciaux #Philippe_Journo #philantropie

  • The Perils of Billionaire Philanthropy
    https://www.thenation.com/article/philanthropy-charity-inequality-taxes

    Lost in a fog of generosity is the recognition that philanthropy is not a substitute for a fair and progressive tax system and robust public investments in poverty alleviation, infrastructure, economic opportunity, and social protection.

    #philantropie

    • J’avais eu une grande discussion avec mon beau-frère américain qui est fundraiser, c’est-à-dire qu’il trouve des philanthropes pour les fondations, des trucs qui organisent l’optimisation fiscale sur fond de charité et qui tient lieu aux USA de système social. Pour lui, la solidarité gérée par l’État (la redistribution, donc) est de l’ordre de la dictature insupportable, car l’État est contraire à l’esprit de liberté et d’entreprise (les deux ayant l’air très entremêlés dans son esprit américain). Pour lui, le social par les fondations, c’est mieux, parce plus démocratique puisque ce sont directement les gens qui décident où va l’argent, sans boulet technocratique. Bien sûr, la discussion se crispe assez vite quand je lui fais remarquer que ce sont surtout les riches qui décident dans son système, qu’ils sont probablement très déconnectés des besoins réels sur le terrain et que ce système a déjà un nom… #ploutocratie. Et que le problème, c’est qu’ils n’agissent qu’en fonction de leurs intérêts qui, par définition, sont antagonistes à ceux du plus grand nombre, et que ça risque plutôt de ne pas très bien finir pour la majorité de la population…

  • Silicon Valley Came to Kansas Schools. That Started a Rebellion.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/technology/silicon-valley-kansas-schools.html

    WELLINGTON, Kan. — The seed of rebellion was planted in classrooms. It grew in kitchens and living rooms, in conversations between students and their parents.

    It culminated when Collin Winter, 14, an eighth grader in McPherson, Kan., joined a classroom walkout in January. In the nearby town of Wellington, high schoolers staged a sit-in. Their parents organized in living rooms, at churches and in the back of machine repair shops. They showed up en masse to school board meetings. In neighborhoods with no political yard signs, homemade signs with dark red slash marks suddenly popped up.

    Silicon Valley had come to small-town Kansas schools — and it was not going well.

    “I want to just take my Chromebook back and tell them I’m not doing it anymore,” said Kallee Forslund, 16, a 10th grader in Wellington.

    Eight months earlier, public schools near Wichita had rolled out a web-based platform and curriculum from Summit Learning. The Silicon Valley-based program promotes an educational approach called “personalized learning,” which uses online tools to customize education. The platform that Summit provides was developed by Facebook engineers. It is funded by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, a pediatrician.

    #éducation #technologie #écrans #philantropie

  • Howard Buffett au Congo

    Le problème de la philanthropie capitaliste

    Par Zahra Moloo

    http://jefklak.org/howard-buffet-au-congo

    La colonisation n’en finit pas de sévir, et si l’occupation militaire des territoires n’est plus en vogue pour les pays occidentaux, d’autres moyens leur sont offerts pour asseoir leur position sur nombre de pays. La philanthropie, que l’on pourrait croire armée des meilleures intentions, fait partie des nouvelles formes de ce libéralisme postcolonial : en inondant les États et les structures locales de dollars, les grands investisseurs capitalistes noient dans l’œuf toutes les initiatives pour l’autonomie et la résistance des peuples autochtones. Pour exemple, voici le cas du businessman Howard Buffett, fils de Warren Buffett (troisième fortune mondiale), qui joue un rôle non négligeable dans le « développement » de la République démocratique du Congo et vient influencer les récits des journalistes ou des ONG là où aboutit son financement.

  • The Problem With Capitalist Philanthropy
    T. Rivers, Jacobin, le 6 février 2018
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/charity-philanthropy-howard-buffett-congo

    The IWMF stresses that it does not influence its grant recipients’ stories, and in an interview said that they find it “unacceptable for a funder to influence the editorial content of the stories [they] facilitate.” However, their preferred areas of focus, particularly food security and conservation, are chosen in partnership with the Howard G. Buffett Foundation.

    Ironically, Buffett’s investment in the IWMF exists alongside his support for a dictatorship that has decimated its local press. As Anjan Sundaram documents in Bad News, Rwandan president Paul Kagame has killed, tortured, exiled, and imprisoned journalists across the country. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented that seventeen journalists have been killed in Rwanda since 1992. Yet Buffett has called Rwanda “the most progressive country on the continent,” and, like many Western donors, enjoys a cozy relationship with its leader.

    #Congo #Rwanda #Afrique #Philantropie #corruption #capitalisme #Howard_Buffett #Paul_Kagame #ONG #journalistes #IWMF

  • À qui la fondation #Gates rend-t-elle des comptes, a demandé le FT à une de ses représentantes ?
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6a025d12-ec55-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4.html

    C’est parce que nous n’avons pas besoin d’en rendre que nous sommes utiles à l’humanité.

    “A government may need to be responsive to their citizens more quickly,” she explains. “But we can take a 10-year bet, we can take a 20-year bet because we don’t need to answer to citizens or shareholders. We try to focus on long-term bets and taking risks that others can’t.”

    Criticism of what is happening in the present is welcome, she adds, but a philanthropic organisation of this scale and ambition needs always to look to the future.

    “For example, we’re trying to invest in the science of vaccination that might not pay off for 20 years,” Dr Desmond-Hellmann says. “But who is going to invest in vaccination at the deep level if not the Gates Foundation?”

    Via @felixsalmon sur Twitter

    #philantropie

  • Does Philanthrocapitalism Make the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer? - Evonomics
    http://evonomics.com/does-philanthropy-actually-make-the-rich-richer-and-the-poor

    What’s remarkable about the growing number of philanthropic foundations over the past two decades is that increased giving hasn’t made a dent in reducing growing levels of economic inequality. In fact the opposite appears to be the case. What to make of the fact that growing philanthropy and growing inequality seem to go hand-in-hand? Does philanthropy actually make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

    Straightforward assertions of causality are hard to make, as multiple factors contribute to widening wealth divides. But there are a number of reasons why growing levels of philanthropy might exacerbate growing inequality rather than mitigate it.

    #Philantrocapitalisme #philantropie #faux-semblants

  • How does the Gates Foundation spend its money to feed the world?
    http://www.grain.org/article/entries/5064-how-does-the-gates-foundation-spend-its-money-to-feed-the-world
    Pas encore lu

    The #Gates_Foundation is arguably the biggest philanthropic venture ever. It currently holds a $40 billion endowment, made up mostly of contributions from Gates and his billionaire friend Warren Buffet. The foundation has over 1,200 staff, and has given over $30 billion in grants since its inception in 2000, $3.6 billion in 2013 alone.2 Most of the grants go to global health programmes and educational work in the US, traditionally the foundation’s priority areas. But in 2006-2007, the foundation massively expanded its funding for agriculture, with the launch of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and a series of large grants to the international agricultural research system (CGIAR). In 2007, it spent over half a billion dollars on agricultural projects and has maintained funding at around this level. The vast majority of the foundation’s agricultural grants focus on Africa.

    #philantropie #fondation_Gates #paysannerie #agriculture

  • La #Fondation_Gates ou la charité (mal) ordonnée | CNCD-11.11.11
    http://www.cncd.be/La-Fondation-Gates-ou-la-charite

    La Fondation investit les deux tiers de ses dons, soit 2 milliards de dollars, dans le seul secteur de la santé, en concentrant son action sur quelques programmes. Elle coordonne par ailleurs ses investissements avec d’autres donateurs privés, ce qui la rend totalement incontournable auprès de ses bénéficiaires. Après 14 ans à peine d’existence, cette institution est en train de « transformer radicalement le paysage de la santé publique mondiale », analyse Michelle Bertho-Huidal, chercheuse à l’Université de Berkeley en Californie et auteur de Charity business (éd. Vendémiaire/Broché), un essai consacré aux fondations. [1]

    Quelles sont ces transformations ? L’influence grandissante du secteur privé dans la prise de décisions politiques, tout d’abord. Au Botswana, par exemple, pays d’Afrique australe particulièrement touché par le sida, la Fondation Gates s’est pratiquement substituée au ministère de la Santé en montant, avec la Fondation Merck, un laboratoire pharmaceutique, le projet Achap (African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships).

    Avec ses tests de dépistage gratuits et ses distributions de médicaments, Achap est un succès. En 2009, la moitié de la population du Botswana a bénéficié d’un test et 87 % des séropositifs dépistés ont été soignés. Mais le coût du projet est particulièrement élevé. Malgré les dons des deux fondations, le ministère de la Santé publique botswanaise débourse encore 1 000 dollars par an pour chaque patient, ce qui représente quasi la totalité de son budget. Le Botswana n’a donc pas de politique publique de santé autre que le projet Achap, dont le centre de décision se trouve à Seattle au siège de la… Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    En outre, le projet ne prévoit aucune action de prévention du sida, la seule manière véritable d’enrayer la pandémie. Pour Michelle Bertho-Huidal, « la Fondation à fait reculer la mortalité, mais pas la maladie ». Ni même sa dépendance aux médicaments.

    Mais est-ce vraiment étonnant ? La Fondation Gates détient des actions dans les neuf plus grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques du monde et recrute parmi elles certains de ses cadres. Ainsi le directeur de la branche Santé publique de la Fondation vient de Novartis (Suisse) et son prédécesseur du géant britannique GlaxoSmithKline.

    #philantropie #santé #big_pharma

    • je suis tout à fait pour la critique des programmes, des logiques d’entreprise, du recrutement, des liens financiers, de l’hégémonie etc de la fondation #Gates, mais je ne peux pas lire sans sauter au plafond une phrase comme :

      Mais quel est l’intérêt de sauver un adolescent de la tuberculose s’il doit mourir plus tard d’un banal accident de la route, qui reste la première cause de décès des jeunes dans le Sud ?

    • Oui, remarque grossière limite insultante qui voulait très très maladroitement, souligner le manque de « finalité sociale » du programme …
      Dans le contexte :

      L’effet de la concentration des actions pose aussi d’autres questions. La Fondation Gates se focalise sur trois maladies : le sida, le paludisme et la tuberculose, à l’exclusion des autres pathologies et/ou problèmes sociaux. Mais quel est l’intérêt de…

      #charity_business #cynisme

    • Voir http://seenthis.net/messages/242488 pour un beau reportage de terrain sur la lutte contre le #paludisme ; l’ACT, seul traitement qui marche bien actuellement (et peut-être plus pour très longtemps) n’est pas du tout de la high-tech. Ses inventeurs ne vivent pas dans des jets privés et des conférences dans des hôtels de luxe, mais continuent à soigner dans des campagnes perdues aux confins de pays en guerre.

    • La technicité n’est qu’un des multiples facteurs de prix : par exemple, les multithérapies contre le VIH sont assez sophistiquées sur le plan technologique, et pourtant très peu chères ; cela, grâce au combat pour les génériques, qui permettent des négociations d’achats massifs via des mécanismes comme le Fonds mondial. Par ailleurs je ne crois pas qu’il y ait une course à la high-tech pour le seul plaisir du « high », mais aussi parce qu’on ne sait pas bien faire autrement.

  • Le meilleur des mondes d’aprés Bill Gates

    Bill Gates : Here’s My Plan to Improve Our World — And How You Can Help | Wired.com
    http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/bill-gates-wired-essay

    Thanks to inventions like these, life has steadily gotten better. It can be easy to conclude otherwise—as I write this essay, more than 100,000 people have died in a civil war in Syria, and big problems like climate change are bearing down on us with no simple solution in sight. But if you take the long view, by almost any measure of progress we are living in history’s greatest era. Wars are becoming less frequent. Life expectancy has more than doubled in the past century. More children than ever are going to primary school. The world is better than it has ever been.

    Bill Gates et son copain Bill Clinton s’engagent pour sauver le monde qui est quand même en danger.

    Bill Gates and President Bill Clinton on the NSA, Safe Sex, and American Exceptionalism
    http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/bill-gates-bill-clinton-wired

    As founder of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the former president is a forceful explainer in chief, elucidating what needs to be done to alleviate poverty and treat AIDS. And to the surprise of many who followed Gates as a full-tilt techie devoted to preserving Microsoft’s dominance, he has pursued philanthropy with the same passion he once channeled into software. At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he approaches problem-solving—particularly the scientific arcana of health and agriculture—with an appreciation of scale honed by years of living under Moore’s law.

    Both organizations have made a staggering impact. The Clinton Global Initiative, part of the former president’s foundation, claims to have improved the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has by some estimates saved some 6 million lives and delivered a higher-quality existence to many, many more.

    The foundations are at the forefront of a new era in philanthropy, in which decisions—often referred to as investments—are made with the strategic precision demanded of business and government, then painstakingly tracked to gauge their success.

    Heureusement qu’il est possible de gérer l’avenir avec des méthodes technocratiques. C’est la vision qui s’impose aux vainqueurs d’aujourd’hui. Une fois qu’on est arrivé à éliminer ses adversaires on n’a plus qu’á étendre au reste du monde la méthode qui a garanti le succès du projet de la première moitié de sa propre vie - au moins pendant le deuxième moitié de sa vie personnelle.

    Il est intéressant de voir comment une pensée simpliste qui a triomphée dans le passée par sa brutalité sans scrupules se transforme en projet philanthropique dans la bouche des grandseigneurs impérialistes. Ils ne font pas peur les deux papies. C’est contre leurs adeptes qui sont en train d’appliquer leurs recettes au monde en détruisant les aquis des « trente glorieuses » qu’il faut se battre - sans cesse partout et tous les jours.

    #imperialisme