Bill Gates Reacts to Warren’s Proposed Wealth Tax, Leftist Writer Responds Exactly How You’d Expect

Rachel S

Looking for proof that billionaires aren’t inherently evil? Try Bill Gates. The founder of Microsoft is almost more famous for his philanthropy at this stage in history, with much of his billions of dollars going to good causes especially championed by the left. He’s the living antithesis to Elizabeth Warren’s “billionaires are evil” rhetoric– which is why I LOVE his response to her proposed wealth tax.

Speaking at New York Times DealBook Conference Wednesday, Gates responded with uncertainty to a hypothetical Warren-Trump match up in November 2020.

“I’m all for super-progressive tax systems,” Gates told the audience. “I’ve paid over $10 billion in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine.”

“But when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over,” he continued. “You really want the incentive system to be there without threatening that.”

When a country raises its taxes too high, Gates, who has a $100 billion net worth, claimed, “you do risk the capital formation, innovation.”

What a novel idea. Taking away all the money over a certain point might make people feel unmotivated to earn that kind of money? It’s almost like there’s a direct correlation between people making millions off of a good idea and the rest of society benefitting directly and indirectly from that idea. Call me crazy, but it almost seems like having rich people around is. . . a good thing??

Gates’ biggest concern seems to be Warren’s habit of villifying wealth and the wealthy, and failing to consider what billionaires like Gates ultimately contribute beyond simply being a font for tax dollars to fund expensive, expansive government programs with questionable effectiveness.

“Maybe I’m just too biased to think that if you create a company that’s super-valuable, that at least some part of that, you should be able to have — a little bit for consumption, and hopefully the balance to do philanthropic things,” Gates added, referencing the hundreds of billions he’s given away to programs fighting malaria in Africa, promoting global equality, promoting population control, and tackling climate change — all priorities of a possible Warren administration.

That, in essence, is why I have so much more faith in the Gateses and Buffetts and Giving Pledgers of the world than the Sanderses. Maybe it’s just me, but I would prefer to listen to the wealthy who are both willing and able to contribute enormous amounts of money to charity, rather than those that are sitting on it until they’re able to launch their socialist hellhole and use their hoarded capital to buy total control.

(Honestly, I’ll take any excuse to bring that tweet out.)

Gates also expressed concern about Warren’s propensity for sitting down with people she doesn’t agree with; and while he avoided making any sort of definite declaration, he said that “professionalism” is what he’s looking for in a candidate.

“You know, I’m not sure how open-minded she is,” the billionaire philanthropist continued. “Or that she’d even be willing to sit down with somebody who has large amounts of money.”

. . .

“I’m not going to make political declarations,” he said. “But I do think no matter what policy somebody has in mind, a professional approach is even, as much as I disagree with some of the policy things that are out there, I do think a professional approach to the office is … whoever I decide will have the more professional approach in the current situation probably is the thing that I will weigh the most. And I hope that the more professional candidate is an electable candidate.”

Does that almost sound like he’s leaning toward Tulsi? No? Just me?

Anyway, Warren responded with typical promises she can’t make.

“. . . it’s $200 billion!” – Elizabeth Warren, probably.

Also on Twitter, and this should surprise absolutely 0% of us, people now want to cancel Bill Gates, because apparently donating more than $45 BILLION is meaningless if you don’t publicly declare that Donald Trump is the Antichrist and offer the blood of orphans in order to see him destroyed.

This tweet from former columnist at the New York Times is the start of a long and nauseating thread that I’m trying to spare you from, but let me pick a few highlights because it actually makes me want to vomit-laugh, which is a word I just made up for when something is equal parts ridiculous and hilarious but also nauseatingly blind and off-point.

This tweet’s crime is misrepresentation. Gates, as far as I can tell, anyway, wasn’t talking about which “of the two” was more professional, he was talking about all candidates in all parties.

I would say this is comparing apples and oranges, but that would be, well, comparing apples and oranges. What Giridharadas is comparing is, like, the Crown Jewels and a rusty Coors Light bottle cap I accidentally kicked in the parking lot earlier today. In terms of how much these things matter, donating billions to improve public health in Africa = Crown Jewels. Not wanting a man to die because he called some of those places “sh*tholes” = a rusty cap from a sh*thole beer.

No. YOU are revealing yourself as so blinded by partisanship and hatred that you’ve erased the value of every life Bill Gates has improved, elongated, or saved because he didn’t say unequivocally “orange man bad.” You’re pretending that the fact that Gates doesn’t agree with YOU means he only cares about himself, when in reality, he’s probably– no, certainly— contributed more good to the world than you will ever dream of.

I tried to be lighthearted and fun about this, because sass is the backbone of the Chicks, and that’s what we’re all here for. But I’m actually livid.

Anand Giridharadas, you’re disgusting.

Bill Gates, you’re generous and I couldn’t care less who you vote for.

Listen to "Mock and Daisy's Common Sense Cast" on Spreaker.