[Frondo]

The issue is not that this rich couple is promoting good in the world (nb: I'm not going to nitpick the grammar that others are chuckling over).

The issue is that it might be better for society not to allow people to amass so much wealth, such that society as a whole must then rely on them to pick out issues to try and solve. It might be better if we could solve social problems collectively, through a better system of taxing and directing money to social programs, rather than allow it to bubble up to a few and wait for noblesse oblige to kick in.

I'm looking at other countries, where the inequality isn't so great and the quality of life is better for everyone. Much of western Europe is an example I think we'd do well to follow.

In short: why leave it up to Gates and Buffett to decide what's a good use of what society produces? We could collectively decide we wanted universal health care, free university, and so on, like various other nations have successfully offered for decades.