Why Forbes magazine doesn't publish the highest donors list instead of the Richest people?
484304
The list would still start out with Bill Gates either way. He made a donation to some charity this year that made him the world's, not the U.S.'s, biggest philanthropist. He's donated more money in a year than any person every. Of course, since he has the most money of any person ever, it only makes sense.\n\nBrandon O'Dell\nO'Dell Consulting\nRestaurants/Retail/Bars\n(316) 361-0675\nbodell1@cox.net\nhttp://www.bodellconsulting.com\n\nFree initial consultations
23294
According to the Forbes list, Madonna is #8 and Mariah Carey isn't even on the list.  So I would say Madonna is wealthier.
1093502
This sort of information is sensitive and is not freely available in the public domain. \n\nNot many Advisors would publish their earnings for the world to see!
622296
People who donate money want to get a little bit something in return even if it's a night of dinner, dancing and socializing or even a run at the golf course. It makes them feel better to part with their hard-earned cash when they're enjoying themselves. Plus, there's a bit of competition going on between the benefactors so the foundation/charity gets more donations. If others give a huge amount, the others will be pressured into matching that amount lest they be called a cheapskate.
2299
Not till now. As you know, leading the pack in the rich people's list is Bill Gates, still has to get around 953.5 Billion dollars to make it to the list of trillionaires. But someone will surely become a trillionare in the coming 100 years, maybe you sfgrigsb99.
357504
Rob from the poor to give to the rich, and people still vote for them. It is called supply side economics. What a shame for the richest country in the world that they cannot take care of their poor.
573744
Because you said it celebrity. They can afford the best\nlawyers which make all the difference in the world.
1164177
I agree with the concept of your complaint. However, there are many celebs that do donate a decent amount of money (it is a tax benefit to do so, so of course they do!). Many even have their own foundations. \n\nHowever, you are correct in that they tell us to conserve, use less, donate, etc etc and then jet around in private jets, Hummers, air condition 12,000 square foot homes, have yachts and fleets of cars, and the sordid list goes on. That is what I find to be even worse. Conservation is fine for the peons, but certainly not for the demi-god celebs!
764992
Man Utd was never the richest club in the world.\nOn paper they might have appeared so, but the reality was/is, that they could never raid the transfer market and buy players at will.\n\nThey could perhaps buy 1 (at best 2) big name players each season, but could never compete with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, AC Milan, Juventus or even, Chelsea, in terms of buying and paying top wages.\n\nThe simple fact is that these clubs have very, very rich owners, who don't mind writing cheques for millions and do not mind their clubs declaring losses. \nBecause of this buying, selling (for lower) and paying high wages, they finish below United in the rich list.\n\nBut in terms of spending power, United still have much catching up to do.
740378
First of all a charity is suppose to be given to without recognition. Who give to charity because of what is in your heart and not what it can do for you. If democrats or republicans want to give to charities, why do they report what they give and what business is it of ours to know. Whatever they give was taken from us anyway since we pay taxes and then in return pays their salaries. If I give to a church, a building fund, a kids network, or any other charity, it is because I am giving with a spirit of giving.  \n  Here we are in the Christmas season and we are questioning giving? Of course if we had the Christmas spirit year round instead of just for a season, maybe the world will be a better place. \n  Here is a question for you and your readers. Why do we capitalize democrats and republicans in a sentence when most do not even capitalize God in a sentence? Do we set them at a higher standard?
647503
You would have believed that Bill Gates was one of the richest men on earth. However: trust the evidence - \n\nThe top five richest men are:\n \n5. William Gates III -- $60 billion\nCurrently the world's richest man, at one point, Gates' fortune was creeping towards the $100 billion mark. Then, as we all know, the DOJ's Anti-trust case, as well as an overall meltdown in the high-technology market, hurt the Harvard dropout. Today, with a $60 billion fortune, Gates is both hated and loved. Unlike many, he has promised to contribute over 90% of his wealth to charities when the big guy calls his number. We hope this will not be anytime soon, as he and his wife Melinda French Gates run the world's largest philanthropic association.\n\n4. John Jacob Astor (1763-1848) -- $85 billion\nAdjusted for time, Astor, "the Self-Made Money-Making Machine's" fortune would rank at roughly $85 billion in 2001. Despite never setting a trap himself, the German-born Astor became synonymous with the American Fur Trade. Along many others, Astor symbolizes the American Dream, as he rose from obscurity to financial success.\n\n \n3. Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794-1877) -- $100 billion\nYou know you had serious clout when universities are named after you. An American steamship and railroad builder, financier, promoter, and executive, Vanderbilt left an estate of roughly $100 million, which, in 2001 dollars, represents an astonishing $100 billion. A man of incredible energy (and obviously remarkable time-management abilities), his intricate sense of business left his rivals in the dust.\n\n2. Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) -- $110 billion\nThe only thing we will say is that by the time he passed away in 1919, Carnegie had given away over $350 million. The rest, we will leave to him: "My heart is in the work... the duty of the man of wealth... is to set an example of modest unostentatious living, shunning display; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community." \n\n \n1. John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937) -- $200 billion \nIf you thought Bill Gates has some serious anti-trust issues, then let us introduce to you the man that needs no introduction: the man who has a Center named after him in New York. The man who built, dominated, controlled, and ultimately lost the Standard Oil Company. Do yourself a favor: if you like business, politics and wealth, then get yourself his biography, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller Sr., and you will understand why America is the place to be if you want to get rich. \n\nTA - DA!!
786524
Good question.  It probably has more to do with the money associated with being in a political party.  Third party candidates tend to be self-financed (Ross Perot) and most candidates don't have a personal fortune of his size.  Therefore, most candidates join a party where they can get access to money,
437409
you need to have assets worth over a billion pounds/dollars or whichever currency for that country that the list is been compiled in.\n\nI'm not sure why he's not on the list because I'm not sure who he is.\n\nSorry couldn't help fully
320295
It's not forgotten in fact it's one of the riches countries....There is just a huge gap between the poor and the rich. The rich are extremely rich and the poor are extremely poor. They don't have a true middle class.
824309
There are lots of places that have rankings.  The two most common ones are US News and BusinessWeek.
564910
Try the Forbes list of wealthies individuals. My guess is he'd make it and they could 'estimate' it pretty well.
961053
Because they have inherited money and don't have to work if they don't want to.The Social Register is a list of very wealthy people they are called socialites