> At this level of wealth, just making more money has no positive impact on anybody, even yourself.
except that having capital makes it easier to gain more capital, so you could very well end up with more impact by aggressively investing for a few years before donating.
Ok, say you invest that $10 million and a year later it's grown to $12 million. That's a decent return, but what was the opportunity cost of investing in Microsoft instead of, I don't know, funding 100 people on GoFundMe who are going to die if they can't afford surgery? The US government uses ~$10 million as the value of a human life when they analyze the cost/benefit of various policies. And it's a compounding investment - a dead person contributes nothing to society, but a living one might contribute quite a bit. That's just one example though, you could make an argument for any number of worthwhile uses for that money. Even something like venture capital or political organizing, which aren't exactly selfless philanthropic endeavors.
And again, I'm talking about 10% of what's in the bank. You could donate $10 million, invest $60 million, and still have an absurd amount left to buy a few houses or whatever you want for yourself. All while risking nothing, if you hold onto $10 million or so to secure your future.
My argument is that there's some threshold after which you have enough money to support yourself, and to invest to maintain your way of life, and to do something purposeful with the rest. And I think that threshold is below $100 million. I agree that it takes money to make money, but as you say, after "a few years" of investing, you do something with it. When does that happen? Do you need to hit a billion first?
except that having capital makes it easier to gain more capital, so you could very well end up with more impact by aggressively investing for a few years before donating.