Mark Zuckerberg responds to critics of his $45B pledge(facebook.com)
facebook.com
Mark Zuckerberg responds to critics of his $45B pledge
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102507695055801
105 comments
> Consider the alternative.
Well, and he won't get plaudits for "donating his fortune" either.
Well, and he won't get plaudits for "donating his fortune" either.
But is it right for one person to be in control of that much money? Why do we allow individuals to amass that much power?
I don't mind that he's filthy rich. That's how capitalism works. Good for him.
But I don't like dynasties. I don't like that trusts and foundations are being used as a way to bring back dynastic wealth and power.
You see this at play in the most powerful families in America: the Kennedies, Clintons, Bushes, Romneys, Pelosis. They all use trusts and foundations to preserve wealth between generations.
I understand why people are skeptical.
But I don't like dynasties. I don't like that trusts and foundations are being used as a way to bring back dynastic wealth and power.
You see this at play in the most powerful families in America: the Kennedies, Clintons, Bushes, Romneys, Pelosis. They all use trusts and foundations to preserve wealth between generations.
I understand why people are skeptical.
I agree - dynasties are a huge problem.
I always find it ironic too how much tax there is on capital gains, but how little there is when estate is transferred after someone passes away. One was earned and the was inherited. If we forced people to give back most of their money on passing it would it work in favor of better wealth distribution.
If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost. So how would giving my money back to the society end up helping Mr. Joe? If I make $80 per hour today, and my CEO makes $1000 per hour, are you suggesting that putting all that $45B back will eventually turn a similar me salary to $200 per hour, while the CEO continues to stay at $1000, so closing the wealth gap, 60 years from now.
> If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost.
Yes, he can. For a fairly extreme case, he could expend a substantial fraction of the recurring proceeds generated by the investment of that fortune buying up some good or combination of goods which whose production competes with that of basic necessities that Joe needs in terms of some of the needed production inputs, by so doing he drives up the manufacturing costs of those necessities (and, thus, their market clearing price, by affecting the supply curve for those goods), and increases Joe's living costs.
Yes, he can. For a fairly extreme case, he could expend a substantial fraction of the recurring proceeds generated by the investment of that fortune buying up some good or combination of goods which whose production competes with that of basic necessities that Joe needs in terms of some of the needed production inputs, by so doing he drives up the manufacturing costs of those necessities (and, thus, their market clearing price, by affecting the supply curve for those goods), and increases Joe's living costs.
Well it might change the way taxation and government spending work if there was a steadier flow from people after they died. If the government has more money to put towards everyone's ability to live a healthy and happy life then I call that improving wealth.
EDIT: Not to mention the jobs that government can directly create with more money to spend. That's an even more direct example of wealth distribution, really.
EDIT: Not to mention the jobs that government can directly create with more money to spend. That's an even more direct example of wealth distribution, really.
Is it right for one person to be in control of so much political power? Why do we allow individuals to amass that much power? Is it right for a committee to be in control of so much political power? Is it right for people to be obligated to commit their economic output to such a group that has been selected by a process as pedestrian as a popularity contest? Perhaps we should choose experts instead. Then who gets to choose the experts? Quis ipsos custodies custodies
Private people having money: bad.
Politicians and bureaucrats having unlimited power: good.
Politicians and bureaucrats having unlimited power: good.
We allow individuals to amass that much power because people look to the folks around them to see what products they should use.
Concentration of power is an emergent property of network effects. As long as "being popular" is positively correlated with your decision to use a product, then the products that are already popular will get more popular, and their owners will get rich. It's largely (but not entirely) random who the owners are, but their existence is guaranteed.
If everybody thought for themselves and made their decisions independently of what everyone else does, you'd see a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth. But unfortunately most people lack the courage (or maybe just time & energy) to make up their own minds, and outsource their opinions to others. Ironically, many of the very rich are the biggest critics of this phenomena - indeed, the reason they got rich was because they had the ability to think for themselves and see what other people didn't see.
The same applies to political power (people would rather vote for a Clinton or Bush than an unknown candidate just because they have the brand name recognition) and to fame (Paris Hilton got to be famous because people talk about her. Why do they talk about her? Because their friends talk about her.)
Concentration of power is an emergent property of network effects. As long as "being popular" is positively correlated with your decision to use a product, then the products that are already popular will get more popular, and their owners will get rich. It's largely (but not entirely) random who the owners are, but their existence is guaranteed.
If everybody thought for themselves and made their decisions independently of what everyone else does, you'd see a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth. But unfortunately most people lack the courage (or maybe just time & energy) to make up their own minds, and outsource their opinions to others. Ironically, many of the very rich are the biggest critics of this phenomena - indeed, the reason they got rich was because they had the ability to think for themselves and see what other people didn't see.
The same applies to political power (people would rather vote for a Clinton or Bush than an unknown candidate just because they have the brand name recognition) and to fame (Paris Hilton got to be famous because people talk about her. Why do they talk about her? Because their friends talk about her.)
Easy. We don't "allow" things to happen. Things happen. Nobody went around the room and asked everyone if they could give money to facebook.
I think you should provide arguments as to why shouldn't we. If you are really serious about changing the current status quote you are the one that needs to convince me to join your side. I do no need to justify why things are the way they are.
Whole separate question. He already has that much money and that much power.
The legal system exists to temper the interplay between wealth and power -- instead of a completely unregulated environment where someone can buy up mercenaries and become their own state, we have reasonable market regulations that keep the playing field fair for all comers and prevent the super-rich from affecting unfair distortions of either the market or society at large.
If seriously corrupting effects can occur from one person's use of money, we have a larger issue and need to address the cause (someone can use money to cause a big, society-wide problem), not the symptom (someone has a lot of money and is using it in a socially-disastrous way). If we're nitpicking at individual's monetary use, the system is broken.
Individuals should be able to amass any amount of money and not cause large-scale social damage. Looking at a set of fortunes above a certain size and confiscating them because we can't build a resilient system is totally bad. In effect, we're already doing it with income tax.
If you don't contend that Zuck will cause large-scale social damage, what's wrong with him having that much money and using it as he sees fit? After all, he "earned" it.
If seriously corrupting effects can occur from one person's use of money, we have a larger issue and need to address the cause (someone can use money to cause a big, society-wide problem), not the symptom (someone has a lot of money and is using it in a socially-disastrous way). If we're nitpicking at individual's monetary use, the system is broken.
Individuals should be able to amass any amount of money and not cause large-scale social damage. Looking at a set of fortunes above a certain size and confiscating them because we can't build a resilient system is totally bad. In effect, we're already doing it with income tax.
If you don't contend that Zuck will cause large-scale social damage, what's wrong with him having that much money and using it as he sees fit? After all, he "earned" it.
Because it's worked better than any other system that humanity has tried?
If you're so willing for him not to amass this much fortune and wield that amount of power, simply boycott his companies and stop supporting him with your devices. After all, Zuckerberg doesn't run or own any monopoly natural or not to find it difficult or practically impossible not to give him your money or time currency.
In short yes. When there is competition, there are survivors and deceases. If you believe in democratic republic, then you can look at his accomplishment as a co-founder of Facebook as one of the few successful social network products surviving a heated market election.
You have a choice to not use Facebook, and if everyone refuses to use Facebook, he will lose his wealth and his influence. When was the last time you heard about Tom from MySpace on TV? He and his team have done a great job promoting the product, despite issues like privacy.
If you are looking from an ideal socialism, then I am sad to inform you that socialism does not work at all because most human I know have opinions, and when there's opinion people take side, and when people take side people turn into control. When people have professional skill, they become experts, and when they are experts, they are assigned roles. You wouldn't listen to me for medical advice. Between a nobody physicist and a Nobel laureate in Physics, the Nobel laureate's opinions obviously carry more weight in a conference talk.
And btw, he doesn't have $45B in his bank account. Most of his money are still virtual, in bytes (argue about silver vs greenback, in the 1800s).
Of course there is danger in accumulating power. For a nation, being the most powerful doesn't mean you have to stick your head in everyone's else affairs. There is always some gains and some losses when a giant arises. Giants with the right vision can create quality products (i.e. Apple), but giants dictating vision (i.e. Microsoft) can cause life fortune to turn around (although Microsoft is doing much better in the last few years).
You can be the forerunner in your competition, but if you want to maintain your influence, you must allow some competitions. Only way to innovate is to accept challenges. You don't write better code unless someone critique you. That's the difference between a thinker and a narrator.
You have a choice to not use Facebook, and if everyone refuses to use Facebook, he will lose his wealth and his influence. When was the last time you heard about Tom from MySpace on TV? He and his team have done a great job promoting the product, despite issues like privacy.
If you are looking from an ideal socialism, then I am sad to inform you that socialism does not work at all because most human I know have opinions, and when there's opinion people take side, and when people take side people turn into control. When people have professional skill, they become experts, and when they are experts, they are assigned roles. You wouldn't listen to me for medical advice. Between a nobody physicist and a Nobel laureate in Physics, the Nobel laureate's opinions obviously carry more weight in a conference talk.
And btw, he doesn't have $45B in his bank account. Most of his money are still virtual, in bytes (argue about silver vs greenback, in the 1800s).
Of course there is danger in accumulating power. For a nation, being the most powerful doesn't mean you have to stick your head in everyone's else affairs. There is always some gains and some losses when a giant arises. Giants with the right vision can create quality products (i.e. Apple), but giants dictating vision (i.e. Microsoft) can cause life fortune to turn around (although Microsoft is doing much better in the last few years).
You can be the forerunner in your competition, but if you want to maintain your influence, you must allow some competitions. Only way to innovate is to accept challenges. You don't write better code unless someone critique you. That's the difference between a thinker and a narrator.
I thought that was capitalism and I thought we all agreed that that was good.
To be fair, it's his money. It's not that he bought a lottery ticket and won the jackpot. He build a company and made loads of money. It's up to him what to do with it, I guess.
To be fair, it's his money. It's not that he bought a lottery ticket and won the jackpot. He build a company and made loads of money. It's up to him what to do with it, I guess.
> I thought that was capitalism and I thought we all agreed that that was good.
It might be a remnant of capitalism, but capitalism was relatively controversial when it was the dominant economic system of the developed world (it was named as a system by those critical of it!), was displaced everywhere in the developed world by modern mixed economies, and even the degree of capitalism present in those economies remains controversial.
So, no, I don't think "we all agreed" that capitalism was good.
It might be a remnant of capitalism, but capitalism was relatively controversial when it was the dominant economic system of the developed world (it was named as a system by those critical of it!), was displaced everywhere in the developed world by modern mixed economies, and even the degree of capitalism present in those economies remains controversial.
So, no, I don't think "we all agreed" that capitalism was good.
> I thought that was capitalism and I thought we all agreed that that was good.
Hacker != capitalist !
Hacker != capitalist !
Because "communism" is a four-letter-word in most of America.
This is such a weird question.
> What he's doing is smart if he wants to have the maximum impart on the world.
I like how he's found a way to give his money away while keeping it.
He uses an LLC instead of a charity. This is some smart stuff. It's also nasty.
He skirts oversight that is typically rendered on actual charities precisely so that they don't allow their backers to dip twice into the social pie. He gets to keep his money, and he gets to be a philanthropist.
I like how he's found a way to give his money away while keeping it.
He uses an LLC instead of a charity. This is some smart stuff. It's also nasty.
He skirts oversight that is typically rendered on actual charities precisely so that they don't allow their backers to dip twice into the social pie. He gets to keep his money, and he gets to be a philanthropist.
Consider two situations:
1) Zuckerberg wants to preserve his fortune whilst gaining good PR for donating money to charity.
2) Zuckerberg genuinely wants to change the world.
In (1), it clearly hasn't worked then given all of the comments around here. Is it not highly likely that he would have considered this backlash that he received? If I was in his position and wanted to achieve (1), I would make a high profile donation of ~$1 billion (~2% of his worth) to a respectable charity.
The global distribution of anti-malarial bed nets would never have as great an impact on health and poverty as something like the invention of the electric light bulb. Sometimes what is best for increasing quality of life around the world isn't the redistribution of wealth and cannot be achieved in a charitable structure. In scenario (2), it is completely reasonable to set up an LLC for this purpose. Instead of thinking 'what's the worst he can do?' think 'what's the best he can do?'
In (1), it clearly hasn't worked then given all of the comments around here. Is it not highly likely that he would have considered this backlash that he received? If I was in his position and wanted to achieve (1), I would make a high profile donation of ~$1 billion (~2% of his worth) to a respectable charity.
The global distribution of anti-malarial bed nets would never have as great an impact on health and poverty as something like the invention of the electric light bulb. Sometimes what is best for increasing quality of life around the world isn't the redistribution of wealth and cannot be achieved in a charitable structure. In scenario (2), it is completely reasonable to set up an LLC for this purpose. Instead of thinking 'what's the worst he can do?' think 'what's the best he can do?'
> In (1), it clearly hasn't worked then given all of the comments around here. Is it not highly likely that he would have considered this backlash that he received? If I was in his position and wanted to achieve (1), I would make a high profile donation of ~$1 billion (~2% of his worth) to a respectable charity.
Most people think he gave the money to charity. They will notice this isn't the case when the "charity" has amassed 5x its current value and he's donating 10B to someone's political campaign.
Most people think he gave the money to charity. They will notice this isn't the case when the "charity" has amassed 5x its current value and he's donating 10B to someone's political campaign.
I don't really have any expertise to comment on whether setting up an LLC versus a non-profit is a good idea. I'm not even a big Zuck fan. I just think it's so very… western culture in 2015 that a bunch of internet warriors are getting irate because they think a self-made bajillionaire isn't donating $45,000,000,000 of his personal wealth the proper way.
The proper way is a social contract: you set up a charity, get tax breaks, and in return, you're required to spend a certain percentage on charitable causes.
Zuckerburg's pledge aside, if he were to do nothing with his new LLC, he would face no tax penalties and would essentially be moving money from one place to the other with nobody benefiting in any tangible way.
The reason people are upset is because the last 30 years have amounted in an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich. All that wealth - everybody's wealth - was created by the labor of people long dead, all the way down to the first humans to develop agriculture. A staple of any society has been the need to tax wealth creation so public goods can be provided, from national security to a functioning court system.
By dodging taxes (which is what happens when you make a "charity" that isn't structurally obliged to make donations) you are circumventing the social contract and depriving the public of a portion of the profits derived from being a part of that society.
Creating Facebook or any other large company with a big workforce is no excuse to not pay taxes. Those people use roads, water, courts, and require protection from the police and military. That causes additional strain on the system and has to be paid for somehow.
I don't care how he spends his money, but establishing an LLC as a charity is a poor form of philanthropy.
Zuckerburg's pledge aside, if he were to do nothing with his new LLC, he would face no tax penalties and would essentially be moving money from one place to the other with nobody benefiting in any tangible way.
The reason people are upset is because the last 30 years have amounted in an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich. All that wealth - everybody's wealth - was created by the labor of people long dead, all the way down to the first humans to develop agriculture. A staple of any society has been the need to tax wealth creation so public goods can be provided, from national security to a functioning court system.
By dodging taxes (which is what happens when you make a "charity" that isn't structurally obliged to make donations) you are circumventing the social contract and depriving the public of a portion of the profits derived from being a part of that society.
Creating Facebook or any other large company with a big workforce is no excuse to not pay taxes. Those people use roads, water, courts, and require protection from the police and military. That causes additional strain on the system and has to be paid for somehow.
I don't care how he spends his money, but establishing an LLC as a charity is a poor form of philanthropy.
First, he's not moving money currently. He's pledged to move a tangible asset to a new entity.
Second, if you had read his latest comment or understood how a LLC functions and taxes apply, you would know that the LLC will have to pay taxes on the sale of those assets.
Third, any profit the LLC makes from investments in for-profit organizations will also be taxed.
In a previous comment I made on charities and trusts, he would be more likely to be avoiding taxes if he did create a charitable remainder trust for his kid. There's an immediate tax benefit, you get to use the yearly distribution any way you see fit, and there's no guarantee the money will ever see a charitable cause.
Second, if you had read his latest comment or understood how a LLC functions and taxes apply, you would know that the LLC will have to pay taxes on the sale of those assets.
Third, any profit the LLC makes from investments in for-profit organizations will also be taxed.
In a previous comment I made on charities and trusts, he would be more likely to be avoiding taxes if he did create a charitable remainder trust for his kid. There's an immediate tax benefit, you get to use the yearly distribution any way you see fit, and there's no guarantee the money will ever see a charitable cause.
The proper way is: However he wants. It's his money.
In addition to that Zuck already dispels the meme that he isn't paying taxes in his post, the LLC will be paying taxes just like everyone else.
All of the complaints really are just proxy reasons to complain about Facebook and the guy who founded it. If Warren Buffett did this exact thing last month none of these articles would have been written.
All of the complaints really are just proxy reasons to complain about Facebook and the guy who founded it. If Warren Buffett did this exact thing last month none of these articles would have been written.
You are welcome to continue using the 1985 era FaceBook-created-by-the-labor-of-people-long-dead. It's free. No ads either.
For the longer version of this comment, see PG's essay titled Wealth.
http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
For the longer version of this comment, see PG's essay titled Wealth.
http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
Can you please define "social contract"? Because you could also argue that part of the "social contract" is that cops get qualified immunity when they shoot you for any amount of suspicion. it's the price you pay for an orderly society
He's not dodging taxes. Why do people keep repeating this completely false claim?
> All that wealth - everybody's wealth - was created by the labor of people long dead, all the way down to the first humans to develop agriculture.
As long as you're making this sort of argument, why stop at agriculture? Or humans, for that matter?
As long as you're making this sort of argument, why stop at agriculture? Or humans, for that matter?
It's not about "the proper way", no one is telling Zuckerberg that he needs to donate the money. People are calling into question whether his claim that he is donating the money is truthful or not. That's not western, that's asking a question and being skeptical about the content of a press release.
It will take his entire lifetime to bear that out... so why are people trying to claim some sort of fraud before anything has even been done? It is not fair to try and call him a liar or to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead... let alone when he is in his early 30's. People just like to blow hard and complain for the sake of complaining. The guy is making a big promise and I'm going to watch what he does and hopefully he will make as big of a positive impact on society as he claims that he wants to... way to early to tell... I applaud him for even stepping out to take on the journey.
> to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead...
That's exactly the point. Why does Zuck make huge claims when not a single cent has changed hands yet. Fuck this PR campaign.
Just to make it clear: I wouldn't mind if he kept the money for himself and invested it for profit as any good capitalist would. But if you open your mouth to make a claim then you need to follow trough in a credible way.
That's exactly the point. Why does Zuck make huge claims when not a single cent has changed hands yet. Fuck this PR campaign.
Just to make it clear: I wouldn't mind if he kept the money for himself and invested it for profit as any good capitalist would. But if you open your mouth to make a claim then you need to follow trough in a credible way.
It is day #1! What the hell are you so upset about? He announced that he has some really big intentions for his massive fortune. Did you blast Bill Gates the day he announced he wanted to do the same thing? What about Warren Buffet? I am still not quite sure what you are so pissed about? Do you harbor some hatred for Zuck?
No hatred. Just upset about all this fanboyism.
I think if his foundation wasn't accompanied by a multiple page long self-aggrandizing commitment to charity people would simply appreciate and not scrutinize. But in particular we have a model for what it looks like when a tech billionaire tries to donate his time and money to do something good for the world instead of building widgets and does it very well: the Gates foundation.
And his previous "public works" attempt was a lobbying group for "immigration reform" that claimed to try to make life better for vast swaths of people and yet was simply a front to lobby the government to let tech businesses exploit immigrant slave labor more effectively. Accompanied by a similar impassioned speech about doing good works. Most of the lobbying was in the form of pretty despicable character assassination.
In particular he takes jabs at the Gates foundation for not lobbying for example. The Gates foundation is enormously successful and Zuckerberg hasn't accomplished anything. Right now all he's done is set up a company that he has control over and promised "guys, I'll give this money to 'charity' however I define it at my discretion whatever that means".
I'm hopeful and at its face I think it's a wonderful thing he's pledged to do but I think it's a bit premature to fall all over ourselves thanking him for reorganizing his finances because that's all he's really done so far.
And his previous "public works" attempt was a lobbying group for "immigration reform" that claimed to try to make life better for vast swaths of people and yet was simply a front to lobby the government to let tech businesses exploit immigrant slave labor more effectively. Accompanied by a similar impassioned speech about doing good works. Most of the lobbying was in the form of pretty despicable character assassination.
In particular he takes jabs at the Gates foundation for not lobbying for example. The Gates foundation is enormously successful and Zuckerberg hasn't accomplished anything. Right now all he's done is set up a company that he has control over and promised "guys, I'll give this money to 'charity' however I define it at my discretion whatever that means".
I'm hopeful and at its face I think it's a wonderful thing he's pledged to do but I think it's a bit premature to fall all over ourselves thanking him for reorganizing his finances because that's all he's really done so far.
If Zuckerberg wanted people not to comment, perhaps his "letter to his daughter" should have been delivered to his daughter, instead of a "bunch of internet warriors".
I mean, come on. Is everyone supposed to reverently worship their betters? Do we thank our $deities (in respectful silence) that we have such nice overlords who promise to someday pursue a structured financial transaction in a tax-preferred manner, along with a promise that it will promote "human advancement", whatever the hell that is?
Sounds to me like whatever you have in mind as the opposite of "western culture" is a bit insulting to those cultures.
I mean, come on. Is everyone supposed to reverently worship their betters? Do we thank our $deities (in respectful silence) that we have such nice overlords who promise to someday pursue a structured financial transaction in a tax-preferred manner, along with a promise that it will promote "human advancement", whatever the hell that is?
Sounds to me like whatever you have in mind as the opposite of "western culture" is a bit insulting to those cultures.
If he didn't want people to nitpick it, he shouldn't have been showboating about how much money he's giving away to charity. I'm a conservative so I'm not much into controlling what people do with their money, but Zuckerburg invited this when he decided he wanted a lot of praise for being charitable and telling the world he was giving away a lot of money. It's not news that he has that money; he could've spent it however he liked without having to toot his own horn and fish for accolades re: his "generosity".
Okay, I can see the "it's not that he did it; it's that he did it in such a self-aggrandizing manner" argument. That's a fair argument. Thanks for the response.
[deleted]
I think it's fair for people to insist on a measure of honesty and accuracy in communication, and to reserve gratitude until meaningful acts are performed, not just general statements of future plans.
There is a difference in reserving gratitude and flippantly stating myriad difference versions of, "I'll believe it when I see it." People are giving him a hard time for making a public pledge, a public accountability for his future actions. He is not doing it for himself as much as he is for a rallying cry to other wealthy people and to spur others to try and find ways to use the funds as he sets it all up. The extreme cynicism is a bit unwarranted if you ask me. Has he made a similar pledge in the past and not performed? No. Have other billionaires made similar pledges and not performed? Not than I know of. <s>Thanks goodness for the interweb moral police! </s>
> his personal wealth the proper way.
I'm irate because he didn't donate anything at all and yet still makes a big announcement.
Let's talk again once a significant(more than 30% of the pledged) amount of money has actually changed hands.
I'm irate because he didn't donate anything at all and yet still makes a big announcement.
Let's talk again once a significant(more than 30% of the pledged) amount of money has actually changed hands.
[deleted]
Yep, I don't get it. "Rich guy sets up foundation in tax-advantageous way." This is news?
This is no news, the problem is that people are trying to make it like a big deal.
The only people I see trying to make it sound like a big deal are the ones criticizing it. If not for the relentless stream of naysayers, I wouldn't have even known this whole thing was happening.
This whole thing is just celebrity gossip. It's exactly like those glossy magazines you see at the supermarket checkout line, except instead of movie stars it's tech stars.
This whole thing is just celebrity gossip. It's exactly like those glossy magazines you see at the supermarket checkout line, except instead of movie stars it's tech stars.
I really don't think this deserves the level of skepticism it's being met with. What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Look at how he lives, and how he has (not) monetized Facebook along the way. Look at how he turned down a million-dollar-plus acquisition offer for a company he didn't care about in high school.
Whatever you think about Facebook, Zuckerberg truly and somewhat uniquely does not appear to be motivated by money. Apparently that's very difficult for most people to understand, and they attribute their own motives to his actions. He's given away gobs of money before; he's still incredibly well off with 'just' 1% of his wealth remaining; why doubt his intentions here?
Whatever you think about Facebook, Zuckerberg truly and somewhat uniquely does not appear to be motivated by money. Apparently that's very difficult for most people to understand, and they attribute their own motives to his actions. He's given away gobs of money before; he's still incredibly well off with 'just' 1% of his wealth remaining; why doubt his intentions here?
Most of the educated criticism I've seen isn't about money, it's about power. A lot of his actions have shown that he values power far more than money, and we all know he has been successful in this pursuit (look at the way his facebook voting rights are structured).
I think a lot of the criticism in this case is that he isn't really being altruistic - instead he is strengthening the power he has in the most efficient way possible. Nothing too surprising, most intelligent billionaires are very good at this. The difference is most of them don't act like they're doing the world a huge favor for it.
I think a lot of the criticism in this case is that he isn't really being altruistic - instead he is strengthening the power he has in the most efficient way possible. Nothing too surprising, most intelligent billionaires are very good at this. The difference is most of them don't act like they're doing the world a huge favor for it.
Yet every single politician values power more than the average person, and they're treated as saints.
In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise. Currently they clock in at a hot 13% "approve": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_...
Yes, but most people give their own congressman good ratings:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow...
I suppose I meant, in the context of this discussion, that people here tend to complain that "we" should decide how MZ spends his money and that it's a scandal that he's not participating in some collective decision making process. Of course that necessitates politicians and bureaucrats making those decisions, instead of MZ. As though they are better equipped to spend MZ's money than MZ.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow...
I suppose I meant, in the context of this discussion, that people here tend to complain that "we" should decide how MZ spends his money and that it's a scandal that he's not participating in some collective decision making process. Of course that necessitates politicians and bureaucrats making those decisions, instead of MZ. As though they are better equipped to spend MZ's money than MZ.
> In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise.
Congressional approval ratings have nothing to do with individual politicians' power and influence; it measures voters approval of an institution over which each person rating the institution has a vote for at most 3 members, each of which spends a substantial amount of their campaign time using the rest of the institution as an excuse for anything that their constituents might not like.
Really, low Congressional approval ratings are, arguably, evidence of the success of individual politicians' "don't hate the player, hate the game" strategy for maximizing their personal position.
Congressional approval ratings have nothing to do with individual politicians' power and influence; it measures voters approval of an institution over which each person rating the institution has a vote for at most 3 members, each of which spends a substantial amount of their campaign time using the rest of the institution as an excuse for anything that their constituents might not like.
Really, low Congressional approval ratings are, arguably, evidence of the success of individual politicians' "don't hate the player, hate the game" strategy for maximizing their personal position.
There's really not much of a dichotomy between power and money at the level we're discussing (the level where power is mostly influence). Money is liquid, tokenized power. If you have enough of money, you can get virtually anything you want. That sounds like the same thing as power to me.
There is a cruder form of power, which is physical might, but that usually doesn't come into play in jurisdictions with functioning legal and military systems.
There is a cruder form of power, which is physical might, but that usually doesn't come into play in jurisdictions with functioning legal and military systems.
For almost everyone I have ever met, the only time they would think to use "saint" and "politician" -- or the name of any given politician -- in the same sentence is if they're both walking into a bar accompanied by a rabbi.
>What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth?
Let me start with the caveat that I don't really care if Zuck is "interested in material wealth" or not. That said, if he wants to prove it, he needs to give it all away in a way where he doesn't have control over what happens to it anymore.
Putting your money in a "charitable foundation" that you control is not giving it away; you still decide how, where, and in what quantities it gets spent. You can still give people you like a salary as "employees of the charity". None of that counts as giving it away.
Giving it away is actually giving it to others in one fell swoop and letting those people decide what happens to it.
If he really wanted to be egaliatarian and de-elevate himself to the level of a "normal guy", he'd just divide his shares by the number of Facebook employees and evenly disperse. In my book, "I moved all my money into a different entity which I still control" is not giving all your money away, it's just paper pushing.
Let me start with the caveat that I don't really care if Zuck is "interested in material wealth" or not. That said, if he wants to prove it, he needs to give it all away in a way where he doesn't have control over what happens to it anymore.
Putting your money in a "charitable foundation" that you control is not giving it away; you still decide how, where, and in what quantities it gets spent. You can still give people you like a salary as "employees of the charity". None of that counts as giving it away.
Giving it away is actually giving it to others in one fell swoop and letting those people decide what happens to it.
If he really wanted to be egaliatarian and de-elevate himself to the level of a "normal guy", he'd just divide his shares by the number of Facebook employees and evenly disperse. In my book, "I moved all my money into a different entity which I still control" is not giving all your money away, it's just paper pushing.
> Look at how he lives
You mean buying multiple homes around his home for privacy? http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb...
Or you mean driving his neighbors crazy with his over-the-top construction http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-...
You mean buying multiple homes around his home for privacy? http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb...
Or you mean driving his neighbors crazy with his over-the-top construction http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-...
I live in SF and this is happening everywhere. The house directly next to me has been under construction for more than 18 months, with parking blocked off, huge amounts of noise, etc. And I live on a fairly undistinguished block (though one that is about to have a $5m home hit the market...). This is just par for the course in SF. His home attracted a particular amount of attention because it's his.
$10 in SF for a billionaire is really pretty modest. Compare to e.g. Larry Ellison: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_lar...
$10 in SF for a billionaire is really pretty modest. Compare to e.g. Larry Ellison: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_lar...
So what? If I was a billionaire I'd have multiple homes too!
[deleted]
> What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth?
Possibly just do it, instead of talking about doing it? Why make up a phony press release and shell corporation and try to brag about how noble you are in trying to avoid taxes? Is there another angle I'm missing here besides extreme narcissism?
Possibly just do it, instead of talking about doing it? Why make up a phony press release and shell corporation and try to brag about how noble you are in trying to avoid taxes? Is there another angle I'm missing here besides extreme narcissism?
Because internet message boards are dominated by cynics.
You forgot the /s at the end.
Donate to a charity and people complain it's not the right one. Donate to several charities and people complain that the charity doesn't spend money the right way. Set up an LLC geared towards allocating $45b to social good, charities, promising startups for the human race and armchair activists use it as a platform to question your true character and call into question the nature of your announcement... I wonder how many of those people have donated or helped someone in need this year.
There is a 5% rule for non profits that his LLC gets to avoid:
"...What is the 5 percent payout requirement?
The purpose behind the minimum payout requirement is to prevent foundations from simply receiving gifts, investing the assets and never spending any funds on charitable purposes. The basic rule can be stated simply, but its calculation is complex: Each year every private foundation must make eligible charitable expenditures that equal or exceed approximately 5 percent of the value of its endowment. The word "payout" while convenient is somewhat misleading and is not used in the Tax Code section that creates the rule. The word "payout" suggests grants or contributions paid out to other charities. Although these grants normally make up more than 93 percent of the expenditures of most foundations, many other expenses can also qualify in meeting the minimum payout requirement. In short, the 5 percent payout rule need not be satisfied solely with grants. ..."
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abagrantmakers.org/resource/res...
"...What is the 5 percent payout requirement?
The purpose behind the minimum payout requirement is to prevent foundations from simply receiving gifts, investing the assets and never spending any funds on charitable purposes. The basic rule can be stated simply, but its calculation is complex: Each year every private foundation must make eligible charitable expenditures that equal or exceed approximately 5 percent of the value of its endowment. The word "payout" while convenient is somewhat misleading and is not used in the Tax Code section that creates the rule. The word "payout" suggests grants or contributions paid out to other charities. Although these grants normally make up more than 93 percent of the expenditures of most foundations, many other expenses can also qualify in meeting the minimum payout requirement. In short, the 5 percent payout rule need not be satisfied solely with grants. ..."
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abagrantmakers.org/resource/res...
I wonder if forming a Benefit Corporation [0] was considered. This is a type of corporate entity that has only come into being in the past few years. Unlike a traditional corporation which has a mandate to operate in the best interests of its shareholders [1], a Benefit Corporation is formed with a mandate to produce a benefit to a broader class of stakeholders, which could be the general public or all of humanity. As a practical matter, if you have the assent of the shareholders a corporation can act however it likes within the law and doesn't need to try to return a profit, however it seems to me that there is a serious impedance mismatch in using a corporation for philanthropic endeavours and I wonder why, seeing as how a legal tool specifically for this purpose has recently been created, it wasn't used.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
There seems to be lot of emotion-laden writing about MZ's pledge but I looked at his letter[1] to his daughter and this is what it actually says:
Our hopes for your generation focus on two ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality. [...] Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities. We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission.
He didn't actually use the word "charity". Was the term "charity" something that the media outlet pushed in its stories? Now with the closer inspection of the LLC structure, the media looks to blast MZ for being dishonest about it being a charity? Did MZ get free hero publicity by not explicitly stating it was not a 501c in his letter to the daughter? I didn't follow the story closely enough to judge if there was deception and media manipulation.
As for MZ going with the LLC structure, I think it's just a general zeitgeist of tech-billionaires to believe that other institutions besides non-profits can make more progress on improving humanity. A similar sentiment was Larry Page's "I'd rather give my billions to Elon Musk than charity".
I don't know if MZ and LP are "right" but I sort of see where they're coming from. I was looking at a startup that matched donors to charities and when I researched charities such as Pink Ribbon and Mother Theresa, etc, it really made me mistrust the whole landscape. Yes, there are sites such as GiveWell but then I'd need to research the integrity of GiveWell itself which I never got around to pursuing.
I don't know all the confluence of reasons but it does seem like traditional non-profits are not getting 100% mindshare of philanthropists.
[1]https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-o...
Our hopes for your generation focus on two ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality. [...] Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities. We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission.
He didn't actually use the word "charity". Was the term "charity" something that the media outlet pushed in its stories? Now with the closer inspection of the LLC structure, the media looks to blast MZ for being dishonest about it being a charity? Did MZ get free hero publicity by not explicitly stating it was not a 501c in his letter to the daughter? I didn't follow the story closely enough to judge if there was deception and media manipulation.
As for MZ going with the LLC structure, I think it's just a general zeitgeist of tech-billionaires to believe that other institutions besides non-profits can make more progress on improving humanity. A similar sentiment was Larry Page's "I'd rather give my billions to Elon Musk than charity".
I don't know if MZ and LP are "right" but I sort of see where they're coming from. I was looking at a startup that matched donors to charities and when I researched charities such as Pink Ribbon and Mother Theresa, etc, it really made me mistrust the whole landscape. Yes, there are sites such as GiveWell but then I'd need to research the integrity of GiveWell itself which I never got around to pursuing.
I don't know all the confluence of reasons but it does seem like traditional non-profits are not getting 100% mindshare of philanthropists.
[1]https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-o...
Everybody's getting way too caught up in the structure of this pledge. Yes, he could use an LLC as a way to accrue more wealth. But it's just as possible to use a registered charity as a way to purchase influence and avoid taxes. Whether it's through an LLC or a charity, the amount of good he accomplishes will be entirely down to his intentions and the effort he expends on his philanthropy.
It's too early to judge. This could be just pure good, it could be a tax dodge, it could be a PR move, or it could be good intentions that don't get followed through on. We won't know until his foundation actually starts spending this money.
It's too early to judge. This could be just pure good, it could be a tax dodge, it could be a PR move, or it could be good intentions that don't get followed through on. We won't know until his foundation actually starts spending this money.
The fact still remains, more taxes will be collected from this LLC arrangement than if he had donated his shares to charity, a la Bill Gates. Why is everyone having a collective aneurysm over that?
There is no good reason to question Zuckerbergs's motives. He very clearly means to donate his money to good causes over the course of his life.
Maybe it's wrong for billionaires to influence the world as if they had billions of votes, but good or bad, anyone who questions his sincerity or general goodness is a bad judge of character.
And even if you can't imagine Zuckerberg as a good person. Good luck trying to convince yourself his paediatrician spouse is not genuinely interested in helping people.
Maybe it's wrong for billionaires to influence the world as if they had billions of votes, but good or bad, anyone who questions his sincerity or general goodness is a bad judge of character.
And even if you can't imagine Zuckerberg as a good person. Good luck trying to convince yourself his paediatrician spouse is not genuinely interested in helping people.
the guy created an online yearbook. it would suck if the genius and his wife couldn't tell us how to vote.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
EDIT: It's pretty gracious to assume someone who directly called anyone who trusted him an idiot has somehow reformed himself into a someone deserving optimism, despite no evidence that he's changed.
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
EDIT: It's pretty gracious to assume someone who directly called anyone who trusted him an idiot has somehow reformed himself into a someone deserving optimism, despite no evidence that he's changed.
We detached this (lame rehash of a perennially tedious) subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10678391 and marked it off-topic.
Reasons at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10675203 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096, if anyone cares.
Reasons at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10675203 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096, if anyone cares.
> Those of you who disagree are invited to imagine the world repeating the most misconstruable thing you said when you were 19.
Having known him at the time, I will assert that this is not some random cherry-picked chat fragment of him being a dick. It just happens to be one of the few times he explained his thought process in the open.
I think it highly unlikely that he changed this much while no one else I knew at that age did. Among dozens of people of the same background, university, age, cohort, and activity, none have had such a remarkable transition from devil into saint. Their personalities are intact. And his?
Having known him at the time, I will assert that this is not some random cherry-picked chat fragment of him being a dick. It just happens to be one of the few times he explained his thought process in the open.
I think it highly unlikely that he changed this much while no one else I knew at that age did. Among dozens of people of the same background, university, age, cohort, and activity, none have had such a remarkable transition from devil into saint. Their personalities are intact. And his?
[deleted]
[deleted]
You are assuming people's personalities remain static over the course of their lives.
EDIT: Then again, they might not vary. I'm not a personality expert.
EDIT: Then again, they might not vary. I'm not a personality expert.
It irks me that you would rebut this guy with this argument simply because I know that the empiricism strongly leans toward personalities remaining very stable throughout the lifespan, and that changes move together as a population than within-individual. Academics might not have yet built consensus on a general personality theory (Big 5 is more a descriptive research framework than a theory), but there is consensus on personality empiricism.
Surely there is another angle of counter. I don't believe in winning argumentation by any means, especially by scientific disinformation without empirical cause.
Surely there is another angle of counter. I don't believe in winning argumentation by any means, especially by scientific disinformation without empirical cause.
I think the guy just grew up. People say dumb stuff when they're young. Not much need for empirical backing when the heuristic (in this case: people mature as they grow older) explains it well enough.
Your narrowly crafted argument is the proper response, but this guy made an empirically testable statement relevant to the sciences. You might not have clicked his profile, but he's also a PhD student of the sciences, meaning he has institutional access.
You won't find adequate empirical backing on personality change over the lifespan, because the ecology of the evidence suggests that personality is stable. Disciplined speech is difficult and worthy.
You won't find adequate empirical backing on personality change over the lifespan, because the ecology of the evidence suggests that personality is stable. Disciplined speech is difficult and worthy.
Fair enough. I was just suggesting a possibility.
Show me someone whose personality has changed without significant personal struggle and I'll show you a lobotomy.
And who are you to say whether Zuck has had that struggle? Furthermore, who are you to assume that one chat log from college is representative of Zuck's personality as a whole, and a fair datum to use against his character forever?
People do mature, and people do change.
People do mature, and people do change.
Isn't the onus of proof on you in this instance? That's what Paul Graham just came and told me. (Who are you to say he didn't?)
I'm not making any assertion about Zuck, so no. Your comment implies that he didn't have the struggle that you referenced. I was indicating only that this implication is unfair, not that Zuck had necessarily had it.
That's true, you're right.
This is a fair point, but why do we as hackers and entrepreneurs place so much importance on what's in a company's "DNA" then? Because right here, you have a pretty damn stark view of the founder's mindset at the genesis of his startup before and as it was taking off. It isn't like he was chastened by external forces along the way or since - ostensibly everything that's happened since has only been positive reinforcement (A billion+ users, 45 billion dollars).
I'm not saying he still feels this way or didn't or couldn't change his thinking and attitude. Common decency would behoove him to and it's reasonable to grant that. I'm happy for him and his new family, but away from all that and his foundation (which sounds very positive), It's hard not to view a lot of what Facebook does with its users through the kind of cavalier attitude embodied in that old chat log. In fact, it helps makes a lot more sense of some of their moves if you do.
I'm not saying he still feels this way or didn't or couldn't change his thinking and attitude. Common decency would behoove him to and it's reasonable to grant that. I'm happy for him and his new family, but away from all that and his foundation (which sounds very positive), It's hard not to view a lot of what Facebook does with its users through the kind of cavalier attitude embodied in that old chat log. In fact, it helps makes a lot more sense of some of their moves if you do.
Counter evidence with counterevidence; it could be a good assumption. Even if someone's personality is not static, it doesn't mean that the variation is large enough to be significant, either.
We are all young and foolish in our lives. That's why we go through life - to learn, grow as an individual, and be the best version of ourselves we can be.
I don't think it's fair to judge anybody by their college/young adult years. Those years are some of the most influential and character changing any young adult goes through.
Go back and read something you wrote 5 years ago. I promise you will find something where you sit and think, "What could I have possibly been thinking about at the time...I wouldn't say that now." A lot of my facebook 'memories' appear at the top of my feed and sometimes I'm shocked I said something 5 years ago, no way I'm going to re-share that.
I don't think it's fair to judge anybody by their college/young adult years. Those years are some of the most influential and character changing any young adult goes through.
Go back and read something you wrote 5 years ago. I promise you will find something where you sit and think, "What could I have possibly been thinking about at the time...I wouldn't say that now." A lot of my facebook 'memories' appear at the top of my feed and sometimes I'm shocked I said something 5 years ago, no way I'm going to re-share that.
Without disagreeing with anything you've written (I agree!), what if a bad/foolish attitude you had when you were young led to you becoming an extraordinarily successful billionaire?
What life lessons would one learn from that? I've always tried to imagine how Mark himself really feels about it, because even if he's embarrassed, it's not untrue. Today, over 1/7th of the world does just "trust him" and its made him a billionaire. He was no dummy back then.
EDIT: Kudos to him (and Gates before him) for trying to give back now.
What life lessons would one learn from that? I've always tried to imagine how Mark himself really feels about it, because even if he's embarrassed, it's not untrue. Today, over 1/7th of the world does just "trust him" and its made him a billionaire. He was no dummy back then.
EDIT: Kudos to him (and Gates before him) for trying to give back now.
Although sometimes being reckless can lead to a reward, I think it can also cause you to lose the reward just as fast.
At some point in the growth of Facebook, Mark realized that what he had said back then was wrong and he is accountable for all the information people were giving Facebook. If he had continued with his attitude of people being "dumb" for giving him all the data after that point, I don't think Facebook would have succeeded as it has up until today.
So I guess you don't always have to 'fail' to learn a life lesson, but as you gain different perspectives on things you also learn from that.
I think a perfect example is politics. When you know only a little information about a topic, it's easy to say, 'just do this', or 'why are the idiots in office not doing it this way.' However, once you get more involved, and you see the repercussions of every decision you make, etc., you have a very different view.
At some point in the growth of Facebook, Mark realized that what he had said back then was wrong and he is accountable for all the information people were giving Facebook. If he had continued with his attitude of people being "dumb" for giving him all the data after that point, I don't think Facebook would have succeeded as it has up until today.
So I guess you don't always have to 'fail' to learn a life lesson, but as you gain different perspectives on things you also learn from that.
I think a perfect example is politics. When you know only a little information about a topic, it's easy to say, 'just do this', or 'why are the idiots in office not doing it this way.' However, once you get more involved, and you see the repercussions of every decision you make, etc., you have a very different view.
So your point is that he liked to make himself sound edgy when he was in college?
He must be near about the only person in the world who has cause to grimace when they think back to how they used to act when they were younger.
I saved my AIM chat logs, I know of what I speak.
He must be near about the only person in the world who has cause to grimace when they think back to how they used to act when they were younger.
I saved my AIM chat logs, I know of what I speak.
So it's not actually a charity after all - it's a private LLC that will make ''philanthropic'' investments which, if well run, could snowball the $45b of Facebook stock into hundreds of billions of dollars of privately owned and controlled wealth. Will the LLC take equity in projects like a venture capital firm or will it truly gift money away? (If gifting money, there's no reason not to leverage the charitable structure to manage taxes, which makes me think they will seek equity positions.) This structure might be a more effective way to impact the world but it's definitely a bit of whiplash from the way this whole project was initially reported.
From the posting: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is structured as an LLC rather than a traditional foundation. This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates -- in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need. Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission.
It sounds as though they're truly giving money to some nonprofits, as well as investing in other worthwhile ventures, and will reinvest the profits to good causes as well.
It sounds as though they're truly giving money to some nonprofits, as well as investing in other worthwhile ventures, and will reinvest the profits to good causes as well.
You left out perhaps the most interesting part:
>participating in policy debates
Like advocating for increased H1-B visas over simply awarding more visas directly to individuals, as one "policy debate" Zuckerberg has recently supported. Or whatever strikes his fancy at the time.
Like advocating for increased H1-B visas over simply awarding more visas directly to individuals, as one "policy debate" Zuckerberg has recently supported. Or whatever strikes his fancy at the time.
It could've been undone by a rush of cold blood to his head on the back of the birth of his offspring. In any case he reserves the right to do whatever he deems appropriate.
He is, but it's not like he also gets to say he's doing one thing when he's doing another. Or that he is suddenly immune to criticism.
Exactly, but you have to realise being a dad suddenly changes the world for you (I mean if you've had an intention of having a family).
The world suddenly seems a cruel place for your child, your current salary as insufficient, current residence as inhospitable for an infant, etc. You always see room & make excuses for improvement. His post could've been nothing more than an emotionally charged outlet yet not stupid enough that he'd lose his station immediately.
In any event, him doing one thing or another isn't going to affect most of us in our lifetimes (the fruits of research are usually tasted by further generations than by ours)
The world suddenly seems a cruel place for your child, your current salary as insufficient, current residence as inhospitable for an infant, etc. You always see room & make excuses for improvement. His post could've been nothing more than an emotionally charged outlet yet not stupid enough that he'd lose his station immediately.
In any event, him doing one thing or another isn't going to affect most of us in our lifetimes (the fruits of research are usually tasted by further generations than by ours)
- can make political contributions, People complain about it alot, but as Bill Gates said,even his own fortune is a pittance compared to what the government spends each year. Political persuasions moves the needle in the US more than charity ever could hope to. Why give up on that option?
- invest in companies, how many people here have said they'd invest in SpaceX because they think its good for the human race.
- charities have to give a way a certain percentage every year
- charities are subject to alot of rules and oversight. You don't get rich by having other's tell you what to do with your own money.
Would you feel a bit pissed if you put the vast majority of your wealth into a charity and then found out that, that meant that you really couldn't do the things that were important to you due to the tax rules imposed upon charities?
What he's doing is smart if he wants to have the maximum impact on the world.
Consider the alternative. He's doesn't ever need to sell any FB shares in his lifetime, he'll just get loans from the bank against his shares, so this isn't really about dodging taxes.