Okay yeah there might be a lot of flaws or criticisms about this, but at the end of the day, this is a net win for society. Go Mark and Priscilla!
A letter to our daughter
111–120 of 555 posts
Re: A letter to our daughter
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly the type of stuff Zuck is talking about here, although in less power-hungry ways. So you're kind of proving @austenallred's point.
I think Zuck is still power hungry, he's just more veiled about it. Everyone with enough power (through money) wants to shape the world in their specific ideal.
If we define "power-hungry" so broadly that it encompasses merely wanting to make the world a better place, I'm not sure what use the term is anymore.
Re: A letter to our daughter
#113> We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others. Ninety. Nine. Percent.
I give Mark and Priscilla a lot of credit for this. There's a big difference between 50% and 99%. There's a big difference between leaving your children a few hundred million and many billions. They have certainly exemplified the challenge to ''put your money where your mouth is''. Having said that, the first thing I thought of was the tax implications. If the shares were to eventually be sold (but not donated), the…
"There's a big difference between 50% and 99%. There's a big difference between leaving your children a few hundred million and many billions."
There is a saying "you can name the price if I can name the terms". Zuckerberg saying this and when he actually does this are two different things. (Per my other comment). I am not saying that he won't (how would I know?) but this is a promise that is based on a future event that, given the age of both parents, could easily be 50 or 60 years in the future. And of course exactly nothing will happen if he changes his mind (he isn't going to issue a press release on that) and nobody has any access to his finances anyway. So he is free to say anything he wants for any reason and that of course could change. That said it's his money and he can do what he wants with it. And there is no reason to even announce this if not playing some PR angle.
Edit: And to my point I just got a WSJ Technology Alert email with the headline "FACEBOOK'S MARK ZUCKERBERG IS GIVING AWAY 99% OF HIS SHARES" and then further down in a paragraph "over the course of their lives".
Re: A letter to our daughter
#114> Your generation will set goals for what you want to become -- like an engineer, health worker, writer or community leader.
Realistically, we can't all avoid being garbage collectors or street sweepers, can we? Or will automation really replace all unsavoury jobs with high-paying professions?
Re: A letter to our daughter
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's why they created a non-profit organization, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Non-profits are taxed differently and I'm sure they'll figure out how to get the money where it needs to be and pay as little tax as possible.
Is it possible in the US to take both names after marriage? If so, I'm disappointed that Mark didn't choose to be Zuckerberg-Chan.
It's possible to do anything with your band. I'm disappointed he didn't choose Suckitwinkelvoss.
Re: A letter to our daughter
#116Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolu…
His Charity is so great- that He simultaneously saves the world's poor while providing fodder for season 3 of Silicon Valley.
Re: A letter to our daughter
#117Something's always bugged me about relying on philanthropy as a source of funding the public good, as opposed to the public funding the public good through taxation and the democratic process: In the former case, the public doesn't really have much of a say about where the help goes. We must rely on the judgment (and personal values) of a few rich people and hope they pick charities that maximize the benefit. Would t…
Mark Zuckerberg donated 100 million dollars to Newark public schools a few years ago, and they ended up no better for it (and arguably worse off). Here's a great article on the topic -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled .
The main reason for the failure of the donation to create positive change was that the community wasn't engaged at all in the reform process. The first time Newark students and parents heard about the donation and the accompanying "reforms" were when Zuckerberg announced them on Oprah.
I completely agree with your sentiment, and wish philanthropy wasn't seen as an unmitigated good thing.
Re: A letter to our daughter
#118> We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others. Ninety. Nine. Percent.
Yeah... how's that for burying the lede? I almost didn't get that far through the post.
Re: A letter to our daughter
#119Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolu…
Whether or not the letter is narcissistic, one has to admire their initiative. It is not, unfortunately, the obvious thing to do, and they deserve to be applauded for that. Whatever personal faults the man has, I'd argue this kind of philanthropy more than makes up for it.
What about the concrete initiative of just paying taxes in each countries where the real business is done?
Re: A letter to our daughter
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I give Mark and Priscilla a lot of credit for this. There's a big difference between 50% and 99%. There's a big difference between leaving your children a few hundred million and many billions. They have certainly exemplified the challenge to ''put your money where your mouth is''. Having said that, the first thing I thought of was the tax implications. If the shares were to eventually be sold (but not donated), the…
I might be wrong, but didn't he already pay the massive tax bill for all of the stock options? Meaning all of those stocks would be taxed at long term capital gains rates, not at the high rates you are saying here. I believe his Federal taxes on sales would be 15% of current price - IPO price so approximately 4.5B not 13-15B at this time. That is also assuming Facebook continues to be dominant and doesn't go the way…
The current capital gains tax rate he would be avoiding is 20%, or $9b at today's Facebook market cap. There is also a 3.8% Medicare tax added on that would come to another $1.7B. The state of California would also get their hands on it and take another 13.3% (or about $6B).
tl;dr Giving capital gains away is very tax advantageous!