281–290 of 555 posts
Can't we just say, "Dude we are happy for you, and thanks for the money."
And what happened to the rule about not saying stuff you wouldn't say to a person's face. Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face? Keep it civil people.
Something'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…
> Would the outcome be better or worse if we had, say, a 99% tax bracket at >$N million, and let the public decide the best way to deploy that funding via the ballot box? If we had that and still had charitable deductions, I suspect more public goods would be funded by charity rather than public decision-making then is now the case, since the marginal cost of charity giving would be much lower .
Even with a 99% tax on Zucker's fortune, it would still be diverting money from countries around the globe towards the US, in other words the already rich and destroying condition favorable to human life USA would get richer by making the poor poorer.
In a world with no countries, it would make sense. In the current world it would be another way for the USA to abuse and exploit the rest of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so Max will still be (half) a billionaire once she grows up.
She'll be way richer than that. They'll donate 99% of their shares along their lifetimes. In the meantime, they'll get cash in several ways: dividends, salaries, bonuses, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is f…
Don't know about the Saudi princes however the Koch Brothers have given away millions of dollars (and I am sure there also give away money anonymously as well). http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp Also rest assured that Facebook also "evades taxes" in the same way that the Koch brothers do, that is by taking advantage of the US Tax Code in a legal way. And none of us have any idea what the Koch Br…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Usually a billionaire giving his fortune away does it out of vanity, out of guilt, for the tax breaks, out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems or last but not least as “legacy” as explained by John Caudwell: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/new-philanthr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're in the US and want to actually make the world better there are ridiculously more efficient ways to do so than handing your money to the government. Tax dollars paid in the US are probably more of a negative force in the world than a positive one when you consider the damage our military and corporate subsidies have done over the last 50 years.
Facebook has oodles of untaxed cash by virtue of the Double Irish, so it could choose any of a number of EU governments to invest charitably in. Not just the USA. I wonder what Greece would think of free cash injections, for example? What could improved infrastructure do for that struggling country?
Okay, 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…
I personally can't stand this sort of thing because it conflates something personal/intimate with a press release, and that's just kinda gross to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man tries to help the world with his money and he's greeted with criticism.
You should not accept such a blatant PR stunt at face value. Why the Rich Give to Charity[1] Some give out of vanity. Some out of guilt. Some for the tax breaks. Some give out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems. Yet perhaps the most powerful and common reason why the rich give is the idea most commonly referred to as “legacy.” would you rather be rem…
if he's really giving 99% of his wealth to charity, and on top of that puts effort into where the money goes and that it's put to good use, why do you care that he's doing that for legacy?
Sometimes, I think people on HN probably think they get points for being the most cynical critic. Can't we just say, "Dude we are happy for you, and thanks for the money." And what happened to the rule about not saying stuff you wouldn't say to a person's face. Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face? Keep it civil people.