Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#51

Post by pnut » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

lloyddobbler wrote: post #15

> I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual? Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands…

501c4s, aka SuperPACs are nonprofit "charitable" organizations.

It's not like the government confiscates 100% of wealthy people's money as soon as they try to do good, it just taxes it like it does for mere mortals, whenever it changes hands. Using a legal construct to avoid personal tax liability, is quite literally depriving the government of funds it would otherwise be entitled to.

I think both sides of this debate have legitimate viewpoints, but I personally have a problem with the excessive opportunities given to the wealthy to avoid contributing to the funding of our shared system of governance and infrastructure.

Historically, they've never had it this good both tax-wise and income-wise, and to cry victim is in poor taste.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#52

Post by maxmzd_ » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #33

thomnottom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.

While that is true, and a problem, it doesn't make the point of the article any less valid. If anything, you are agreeing with it now.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#53

Post by jstalin » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

Politicians should decide how your money is spent, not you.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#54

Post by username223 » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #33

thomnottom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.

Congressmen are mostly rich people rented by richer ones, but a small amount of plebian influence is surely better than none at all if you're into that whole "democracy" thing.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#55

Post by HiLo » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #44

HiLo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?

I upvoted you, but disagree with your assessment. > wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen In a word: no. Although the state spends some money on things that aren't abhorrent - broken clock politics as it were - it also spends money killing, torturing, and imprisoning people. So I think it's a very defensible moral stand to give the state as little money as possible.

Private companies used to spend money killing, torturing, imprisoning, exploiting, robbing, and oppressing people, until the public stopped them through the means available to them in government. And you're saying this is a bad thing, and the power should mostly rest with private companies? At least with the government, the people staffing the bureaucracies and agencies don't have their (non-existent) bonus tied to how hard they fucked a customer over.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#56

Post by Afforess » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #43

Afforess wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure it doesn't. Feel free to provide quotes / evidence if you disagree.

Does that discussion of his $100 million donation simply not count in your book? Did it not show up in your browser?

It's not relevant because their current pledge is significantly different in how it is managed (previous was a 503c charitable contribution, current is an LLC-based corporation that will have stricter control over allocation of funds).

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#57

Post by marknutter » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #29

Afforess wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a d…

"The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure." Asking for a quote misses the point. Look into it yourself and the first link is Where Zuckerberg's $100 million gift went wrong http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million...

Government efforts never fail, on the other hand.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#58

Post by krisroadruck » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #9

jey wrote: post #3

This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?

You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?

Billionaires ARE democratically chosen. Think that all the way through. What is more democratic than direct voting with ones dollars? Politicians in the US are actually not all that democratically chosen. The individual vote accounts for almost nothing. Look into how the electoral college system works for example. There are 2 great ways to learn a bit more about this, one in the form of an Adam Ruins Everything episode on voting, and the other in the form of this video by Cenk of TYT network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcc0Q_6pZYU

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#59

Post by learc83 » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

lloyddobbler wrote: post #45

guntars wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is that it's the government (or rather the people) that's subsidizing the charitable work of the billionaires via tax breaks, but giving up any say in how the money is used.

If the money always belonged to the state, and the state simply allows its constituents to keep some of the money they earn, your logic stands. But if the money ever belonged to the individual, then the public cannot "subsidize" the individual keeping what he/she earned. Put another way: if I walk up to someone on the street and forcibly take their money - and if that wasn't mine to begin with - most people would cal…

The taxation as theft argument implies that you believe that society (through the state) isn't entitled to a share of your money as payment for providing the system that allows you to become rich in the first place.

Without the infrastructure provided by society as a whole, no large business would be possible.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#60

Post by arasmussen » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

I personally trust Mark Zuckerberg more then I trust our government with the money. I think it will go a lot farther. I wouldn't say that about every billionaire though.