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

#151

Post by nerevarthelame » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

chrisabrams wrote: post #108

HiLo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could say the same about your black and white thinking using outdated Chicago/Neoclassic economic theories when applied to aggregate economies, but I digress. I didn't say they were built on the charity of the system, just that they were built using the system. You act like the first 50 employees of your stupid app company aren't taking a risk too. But they get 0.01%, while the founders get...? Fairly early on, you…

No one forced the employees to take 0.01%.

No "one" person did. But their circumstances certainly encouraged it. By that, I mean that if a person has a baby on the way, mountains of debt from school, an overdue rent payment, and no health insurance, then he or she may be forced to take a paltry salary. But hey, it's better than debtors prison or death, right? So let's call that social justice. Particularly with the absence of unions in many American industries and the overall inefficiencies present in the labor market, many individuals are not in a position where they can negotiate a wage that is worthy of the quality of work they provide.

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

#152

Post by Retra » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

shaftoe wrote: post #118

learc83 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual…

The worst argument in the world: http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html

"Feudalism is bad, so anything that can be vaguely compared to it must also be bad."

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

#153

Post by jeffdavis » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #86

jeffdavis wrote: post #61

The trade is this: if you made $100 and your marginal tax rate is 20%, you can either (a) let the government spend $20 however it sees fit and you spend $80 however you see fit (which may be an $80 bottle of wine); or (b) you spend $100 on any charitable cause you see fit (which must meet certain requirements). That doesn't seem like a bad trade to me, especially since rich people have fairly low marginal tax rates.

And that’s how the US ends up with horrible roads, transit quality going down, and so on.

The roads are pretty good around my area. Maybe that's because I voted for a small local tax increase for that purpose.

Assuming your correct, it probably has a lot of other contributing factors. The federal government gets by far the largest share of tax revenue, but a lot of transportation issues are felt more at the state and local level.

I doubt transportation problems are due to a lack of federal tax revenue. Keep in mind most governments in the world are smaller than a big US state. Incentives and priorities get distorted a lot when you have one entity responsible for trillions of dollars of annual expenditures.

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

#154

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #83

marknutter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting This thinking is so poisonous and destructive and pervasive that I'm starting to wonder if it is either due to some natural law of human nature or some grand conspiracy to destroy modern society. Businesses are not built on the charity of…

I could say the same about your black and white thinking using outdated Chicago/Neoclassic economic theories when applied to aggregate economies, but I digress. I didn't say they were built on the charity of the system, just that they were built using the system. You act like the first 50 employees of your stupid app company aren't taking a risk too. But they get 0.01%, while the founders get...? Fairly early on, you…

they were built using the system

The system was built for us all to use.

You could argue that they owe a moral debt to the rest of us ("give back"), but they are filling that in the form charitable works. Much like how I chose to give back with volunteer works, instead of just paying more taxes.

I don't think you can claim the rest of us actually have license to their gains, just because they built their empire on top of the very same system the rest of us are also leveraging. Unless you want to claim everyone has license to all your gains too.

Besides, the reason we build roads and such is because we benefit from the thriving economy that is built on top of them. It's not just about "I want a road for me to drive on". We build them to be used, and to reap the greater social benefit of their use.

Now, if Mr. Billionaire was squandering the system for personal gain (example: horribly inefficient bitcoin mining with CPUs when the government is paying the electricity) that would be a different story.

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

#155

Post by dibujante » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

shaftoe wrote: post #118

learc83 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual…

Feudalism, noun: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.

The state has a right to a fixed share of its subjects' income due to the contractually agreed-upon system of taxation. This is what that whole "no taxation without representation" slogan was about.

Your connection of representative government to feudalism is puzzling. Are you a libertarian?

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

#156

Post by saosebastiao » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #36

bmmayer1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen" This assumes the money in question belongs to the state to begin with, and we're merely deciding how it is to be allocated. That is not the case. This is not the rich deciding what to do with the public money, it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money. I think we would all agree, regardless of level of income, we…

"it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money." No, I wouldn't agree on that at all. That runs entirely counterproductive to what our society is built on. This is the arrogance people talk about - you think you know what is better for people than they do.

Actually, it is, at least using your own arguments. The money in this case actually does belong to the billionaire. He earned it under the legal environment decided by our democratically chosen government. And he gets to keep what the democratically chosen government decided is his to keep. And he gets to choose how to spend it, because the democratically chosen government has decided to afford him that freedom.

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

#157

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #120

dragonwriter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, the Treasury funds itself by issuing bonds to the dealer banks or the Fed, where its account is then credited Its ability to sell bonds is controlled by the markets perception of its ability to pay those bonds, which is tied to a number of factors including, inter alia , its perceived ability, willingness, and track record of revenue sources with which to pay them. People paying less taxes directly effect…

Again, not true. The Federal Reserve can step in and buy bonds at any point, giving Treasury the ability to pay. >revenue sources with which to pay them Can you show me where Treasury says fiscal outlays are funded by tax receipts, or solely through payments from primary dealers? The government doesn't work like a business in this case.

> The Federal Reserve can step in and buy bonds at any point

It may be the case that it theoretically is authorized to do so (though it does not in practice), but if so it would do so in support of the goals its employment/inflation related goals, not to finance the debt. In fact, the whole reason for having an independent (of the entities setting and executing fiscal policy) central bank is to reassure users of currency and investors in government debt that fiscal concerns will not drive monetary policy.

> Can you show me where Treasury says fiscal outlays are funded by tax receipts, or solely through payments from primary dealers?

I can show you where the Fed says that they don't purchase directly from the Treasury, and that their purchases are tied directly to their mandates regarding employment and inflation targets, not supporting Treasury's fiscal needs. [0]

> The government doesn't work like a business in this case.

The government may seem not to work like most businesses because its debt is perceived as risk-free, which gives it seemingly limitless ability to borrow money at extremely low rates, which makes it possible to make spending decisions with little short-term regard for balance with revenues; but the perception of lack of risk in government debt is driven by the underlying perception that the government has, and is willing to use to the extent necessary, the power to tax assets and income subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the perception of the size of those current assets and expected income.

[0] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-does-the-federal-rese...

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

#158

Post by mmaunder » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

I'm curious why this dropped completely off the home page? Do posts get nixed by mods? If so, why this one? [I don't really care, just curious about the HN moderation process]

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

#159

Post by thatswrong0 » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:19 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #89

jstalin wrote: post #53

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

Voters should decide how taxes are spent, not billionaires who evade taxes.

Tax avoidance =/= tax evasion. One is legal, one is not.

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

#160

Post by bmelton » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:19 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?

> wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires

Sure. If you want your money to go to the causes that everybody else supports, then absolutely, you should give more money to the government.

However, if you want the money to go to underfunded fields, or areas in which the government doesn't support at all, then you're left with making contributions to non-governmental charities or organizations.

I regularly donate to the EFF, ACLU, SAF, CBLDF, and St. Jude, Habitat for Humanity, among others. Of that list, only St. Jude and Habitat could be arguably better spent through direct taxation. It's possible that the government does more for children's cancer and housing the homeless than those charities do -- it is not possible that the government does a better job of acting as a watchdog agency for the government than the EFF, ACLU, SAF or CBLDF.

Beyond that, when I donate directly, I get the satisfaction of knowing that none of the money given goes towards causes I do not support, like war-making, privacy violations, etc.