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

#161

Post by saint_fiasco » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:20 PM UTC

thomnottom wrote: post #115

Afforess wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You are correct in that the current state of US politics almost makes it the same thing. However it is possible that the US electorate could fix that problem over time.

Is that more difficult or less difficult than convincing people to stop using Zuckerberg's products?

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

#162

Post by kuschku » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:21 PM UTC

pyvpx wrote: post #121

kuschku wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll just let you know that without the money spent by the German government you wouldn’t have mp3, or AAC. You wouldn’t have most of modern technology, nor would you have Wendelstein 7-X. You wouldn’t have DHL or T-Mobile. Sure, they waste lots of money (BER, S21, Elbphilharmonie), but still they manage it better than the private sector ever could. The top politicians earn less than the managers of any company at th…

uhh, DHL was started by three folks in California.

And is owned by Deutsche Post nowadays, a German governmental entity.

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

#163

Post by kuschku » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

thatswrong0 wrote: post #159

kuschku wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

One of them is breaking the law, the other is working around it – but the intention is the same.

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

#164

Post by slavik81 » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #133

slavik81 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know many people who work in government. They do their job and they take home their pay. Nothing more. If they became personally invested in the outcome of their work, they'd probably eventually quit, because they have little ability to actually make a difference.

Hey, did you know that's 95% of the private sector, too?

Indeed. Part of the difference is that I can start my own company in which I do have control. I cannot start my own government.

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

#165

Post by bmelton » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #59

lloyddobbler wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you believe that society isn't entitled to a share of your money

No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid.

If the argument is that he isn't paying taxes on the money he never had, that seems a little odd to me, but even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good.

In either scenario, I don't see any way in which Zuckerberg's charitable donations has avoided his obligation to the society which has chosen to prefer charitable giving to taxation.

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

#166

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

pnut wrote: post #51

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 debat…

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

Two major errors in only seven words:

1: 501c4s are not "aka SuperPACs". Some SuperPACs are 501c4s, and some 501c4s are SuperPACs, but the things are neither equivalent (which is what "aka" ["also known as"] means) nor is either a subset of the other; there are 501c4s that are not SuperPACs, and SuperPACs that are not 501c4s (527s are less restricted than 501c4s in operations and historically more common for SuperPACs, 501c4s are adopted by some because, while more restricted in operation, they are able to keep donor lists secret while 527s are required to disclose donor lists.)

2: 501c4s (and 527s, for that matter) are tax-exempt non-profits, but not charities (charities are 501c3s, which in addition to being tax-exempt feature tax-deductibility of donations for donors; non-charity tax-exempt nonprofits do not feature deductibility of donations.)

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

#167

Post by slavik81 » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #139

slavik81 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the details of how money is spent are in the hands of bureaucrats. I trust the guy who wants to use his own money to build a legacy for himself. He has more motivation to get results than a government bureaucrat making decisions about spending someone else's money.

You trust the guy? Well, I don't. How about we vote on it.

Federal elections occur every two years. You've already voted on it.

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

#168

Post by redblacktree » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #107

anon4 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No single man should wield so much power. That's part of the foundation of modern democracy -- we don't want any single person having unchecked power to do as he or she wants. Krämer's solution is the state taking the place of the individual, as intended in the democratic model. Otherwise you have an effective monarchy, with the only difference that power isn't only inherited, but can be acquired via mercantile means…

I don't want the shape of my country to be decided by the whims of a super-rich elite. But this is what inevitably happens in public choice as a state expands. Once you delegate all regulatory rights to a central exogenous body, it will be exploited by elites and a symbiotic relationship will form as the state develops special interests of its own. Hence the need for extensive decentralization, and yes, individualism…

Hurray for federalism!

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

#169

Post by zzalpha » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #111

applecore wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument makes no sense: the people control everything in a democracy, literally, by voting for their representation in government.

How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? That's the point - by being representative with no accountability, there's only the binary ability to hire or fire with no ability to manage.

How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter?

Yeah yeah yeah, being cynical about democracy is cool, blah blah blah.

I suppose you should, what, just burn the motherf*cker down and be done with it, then?

You know, in 50 years the GOP will be able to look back and point to one of their most brilliant victories of all time: actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise.

It's utterly brilliant. "Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.

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

#170

Post by vezzy-fnord » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

redblacktree wrote: post #168

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want the shape of my country to be decided by the whims of a super-rich elite. But this is what inevitably happens in public choice as a state expands. Once you delegate all regulatory rights to a central exogenous body, it will be exploited by elites and a symbiotic relationship will form as the state develops special interests of its own. Hence the need for extensive decentralization, and yes, individualism…

Hurray for federalism!

How does federalism solve the problem?