31–40 of 70 posts
Here's an idea: Don't allow tax deductions on "charitable" contributions. If, for instance, somebody wants to give $100MM to Central Park, let them do it because they like Central Park that much, rather than because they like it $70MM worth, and the tax payers can cover the other $30MM. Philanthropy is about giving, period. Not giving when it has financial benefits that make it easier at the expense of others.
I think the critics are mostly, maybe at a subconscious level annoyed by the unfairness of Zuckerberg first having a fortunate upbringing / IQ, then making $45bn before turning 30 and then doing saint like stuff. So they try to knock him down which I guess is understandable, and rationalise it in various not totally logical ways which I guess is human nature.
His company, Facebook, is infamous for not paying taxes. (On profits of three billion last year, it paid six thousand dollars in corporate taxes.)
Now, instead of paying taxes on his personal capital gains, he's placing them in an LLC, which he controls, ostensibly to do philanthropic work.
He could avoid all criticism by simply paying his taxes.
Here's an idea: Don't allow tax deductions on "charitable" contributions. If, for instance, somebody wants to give $100MM to Central Park, let them do it because they like Central Park that much, rather than because they like it $70MM worth, and the tax payers can cover the other $30MM. Philanthropy is about giving, period. Not giving when it has financial benefits that make it easier at the expense of others.
Here's an idea: Don't allow tax deductions on "charitable" contributions. If, for instance, somebody wants to give $100MM to Central Park, let them do it because they like Central Park that much, rather than because they like it $70MM worth, and the tax payers can cover the other $30MM. Philanthropy is about giving, period. Not giving when it has financial benefits that make it easier at the expense of others.
Don't judge people's reasons for donating money. I'm happy to accept people's donations, regardless of their reason for giving it, because who am I to judge what they do with their money?
Telling people who are trying to donate money that their money is no good because their intentions are wrong seems like the most effective way to stop everyone donating money in their tracks immediately.
>at the expense of others.
Maybe we're talking about different things here, but how is it that a net $70MM donation is coming at the expense of taxpayers?
I think the critics are mostly, maybe at a subconscious level annoyed by the unfairness of Zuckerberg first having a fortunate upbringing / IQ, then making $45bn before turning 30 and then doing saint like stuff. So they try to knock him down which I guess is understandable, and rationalise it in various not totally logical ways which I guess is human nature.
Here's an idea: Don't allow tax deductions on "charitable" contributions. If, for instance, somebody wants to give $100MM to Central Park, let them do it because they like Central Park that much, rather than because they like it $70MM worth, and the tax payers can cover the other $30MM. Philanthropy is about giving, period. Not giving when it has financial benefits that make it easier at the expense of others.
Assume someone makes 50K and they want to give their entire 50K to charity. Do you think that person should be able to give 50K to charity and not pay tax or only 32.5K (50k x 35% tax rate) and have to pay 17.5K in tax?
Suppose that someone wants to donate their money to their friend, or to Walmart then. Why should they be penalized while somebody person who donates their salary to the Ku Klux Klan (a 501c3 organization) pays no taxes?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "philanthrocapitalism" is a term used to obfuscate the issue of billionaires setting up tax havens in the guise of philanthropy. The term implies that philanthropy can be or is a mode of capitalism, whereas in reality it's the opposite because philanthropy deals with altruistic allocation of resources rather than profit-seeking allocation of resources. Let's not use thi…
Is it at all clear that Zuckerberg is getting any tax benefit from moving his shares? I believe the "foundation", which is not a non-profit, will still pay taxes when it sells FB shares. If the LLC donates to a non-profit then it will get a tax benefit. IANAL, so please someone who is actually informed feel free to correct me. A lot of what I've seen written is completely un-nuanced and probably wrong.
The harsh criticism feels unwarranted to me as well. It honestly feels to me like a little bit of misplaced self insecurity. I kind of get it, but considering that there is no evidence of ill will, I get the sense that people are reacting to something other than what's actually happening here (like their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.) To put this into context, if a yo…
>if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity That is the point. He is not dedicating 99% of his life, he is moving money around. If an average person gives 5% of his income to charity he is losing power and losing opportunities. He is sacrificing his well being and that of his immediate family for charity. If someone with as much money as Zuckerberg or Gates…
This sounds like a twisted, reversed version of Widow's Mite[0], in which the rich guy is being hated for giving a lot of money for good purposes. Yes, the average person (or the poor person) is giving up much more personally. But even the Bible story doesn't deny that the rich guy giving lots of money is doing much more for the cause. If you care about actual effect, as opposed to judging someone's moral state (to which Jesus is entitled, you're not), you should be happy that a rich person can single-handedly give more good than most other donors taken together, and you should encourage more rich people to drop their money, instead of scaring them off.
It's results that matters.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite
Here's an idea: Don't allow tax deductions on "charitable" contributions. If, for instance, somebody wants to give $100MM to Central Park, let them do it because they like Central Park that much, rather than because they like it $70MM worth, and the tax payers can cover the other $30MM. Philanthropy is about giving, period. Not giving when it has financial benefits that make it easier at the expense of others.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to deduct charitable contributions - up to say, 10K per year. There exist people who sit on huge amounts of unrealized capital gains. If they donate 100M in stock, then they can sell 100M in stock without ever paying any taxes whatsoever.
If the limit is $10,000, the middle class and wealthy gain the benefits of directing tax dollars while the underclass remain unrepresented.
I'm a capitalist through and through (you might guess that based on my ideas herein), but giving different people different rules is always a problem.