Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is naive. Incentives matter. No matter how much you try to ethically spin it, actors generally perceive taxation as adversarial. Any country implementing a tax policy is fully aware of the risks they take from noncompliance and avoidance. (Avoiding or resisting taxes is also not always a purely self-interested endeavor. It's a tried and true political protest technique.)
its naive to think that a bullet proof tax code can be written, at least based on history. at some point people need to be accountable for their actions, and not given a pass just because they can avoid breaking the law. its fine if you disagree about where that point is.
Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
61–70 of 70 posts
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
its naive to think that a bullet proof tax code can be written, at least based on history. at some point people need to be accountable for their actions, and not given a pass just because they can avoid breaking the law. its fine if you disagree about where that point is.
You have the causal chain backwards. It is the initiator of an action who must plan their decisions to reach an optimal end. It is not the fault of a consumer for refusing to engage in a given exchange with a producer. It is the producer who must make their offers palatable. In the same way, the government, being the one levying the tax, is the entity which ultimately bears the burden of structuring its tax policy to…
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad you're making an effort to understand the criticism, but unfortunately you need to spend more time doing so. 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 a…
My understanding is that the founding of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has no tax implications at all. The only way that tax would be avoided is if the foundation sells some Facebook stock and donates the proceeds to accredited non-profits in the same year. But the exact same deductions would apply if the Chan-Zuckerberg family donated directly.
I'm not accusing him of illegal tax evasion. I'm accusing him, and Facebook, of legally not paying taxes. That it's legal, though, is of little consolation. Remember that it was legal to send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus, at the time. The criticism is directly that its legality is a poor veil and its morality open to debate.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#64The 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…
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power. An amount that an individual shouldn't have in the first place. And this particular individual doesn't have a particularly good track record. 1) For example, 'investing' in education may boost the private education system at the further detriment of the public one - long term this could be worse for accessibility of the poor to good education…
> The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power. It might feel that way. What Gates Foundation does, or what Elon Musk does (not charity, but hitting the market with a stick until it gives up and moves where he wants it to), feels like an exercise of power. It feels undemocratic. It feels good . There are problems in this world - some of the biggest and most important problems, like clima…
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power. An amount that an individual shouldn't have in the first place. And this particular individual doesn't have a particularly good track record. 1) For example, 'investing' in education may boost the private education system at the further detriment of the public one - long term this could be worse for accessibility of the poor to good education…
I'd rather the public decides which propaganda our young generation's minds get poisoned with rather than a billionaire with uncertain motivations. How are the public's motivations exempt from uncertainty? (This is a false dilemma, anyway. The educational prospects of the poor in public schools are already bad, regardless of any action undertaken by Zuckerberg. I also find your implication that private school investm…
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#67I have three problems with the original press release and what it entails. 1 = It comes across as the most epic humble brag of all time. The short form of the release is simply 'Look how great I am for making 10's of billions and how amazing I am for giving most of it to charity. Hell I will only leave a handful of billions for myself to live off.' 2 = He should not be trying to get credit for something he has not ac…
The Jobses donated anonymously to charity for years and all we ever heard about was how Steve Jobs was an asshole because, unlike Bill Gates, he wasn't a philanthropist.
Contrariwise, Bill Gates gave billions of dollars to charity, but only his own charity named the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" of which he is the full time co-chair, and uses his celebrity to popularize their work.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#68Here'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 a different idea: 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. > a…
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#69The 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…
The difference, of course, as you note is that she is either "dedicating" or has "dedicated" 99% of her life while Zuckerberg's claim is for the future. That combined with other factors (as you state -their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.), seems to explain the criticism.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#70I have three problems with the original press release and what it entails. 1 = It comes across as the most epic humble brag of all time. The short form of the release is simply 'Look how great I am for making 10's of billions and how amazing I am for giving most of it to charity. Hell I will only leave a handful of billions for myself to live off.' 2 = He should not be trying to get credit for something he has not ac…
> Maybe this is more of cultural issue but it is the height of uncouth behaviour to boast about your charity work. The first we hear about your charity work should be many years in the future when it is exposed that you have given billions to good causes. Deriving even the smallest credit for charity giving only diminishes the giving. The Jobses donated anonymously to charity for years and all we ever heard about was…
Whoever you heard that from was probably not worth listening to, though.