Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

Post by patrickk » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 1:14 PM UTC

quizbiz wrote: post #70

How much liquid wealth does Mark actually have? Isn't the vast majority of it purely theoretical based on Facebook equity purchases?

Post by waterlesscloud » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 1:24 PM UTC

ramanujan wrote: post #124

sshumaker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue one of the points of estate taxes (which are heavily favored by Buffet, Gates, et. al) is to encourage you to will your fortunes to philanthropy - so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.

The biggest lobbies for increased estate taxes are life insurance companies: http://blogs.forbes.com/hanisarji/2010/12/01/life-insurance-... “The estate tax is a cash cow for the life insurance industry – and the industry’s lobbyists guard it zealously...[o]nly three industries – pharmaceuticals, electric utilities, and oil and gas – spent more over the same period.”

Post by rfrey » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 1:35 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #125

lionhearted wrote: post #63

Fantastic. I wonder if all these very public proclamations are going to shift people's attitude towards taxes? Most people think of the government as wasteful, inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt to more or less degrees, and I know I'd prefer to see money allocated by smart people like Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg than by politicians who need to keep constituents happy and win votes. I committed a while back to giving…

Although some isolated initiative are great (Zuckerberg's pledge to education is presumably very much needed) most private charities are more expensive to manage and often counter-productive. Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. Government handles essential concerns, permanent efforts, infrastructure investment, etc. while many priva…

Post by nickpinkston » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 1:43 PM UTC

ramanujan wrote: post #123

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it takes the government (or someone funded by them) to come up with novel solutions for the maladies that have plagued humanity. Norman Borlaug for famine, Jonas Salk for Polio, the research into Avian influenza and H1N1 pandemics, space exploration, etc. have all been either spearheaded, guided or financially encouraged by government agencies. These are areas which charities (and corporations, for that mat…

> Sometimes it takes the government Hmmm. Not disagreeing that some things funded by government grants have been worthwhile, but almost every scientific discovery before the WW2 period was funded independently of the government -- including big ticket areas involving fundamental research like automobiles, railroads, and aviation.

Post by dpatru » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 1:49 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #128

stretchwithme wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all the benefits delivered to mankind by the efforts of the innovators hasn't stopped the demonization of the rich. giving away what they've been paid to deliver those benefits probably won't either.

Rich are not demonized. People who use their wealth to feel superior and annoy others, who are wealthy enough to set up tax-evasion scheme, who behave as if they can pay to be above the law are demonized.