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

#11

Post by radicalbyte » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

The problem with the American system isn't the culture of direct donations from private individuals. The problem is that too few people have the means to give: it's the distribution of wealth.

A culture where private people donate is really attractive. I know that I get a lot of joy when I help people out - I donate regularly to the causes I feel important (mainly Africa, as a Brit living in Netherlands I figure I owe them). As the article says, it improves social cohesion.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society where "everyone" enjoyed the gift of giving?

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

#12

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#13

Post by jobu » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

Agreed. The article boils down to this:

Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires."

It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.

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

#14

Post by thomnottom » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. 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. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

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

#15

Post by lloyddobbler » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

> 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 of jobs for families and individuals, and made a fortune, why should the state be the one who decides what happens with your money? Why should the state have more of a right to decide which causes get your charitable donations than you do?

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

#16

Post by HiLo » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #8

HiLo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I mean if you read all of it, it talks about the nuance in a lot of detail.

No, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a d…

What are you talking about? It has much more than that?

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

#17

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

Anyone who thinks that the federal government will spend money better than a charity is free to give it to the IRS. They accept donation. But no one believes this is a good idea, as evidenced by the fact that such donations are many orders of magnitude less than Americans donate to charity.

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

#18

Post by oblio » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

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?

The political environment is always toxic and insane :)

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

#19

Post by HiLo » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

jobu wrote: post #13

Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

Agreed. The article boils down to this: Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires." It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.

No, it's a difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the power, as the quote said.

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

#20

Post by steveklabnik » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

snorrah wrote: post #7

Article suggests the Chan Zuckerberg initiative is non-profit, but I'm reading from multiple other sources that is definitely not the case. Not sure who's right, but if it's not WaPo, then that's some terrible fact checking and kinda invalidates the whole article. Edit - Chan Zuckerberg is a for profit, that will fund non profits, so WaPo is actually incorrect.

I don't think that level of detail is publicly available yet. And even non-profits start out as an LLC, and then gain that designation, so that _could_ be what's happening here.