Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#161

Post by nhangen » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 3:59 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.

I disagree. The rich are often demonized, at least to the extent that the non-rich feel the rich have an obligation to give their wealth away in order to subsidize the less fortunate. Those that don't, like Gates in his early career, were often treated with disdain.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#162

Post by russell_h » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:11 PM UTC

DevX101 wrote: post #154

ramanujan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

For more details on WHY the life insurance lobbies aggressively to support the estate tax, see this link from ramanujan's article: http://www.nodeathtax.org/uploads/view/2313/life_insurance_b... Excerpt: "Life insurance is the most basic tool for estate planning. Put simply, inheritance is subject to the estate tax, while life insurance benefits are untaxed. This drives up the demand for life insurance, thus driving…

Is there anything to stop a person from investing their estate in a company whose sole purpose is to insure their life?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#163

Post by cellshade » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:12 PM UTC

Benjo wrote: post #148

quadhome wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a country where government positions are prestigious for reasons other than they're an opportunity to participate in bribery and corruption? (Switzerland?)

From what I understand, the government of Singapore keeps corruption low just by paying their officials a lot. The president makes about $3 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapore It may just be an anecdote but it seems like a reasonable system to me. EDIT: had the wrong dollar amount.

That wikipedia page says about 3 million, not 300 million.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#164

Post by stretchwithme » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:14 PM UTC

dpatru wrote: post #139

bertil wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as wealth is earned without coercion by providing goods and services to others, why should you care if someone is using their wealth to "feel superior"? What moral justification is there to take away (through taxes or otherwise) the wealth of someone who has earned it through voluntary exchange? If you choose to work harder than me in providing things of value to others and you grow richer than me as a result…

absolutely. you have the right to the work of your own hands and mind. Your rights don't evaporate just because of a show of hands.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#165

Post by dualogy » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:22 PM UTC

Benjo wrote: post #148

quadhome wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a country where government positions are prestigious for reasons other than they're an opportunity to participate in bribery and corruption? (Switzerland?)

From what I understand, the government of Singapore keeps corruption low just by paying their officials a lot. The president makes about $3 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapore It may just be an anecdote but it seems like a reasonable system to me. EDIT: had the wrong dollar amount.

Germany had the same "strategy". I'm not sure pre-emptively bribing every official up-front really solves the "cost" issue to Joe Sixpack. Corruption might be more affordable in the end...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#166

Post by Benjo » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:26 PM UTC

cellshade wrote: post #163

Benjo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, the government of Singapore keeps corruption low just by paying their officials a lot. The president makes about $3 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapore It may just be an anecdote but it seems like a reasonable system to me. EDIT: had the wrong dollar amount.

That wikipedia page says about 3 million, not 300 million.

My mistake: fixed.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#167

Post by Elepsis » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:28 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #58

mquander wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not a fair question. What does this even mean? If you really think you know anything at all about how Bill Gates should spend his time and money, feel free to go ahead and actually say what you think he should be spending it on, instead of mouthing platitudes about "bigger ideas" and "investing in himself."

I don't know how he should spend his time, nor do I claim to. Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world. I also worry about the overall risklessness of what he's doing. He's pledged all of his money, so who can criticize it? For most people it's beyond reproach just because of the sta…

It seems like some of the responses here are missing the point. Sure, we get to play Angry Birds the whole way on a flight to Australia. But countless people in areas where electricity is still hard to come by suddenly gain the ability to use cell phones and computers, while only needing to charge them infrequently.

Given the impact of mobile devices we've seen in Africa so far, this sort of innovation would have a huge impact.

That said, I don't agree that Bill Gates is necessarily the best person to go solve this problem, nor that this would be an obviously more optimal area for him to invest in than those he's chosen so far.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#168

Post by glhaynes » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:28 PM UTC

code_duck wrote: post #94

I find it odd how people such as Gates and Zuckerberg obsessively stomp down their competition through any means possible, and then turn around and grandiosely pledge to give away their gains.

Many consider it to be the job of the businessperson to do everything they can to help their business' success within the legal framework it exists in. As long as that legal framework is democratically constructed, I don't see any reason to think of that as immoral, so I don't really see any contradiction there.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#169

Post by nickpinkston » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 4:55 PM UTC

jswinghammer wrote: post #156

nickpinkston wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most railroad expansion was due to a govt act giving tons of land rights and other highly valuable privileges to anyone laying track in the territories - the TransContinental railroad was laid this way. However, quite true on the rest.

A private company did it the honest way and laid a more efficient track. The government paid per mile of track laid which you can imagine can go wrong all kinds of ways.

A very good point - though as a counter the plank-road mania of the early 1800's was a fully private sector road bubble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_road

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#170

Post by burgerbrain » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 5:01 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #118

burgerbrain wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the concept of hightech startups, most of the people we are discussing would never have their fortunes to give away.

Just as well no one's proposing to do away with the concept of hightech startups, then.

Valuing those who give to charity more than those who start businesses is like eating your only chicken then wondering why you don't have any more eggs.