I guess this wasn't made clear by the way I worded my opinion, but I was insinuating that you could legally pay all you are required to as per United States tax law while socially not paying your fair share.
Great example: my fictional grandmother dies. She leaves me her 250 year old colonial home. Lets say that its worth $300,000.00. Lets say that for one reason or another I want to sell the home and prefer to invest that money in more real estate. I find a duplex that costs $300,000.00 (it could cost more or less, but I am keeping it the same to simplify the example) and I am reasonably certain that I can rent it out and generate a net profit per month. I find a 1031 real estate broker and set up a 1031 tax deferred exchange. Upon selling my fictionally grandmother's home for 300k, I will turn around and buy the duplex for $300. Uncle Sam get $0 in taxes. Zero. I pay the 1031 broker their fees. I paid all that I am legally bound to pay as per all the applicable tax laws in the United States. I have paid my fair share, as you called it. When I want to sell that property and most likely trade up I can keep doing the same thing and deferring the taxes indefinitely. There are further ways to minimize taxes on the rent collected, but that is beyond the scope of this simple example. There are a multitude of books on the subject discussed above and you are welcome to look up the 1031 tax code yourself.
The example above is purely to illustrate that there are in fact ways to minimize your tax burden. So as I said before, it depends.
In any case, I simply offered up an alternative which would enable Mark to keep 100% of his shares while still abiding by US tax codes. It appears you missed that point or were so obsessed with flaming me as a result of your personal opinion on tax law in the United States to grasp it. And no he doesn't pay the tax man with some else's money, he gives a creditor future cash flows in exchange for cash today to cover his capital gains that are being realized today (and again as I mentioned early only if the interest rate on the loan and his stock position is favorable for him to do so).
>Sorry for the tangent folks. I'm not commenting on Zuck's situation. The comment about not paying taxes all year is just plain wrong, and I would hate for someone to try it and get dinged. This is especially important for the newer startup people that don't have the usual single W-2 situation. That's all
Its unclear what you are referring to here. I am going to go out on a limb that while failing to grasp my own argument you went ahead and tried to insert words in my mouth as well. I never said he would avoid paying taxes all year, once again, he would be paying his taxes today with the loan, according to the analogy I put forward. I am not sure where you get off flaming someone on HN, this is not how to conduct an intelligent conversation here or anywhere else for that matter.
Good day.