Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#191

Post by mortenjorck »

ladon86 wrote: post #92
Jun8 wrote: post #42

AFAIK, Jobs has still not committed.

From his Playboy interview, aged 29: Playboy: What does the money actually mean to you? Jobs: I still don't understand it. It's a large responsibility to have more than you can spend in your lifetime--and I feel I have to spend it. If you die, you certainly don't want to leave a large amount to your children. It will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the Government. Almost everyone…

Fascinating. Knowing Jobs' penchant for secrecy, the Steven P. Jobs Foundation could well exist today, only as a collection of charitable organizations under various names.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#192

Post by stretchwithme »

redrobot5050 wrote: post #186
stretchwithme wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, I prefer people be demonized for their crimes, not for what they have.

"Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can't buy enough to eat." --Will Rogers People demonize the wealthy because they see people acting selfishly and it creating, or at least ignoring, the basic injustices of the world. If I had fallen down, would you not ask me if I was okay? Would you not offer to help me up? Transforming Facebook from a website to a profitable business is a great busin…

fortunately, most wealth is invested in ventures that hire people.

The economic disasters that impoverish so many are not caused by the rich who've worked to create their wealth but by those who mismanage economies and abuse others to benefit themselves and their friends. These thieves are rich to be sure, but a distinction should be made between the two groups.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#193

Post by [deleted] »

nickpinkston wrote: post #169
jswinghammer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#194

Post by bertil »

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…

Most people who are richer became so because they employed others. They wealth did not just come from their talent, but the quality of the education that the government helped these workers obtain, the fact that they could arrive safety to work; they wouldn't be so rich if no fire brigade stopped the stocks from burning to the ground — that's the reason why wealthier people should be more taxed.

My initial answer was about resentment, not tax rates. You strike me as a libertarian: Everyone is free of their opinion, so who are you criticizing them for being jealous? ;) No, seriously: some people, often not those who made their fortune by being nice to their clients, but their self-entitled heir, behave like pricks. I see it all the time when I go to fancy restaurants, and it actually bothers me.

From anecdotal declaration from wealthy individuals, I'm assuming the original entrepreneur would prefer that their children behave, because they know the importance of being nice, but until recently, social rules have prevent them from disenfranchising them. Before Warren Buffet set an acceptable voluntary roof for inheritance, forcing heirs to behave was a social conundrum, resolved by guilt.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#195

Post by bertil »

stretchwithme wrote: post #164
dpatru wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure no one has argued against the right for anyone to work for two centuries. (There were laws against that before.)

What is discussed is what kind of property rules make society better, just like for copyright: absolutes don't work so well. Even if a man should be able to “do what he pleases” with his money, he can't buy nuclear warheads, or his last competitors. In some context, letting one person owns too much can be damaging; whether its his responsibility to do good, or society's role to enforce better ownership should depend on the cultural context and innovation. The economists who lead the study of how those interact won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008. Liberal property rights like what you advocate works best in extensive context like the original rural USA; within cities, evergetic rules seem preferable; when there are decisive, irreplaceable common goods like irrigation or seaport, more inclusive system, that let a community influence individual decisions are preferable.

You need to make sense of the context that gave you the values that you care about, otherwise you end up either defending inappropriate non-sense, and forcing it onto others (case in point: Acta) or, lost (like all my fellow countrymen who wonder why our national anthem is so hateful).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#196

Post by bertil »

quadhome wrote: post #140
bertil wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Governments are typically terrible financial stewards Well, no: many governments are far more responsible than most individuals. That's not true in counties were everyone criticize the government as strongly as you do in the United States, but in countries where government positions are prestigious, the most talented people work there. As recently demonstrated, financial incentives are no where as efficient as job…

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

Some countries value what you can't buy. Peerage works well in the UK, and is rather cheap. In France, the possibility to spend a career working in central historical buildings makes the best minds cram for decades.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#197

Post by nickpinkston »

nickpinkston wrote: post #137
ramanujan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

BTW: This sub-comment thread is a testament to how good HN still is at bringing together reasonable/thoughtful people - thanks guys.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#198

Post by bertil »

nhangen wrote: post #161
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.

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.

If I recall correctly, Gates was disdained first, when he wasn't so rich, and because he went against the doxa of the time that was that code was a fun thing to do (see Dan Ariely's work on introducing commercial elements in social pursuits) ; most actually had no idea what he wanted to do, and those who did knew he sold an OS that he didn't write himself. Now that his work is behind him and he is left with just his fortune, his popularity seems to have raised.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#199

Post by bertil »

rfrey wrote: post #135
bertil wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. The charity costs include publicity and fundraising drives. To make apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to include the cost of the IRS infrastructure and the cost to society of the entire tax collection and avoidance machine. Government handles essential concerns That this is not self-evident i…

> include the cost of the IRS infrastructure

Nope: what matters is marginal costs and raising rates isn't nearly as expensive and cash-burning as “awareness” campaign.

> whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven

That statement appears self-contradictory to me. Lobbies introduce market concerns to a generally one-man-one-vote representative democratic process.

My point about Africa is not about who should be labelled a leader or a government: it is that development doesn't need just money, it needs institutions, education, trust… Things that take time; things with massive externalities. Throwing billions like fastballs won't help anyone from benefitting from those. Do you think that William Kamkwamba (the heavily publicized boy who couldn't go to school, yet made a windmill himself) needs 10k$ or 100M$, or does he need roads, electricity, running water to his village? Of all the hundreds of charities that offered to help him, none suggested infrastructure. Local government are deeply corrupted, but all state-sponsored projects seem far more relevant for me, albeit less photogenic.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#200

Post by jacques_chester »

russell_h wrote: post #162
DevX101 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it hasn't already been tried, the IRS would tie it up in litigation for so long that the principal would be consumed by legal fees.
Post reply on HN