81–90 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bad thing about it is that you have a single person dictating how a large portion of economic activity is carried out. Very anti-democratic, and my intuition would say very inefficient.
Well, anti-democratic and efficiency go hand in hand. For better or worse.
I don't think I've seen a single positive statement about Zuckerberg's foundation. It would have been 100% fully within his right to simply keep it all, or blow his fortune on snorting Fabergé eggs, or buying classic cars and crashing them. Instead, he's giving almost all of it away. He's choosing to retain control over how it's given away? Well so what! It's still way better than keeping it all. I am no fan of Faceb…
You're right that it is fully within his right to keep it, but then he would have had to do things like pay taxes on it. By doing this he can avoid estate tax and keep the power within his family or inner circle. He can be left to pursue his worldview without interruption.
I'm sure he'll do some great things with his foundation, and others I'll completely disagree with, but the point is it moves us further down this road of oligarchy and reliance on the extremely wealthy.
EDIT: Just wanted to add an example. The Gates foundation put something like $200 million towards Common Core education standards, which was rapidly pushed through and adopted after their funding. Regardless of whether you are for or against it, it goes to show that one extremely wealthy foundation was able to completely change national education policy in less than a decade to reflect their singular worldview. That to me is unacceptable in a democratic society.
By putting money in the LLC he can avoid estate taxes and still give his family control if he wants. >To sum up, his money is not going to a charity, but to his own LLC, which will let him evade tax by moving his private assets into a foundation. >Unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including…
I don't see how this is a problem. He's following the law and organizing his affairs to retain control of the money he earned. You aren't less of a citizen because you try to not pay more tax than you owe. The exemptions for certain types of income are put there because the legislature wants to promote certain activities as beneficial to the public good. Charitable Remainder Trusts are one of those things written int…
That is true for some values of "citizen" and "owe", but not others. If you're using the strict definitions of the laws, it's technically true. If by citizen you mean something like, "participant in a community of place" and by "owe" you mean "should fairly pay" then it's also true. But when you mix those, it can easily be false. Being a citizen in that sense is about full participation in the community, and paying is part of that.
This matters because of your next mistake:
> The exemptions for certain types of income are put there because the legislature wants to promote certain activities as beneficial to the public good.
This is manifestly not how laws get made in the US. Many studies indicate that US legislators are much more sensitive to the concerns of the rich than they are to anybody else. And abstract conceptions of "the public good" don't vote, so they're definitely not sensitive to those.
> If you think so, then donate 100% of your income to the government and live on public assistance.
This is just fatuous. You're arguing with a particularly dumb straw man here. Tax policy is about finding fair ways to pay for collective action and to shape society over the long term. Believing that should work well is not equivalent to your absurd belief that anybody advocating for reasonable tax policy is in favor of the world's dumbest communism.
Can we all just reserve judgement until Zuckerberg does something with the money? I'm hoping he'll be able to do something along the lines of what Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have done/are doing.
When he actually does something with the money, I'm sure they'll talk about it, so we can talk about it again then.
I don't think I've seen a single positive statement about Zuckerberg's foundation. It would have been 100% fully within his right to simply keep it all, or blow his fortune on snorting Fabergé eggs, or buying classic cars and crashing them. Instead, he's giving almost all of it away. He's choosing to retain control over how it's given away? Well so what! It's still way better than keeping it all. I am no fan of Faceb…
People are upset because it feels like another step in the shift of power from a democratically elected state to the oligarchs. You're right that it is fully within his right to keep it, but then he would have had to do things like pay taxes on it. By doing this he can avoid estate tax and keep the power within his family or inner circle. He can be left to pursue his worldview without interruption. I'm sure he'll do…
Its sad to see how these comments are going focus on this being a tax dodge. He is doing SOMETHING with 99% of his money for the greater good.
Well, he has talked about doing something with his money that he thinks is for the greater good.
I think it's reasonable to question the talk vs action part. And I think it's very worth asking whether his idea of the public good is the same as everybody else's.
If anything, this transaction will actually result in more taxes being levied than if he had transferred it to a foundation. There still will be capital gains tax when the LLC sells Facebook shares. It will pay income tax on any dividends. Any investments it makes will similarly be treated. There will be no estate tax dodge. The LLC will be valued at the value of its assets at the death of the last spouse and estate…
Really, a non-tax-exempt entity (whether LLC, corporation, or any other organizational structure) makes sense to coordinate philanthropic activities if you want to have flexibility that a 501(c)(3) wouldn't have and, since the funds are all coming from you, you don't need the incentive to donors that the tax-deductibility of donations to a 501(c)(3) would provide. If its a disregarded entity for tax purposes (which it can be with a sole owner or, IIRC, co-owners who are a married couple who file jointly), then anything the LLC donates to a 501(c)(3) has the same effect on the taxpayers liability as if the taxpayer had donated directly to the 501(c)(3). The same person could even establish one or more 501(c)(3) entities -- again, of any organizational structure, including LLCs -- through which to which the non-exempt LLC would donate funds for purposes that are within the scope of what is permitted for a 501(c)(3).
I don't think I've seen a single positive statement about Zuckerberg's foundation. It would have been 100% fully within his right to simply keep it all, or blow his fortune on snorting Fabergé eggs, or buying classic cars and crashing them. Instead, he's giving almost all of it away. He's choosing to retain control over how it's given away? Well so what! It's still way better than keeping it all. I am no fan of Faceb…
People are upset because it feels like another step in the shift of power from a democratically elected state to the oligarchs. You're right that it is fully within his right to keep it, but then he would have had to do things like pay taxes on it. By doing this he can avoid estate tax and keep the power within his family or inner circle. He can be left to pursue his worldview without interruption. I'm sure he'll do…
A LLC also has the advantage of being structured by a custom operating agreement, that can allow the members to cover all kinds of different scenarios to insure their vision is executed they way they intend.