8 ms·

Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certai

by ucha 11y ago

Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back.

jlarocco 11y ago
> Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. > If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back. I'm not so sure that's true. The ultra-rich actually donate a huge amount of money. Just last July a Saudi Prince announced he was donating over $30 billion to "philanthropic causes". And back in 2012 a bunch of them pledged to give away "half their wealth." And those are just a couple of the bigger examples I found in 2 minutes of web search. Also, I've never heard of anybody volunteering to pay more taxes. Everybody tries to pay less, so it's silly to fault the rich for doing it just because they're saving more in absolute terms. Link 1: http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation/ http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation... Link 2: http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-billionaires-are-giving-half-of-their-wealth-away-123640/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-bi...
- knughit 11y ago
  Unfortunately, alQaeda/Daesh is a philanthropic program in House of Saud's point of view.
fabrice_d 11y ago
While Facebook is not doing everything it can to evade taxation in many countries, right? And let them choose what to do with the money. Why isn't Zuckerberg pledging to drive his company as a good citizen?
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I would call that tax avoidance, not evasion, but no matter. Judge Learned Hand (a real person's name) wrote, "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes." I agree wholeheartedly. I imagine that were I in their shoes, I'd be fairly confident that I could do more good for the world by private philanthropy, directed to causes that I felt compelling, than by fueling general government spending/avarice around the world.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    > I imagine that were I in their shoes, I'd be fairly confident that I could do more good for the world by private philanthropy, directed to causes that I felt compelling, than by fueling general government spending/avarice around the world. I think that is beside the point. These companies are violating the spirit of law, not the letter of the law, when they avoid taxes. Take for example, the recent Pfizer/Allergen merger which happened merely for tax-avoidance reasons. It's legal, but it's totally uncalled for and it's clear to see why: a lot of what Pfizer stands on is from NIH-funded research, it's from us the tax-payers. Pfizer should have played fair by paying back, so NIH can fund even more studies, so that more people are employed, so that academia has more breathing room, etc.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      There are clear interpretations and case law that state that faithful adherence to the letter of the tax law is fine. How is one to interpret the "spirit" of the law when the spirit inferred by one reader is at odds with the text of the law as acted upon by someone else? It's (relatively) easy to show compliance with the letter of the law. It's (essentially) impossible to show compliance with all possible spiritual interpretations thereof. The Internal Revenue Service (of the US) writes: Avoidance of taxes is not a criminal offense. Any attempt to reduce, avoid, minimize, or alleviate taxes by legitimate means is permissible. The distinction between evasion and avoidance is fine yet definite. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent. He shapes events to reduce or eliminate tax liability and upon the happening of the events, makes a complete disclosure. Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are. Did this Dutch company purchase product/services from this Irish company? Did these two companies merge and the surviving company was the non-US company? Did this executive receive stock options on such-and-such date? Those are all relatively easy questions of fact. Should the surviving entity of the merger have been the US company? (According to whom? Or on what basis? To what end? Which benefits the investors the most? What did the shareholders vote to do with their company? Why should someone else judge that what they did was "legal but improper"?) The real issue is simply that the US is relatively uncompetitive as a corporate domicile (on a rates and particularly on a "worldwide income basis") Attempts to patch the system without addressing this root issue are unlikely to succeed in a clean and sustainable fashion, IMO.
Swizec 11y ago
As my mum used to say "It's easy to shit when your butt is full". How hard is it, really, to give away 99% when you're still left with enough to comfortably sustain 5+ lifetimes? Bill Gates said it well here: http://imgur.com/gallery/YDuoHdr http://imgur.com/gallery/YDuoHdr That said, I hope that if I ever get into a position like that, I too will be able to look beyond my personal greed and desire to increase the high score.
- myg204 11y ago
  Good comment by Gates. It's the difference between giving out of your excesses and giving out of your poverty.
- asdfffffg 11y ago
  I want to meet your mum (maybe not shake her hand, though)!
- tertius 11y ago
  "I hope that if I ever get into a position like that, I too will be able to look beyond my personal greed and desire to increase the high score." Are you an American? Well sir, your butt is full and you're keeping it all to yourself. Stolen metaphors aside, you're in the 1% of the world and you can actually make a difference. "How hard is it?" You tell me.
  - Swizec 11y ago
    > Are you an American? Nope. Born in Yugoslavia (communist/socialist), raised in Slovenia (ex-socialist), now in the US for ~8 months. Don't even have my status fully resolved yet. Right now I can barely keep up with rent and building some savings. At current rate it will take me 46,875 years to save up as much as Zuck will have left over after the 99%. Next question?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tertius 11y ago
gist 11y ago
Don't know about the Saudi princes however the Koch Brothers have given away millions of dollars (and I am sure there also give away money anonymously as well). http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp Also rest assured that Facebook also "evades taxes" in the same way that the Koch brothers do, that is by taking advantage of the US Tax Code in a legal way. And none of us have any idea what the Koch Brothers have in their wills and have not publicly announced.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  One of the organizations the Koch brothers fund is FIRE, which is dedicated to free speech on college campuses. It's really hard to find fault in that. I really hate the Manichean judgment common in modern public discourse. Everyone is either a saint or a devil, depending on which side you're on.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    It's really hard to find fault in that. Not that hard. Social justice advocates increasingly view support of free speech as equivalent to defense of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tlrobinson 11y ago
      Which is a little insane given marginalized/minority groups are typically the ones who need freedom of speech the most.
    - EGreg 11y ago
      Yeah, some offshoots of social justice have metastized into fascism. Who gets to decide what censorship will take place in the name of this justice?
- pen2l 11y ago
6stringmerc 11y ago
The more I think about the letter, the more I'm reminded of the poem Ozymandius. Are you familiar with it? The crux of the poem, up for interpretation, is that all empires are led by men of great confidence and eventually they return to dust over time. You know, like MySpace did before Facebook.

by ucha 11y ago

jlarocco 11y ago

> Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. > If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back. I'm not so sure that's true. The ultra-rich actually donate a huge amount of money. Just last July a Saudi Prince announced he was donating over $30 billion to "philanthropic causes". And back in 2012 a bunch of them pledged to give away "half their wealth." And those are just a couple of the bigger examples I found in 2 minutes of web search. Also, I've never heard of anybody volunteering to pay more taxes. Everybody tries to pay less, so it's silly to fault the rich for doing it just because they're saving more in absolute terms. Link 1: http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation/ http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation... Link 2: http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-billionaires-are-giving-half-of-their-wealth-away-123640/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-bi...

knughit 11y ago
Unfortunately, alQaeda/Daesh is a philanthropic program in House of Saud's point of view.

fabrice_d 11y ago

While Facebook is not doing everything it can to evade taxation in many countries, right? And let them choose what to do with the money. Why isn't Zuckerberg pledging to drive his company as a good citizen?

sokoloff 11y ago
I would call that tax avoidance, not evasion, but no matter. Judge Learned Hand (a real person's name) wrote, "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes." I agree wholeheartedly. I imagine that were I in their shoes, I'd be fairly confident that I could do more good for the world by private philanthropy, directed to causes that I felt compelling, than by fueling general government spending/avarice around the world.
- pen2l 11y ago
  > I imagine that were I in their shoes, I'd be fairly confident that I could do more good for the world by private philanthropy, directed to causes that I felt compelling, than by fueling general government spending/avarice around the world. I think that is beside the point. These companies are violating the spirit of law, not the letter of the law, when they avoid taxes. Take for example, the recent Pfizer/Allergen merger which happened merely for tax-avoidance reasons. It's legal, but it's totally uncalled for and it's clear to see why: a lot of what Pfizer stands on is from NIH-funded research, it's from us the tax-payers. Pfizer should have played fair by paying back, so NIH can fund even more studies, so that more people are employed, so that academia has more breathing room, etc.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    There are clear interpretations and case law that state that faithful adherence to the letter of the tax law is fine. How is one to interpret the "spirit" of the law when the spirit inferred by one reader is at odds with the text of the law as acted upon by someone else? It's (relatively) easy to show compliance with the letter of the law. It's (essentially) impossible to show compliance with all possible spiritual interpretations thereof. The Internal Revenue Service (of the US) writes: Avoidance of taxes is not a criminal offense. Any attempt to reduce, avoid, minimize, or alleviate taxes by legitimate means is permissible. The distinction between evasion and avoidance is fine yet definite. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent. He shapes events to reduce or eliminate tax liability and upon the happening of the events, makes a complete disclosure. Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are. Did this Dutch company purchase product/services from this Irish company? Did these two companies merge and the surviving company was the non-US company? Did this executive receive stock options on such-and-such date? Those are all relatively easy questions of fact. Should the surviving entity of the merger have been the US company? (According to whom? Or on what basis? To what end? Which benefits the investors the most? What did the shareholders vote to do with their company? Why should someone else judge that what they did was "legal but improper"?) The real issue is simply that the US is relatively uncompetitive as a corporate domicile (on a rates and particularly on a "worldwide income basis") Attempts to patch the system without addressing this root issue are unlikely to succeed in a clean and sustainable fashion, IMO.

Swizec 11y ago

As my mum used to say "It's easy to shit when your butt is full". How hard is it, really, to give away 99% when you're still left with enough to comfortably sustain 5+ lifetimes? Bill Gates said it well here: http://imgur.com/gallery/YDuoHdr http://imgur.com/gallery/YDuoHdr That said, I hope that if I ever get into a position like that, I too will be able to look beyond my personal greed and desire to increase the high score.

myg204 11y ago
Good comment by Gates. It's the difference between giving out of your excesses and giving out of your poverty.
asdfffffg 11y ago
I want to meet your mum (maybe not shake her hand, though)!
tertius 11y ago
"I hope that if I ever get into a position like that, I too will be able to look beyond my personal greed and desire to increase the high score." Are you an American? Well sir, your butt is full and you're keeping it all to yourself. Stolen metaphors aside, you're in the 1% of the world and you can actually make a difference. "How hard is it?" You tell me.
- Swizec 11y ago
  > Are you an American? Nope. Born in Yugoslavia (communist/socialist), raised in Slovenia (ex-socialist), now in the US for ~8 months. Don't even have my status fully resolved yet. Right now I can barely keep up with rent and building some savings. At current rate it will take me 46,875 years to save up as much as Zuck will have left over after the 99%. Next question?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tertius 11y ago

gist 11y ago

Don't know about the Saudi princes however the Koch Brothers have given away millions of dollars (and I am sure there also give away money anonymously as well). http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp Also rest assured that Facebook also "evades taxes" in the same way that the Koch brothers do, that is by taking advantage of the US Tax Code in a legal way. And none of us have any idea what the Koch Brothers have in their wills and have not publicly announced.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
One of the organizations the Koch brothers fund is FIRE, which is dedicated to free speech on college campuses. It's really hard to find fault in that. I really hate the Manichean judgment common in modern public discourse. Everyone is either a saint or a devil, depending on which side you're on.
- orangecat 11y ago
  It's really hard to find fault in that. Not that hard. Social justice advocates increasingly view support of free speech as equivalent to defense of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tlrobinson 11y ago
    Which is a little insane given marginalized/minority groups are typically the ones who need freedom of speech the most.
  - EGreg 11y ago
    Yeah, some offshoots of social justice have metastized into fascism. Who gets to decide what censorship will take place in the name of this justice?
pen2l 11y ago

6stringmerc 11y ago

The more I think about the letter, the more I'm reminded of the poem Ozymandius. Are you familiar with it? The crux of the poem, up for interpretation, is that all empires are led by men of great confidence and eventually they return to dust over time. You know, like MySpace did before Facebook.