5 ms·

I don't really have any expertise to comment on whether setting up an LLC versus a non-profit is a good idea. I'm not even a big Zuck fan. I just think it's so

I don't really have any expertise to comment on whether setting up an LLC versus a non-profit is a good idea. I'm not even a big Zuck fan. I just think it's so very… western culture in 2015 that a bunch of internet warriors are getting irate because they think a self-made bajillionaire isn't donating $45,000,000,000 of his personal wealth the proper way.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gohrt 11y ago
I think it's fair for people to insist on a measure of honesty and accuracy in communication, and to reserve gratitude until meaningful acts are performed, not just general statements of future plans.
- bkmartin 11y ago
  There is a difference in reserving gratitude and flippantly stating myriad difference versions of, "I'll believe it when I see it." People are giving him a hard time for making a public pledge, a public accountability for his future actions. He is not doing it for himself as much as he is for a rallying cry to other wealthy people and to spur others to try and find ways to use the funds as he sets it all up. The extreme cynicism is a bit unwarranted if you ask me. Has he made a similar pledge in the past and not performed? No. Have other billionaires made similar pledges and not performed? Not than I know of. <s>Thanks goodness for the interweb moral police! </s>
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 11y ago
Yep, I don't get it. "Rich guy sets up foundation in tax-advantageous way." This is news?
- issaria 11y ago
  This is no news, the problem is that people are trying to make it like a big deal.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The only people I see trying to make it sound like a big deal are the ones criticizing it. If not for the relentless stream of naysayers, I wouldn't have even known this whole thing was happening. This whole thing is just celebrity gossip. It's exactly like those glossy magazines you see at the supermarket checkout line, except instead of movie stars it's tech stars.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
The proper way is a social contract: you set up a charity, get tax breaks, and in return, you're required to spend a certain percentage on charitable causes. Zuckerburg's pledge aside, if he were to do nothing with his new LLC, he would face no tax penalties and would essentially be moving money from one place to the other with nobody benefiting in any tangible way. The reason people are upset is because the last 30 years have amounted in an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich. All that wealth - everybody's wealth - was created by the labor of people long dead, all the way down to the first humans to develop agriculture. A staple of any society has been the need to tax wealth creation so public goods can be provided, from national security to a functioning court system. By dodging taxes (which is what happens when you make a "charity" that isn't structurally obliged to make donations) you are circumventing the social contract and depriving the public of a portion of the profits derived from being a part of that society. Creating Facebook or any other large company with a big workforce is no excuse to not pay taxes. Those people use roads, water, courts, and require protection from the police and military. That causes additional strain on the system and has to be paid for somehow. I don't care how he spends his money, but establishing an LLC as a charity is a poor form of philanthropy.
- lgas 11y ago
  The proper way is: However he wants. It's his money.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    In addition to that Zuck already dispels the meme that he isn't paying taxes in his post, the LLC will be paying taxes just like everyone else. All of the complaints really are just proxy reasons to complain about Facebook and the guy who founded it. If Warren Buffett did this exact thing last month none of these articles would have been written.
- andzt 11y ago
  First, he's not moving money currently. He's pledged to move a tangible asset to a new entity. Second, if you had read his latest comment or understood how a LLC functions and taxes apply, you would know that the LLC will have to pay taxes on the sale of those assets. Third, any profit the LLC makes from investments in for-profit organizations will also be taxed. In a previous comment I made on charities and trusts, he would be more likely to be avoiding taxes if he did create a charitable remainder trust for his kid. There's an immediate tax benefit, you get to use the yearly distribution any way you see fit, and there's no guarantee the money will ever see a charitable cause.
ritchiea 11y ago
It's not about "the proper way", no one is telling Zuckerberg that he needs to donate the money. People are calling into question whether his claim that he is donating the money is truthful or not. That's not western, that's asking a question and being skeptical about the content of a press release.
- bkmartin 11y ago
  It will take his entire lifetime to bear that out... so why are people trying to claim some sort of fraud before anything has even been done? It is not fair to try and call him a liar or to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead... let alone when he is in his early 30's. People just like to blow hard and complain for the sake of complaining. The guy is making a big promise and I'm going to watch what he does and hopefully he will make as big of a positive impact on society as he claims that he wants to... way to early to tell... I applaud him for even stepping out to take on the journey.
  - cerebrum 11y ago
    > to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead... That's exactly the point. Why does Zuck make huge claims when not a single cent has changed hands yet. Fuck this PR campaign. Just to make it clear: I wouldn't mind if he kept the money for himself and invested it for profit as any good capitalist would. But if you open your mouth to make a claim then you need to follow trough in a credible way.
    - bkmartin 11y ago
      It is day #1! What the hell are you so upset about? He announced that he has some really big intentions for his massive fortune. Did you blast Bill Gates the day he announced he wanted to do the same thing? What about Warren Buffet? I am still not quite sure what you are so pissed about? Do you harbor some hatred for Zuck?
      - 11y ago
cookiecaper 11y ago
If he didn't want people to nitpick it, he shouldn't have been showboating about how much money he's giving away to charity. I'm a conservative so I'm not much into controlling what people do with their money, but Zuckerburg invited this when he decided he wanted a lot of praise for being charitable and telling the world he was giving away a lot of money. It's not news that he has that money; he could've spent it however he liked without having to toot his own horn and fish for accolades re: his "generosity".
- Albright 11y ago
  Okay, I can see the "it's not that he did it; it's that he did it in such a self-aggrandizing manner" argument. That's a fair argument. Thanks for the response.
cerebrum 11y ago
> his personal wealth the proper way. I'm irate because he didn't donate anything at all and yet still makes a big announcement. Let's talk again once a significant(more than 30% of the pledged) amount of money has actually changed hands.
wfo 11y ago
I think if his foundation wasn't accompanied by a multiple page long self-aggrandizing commitment to charity people would simply appreciate and not scrutinize. But in particular we have a model for what it looks like when a tech billionaire tries to donate his time and money to do something good for the world instead of building widgets and does it very well: the Gates foundation. And his previous "public works" attempt was a lobbying group for "immigration reform" that claimed to try to make life better for vast swaths of people and yet was simply a front to lobby the government to let tech businesses exploit immigrant slave labor more effectively. Accompanied by a similar impassioned speech about doing good works. Most of the lobbying was in the form of pretty despicable character assassination. In particular he takes jabs at the Gates foundation for not lobbying for example. The Gates foundation is enormously successful and Zuckerberg hasn't accomplished anything. Right now all he's done is set up a company that he has control over and promised "guys, I'll give this money to 'charity' however I define it at my discretion whatever that means". I'm hopeful and at its face I think it's a wonderful thing he's pledged to do but I think it's a bit premature to fall all over ourselves thanking him for reorganizing his finances because that's all he's really done so far.
__jal 11y ago
If Zuckerberg wanted people not to comment, perhaps his "letter to his daughter" should have been delivered to his daughter, instead of a "bunch of internet warriors". I mean, come on. Is everyone supposed to reverently worship their betters? Do we thank our $deities (in respectful silence) that we have such nice overlords who promise to someday pursue a structured financial transaction in a tax-preferred manner, along with a promise that it will promote "human advancement", whatever the hell that is? Sounds to me like whatever you have in mind as the opposite of "western culture" is a bit insulting to those cultures.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gohrt 11y ago

I think it's fair for people to insist on a measure of honesty and accuracy in communication, and to reserve gratitude until meaningful acts are performed, not just general statements of future plans.

bkmartin 11y ago
There is a difference in reserving gratitude and flippantly stating myriad difference versions of, "I'll believe it when I see it." People are giving him a hard time for making a public pledge, a public accountability for his future actions. He is not doing it for himself as much as he is for a rallying cry to other wealthy people and to spur others to try and find ways to use the funds as he sets it all up. The extreme cynicism is a bit unwarranted if you ask me. Has he made a similar pledge in the past and not performed? No. Have other billionaires made similar pledges and not performed? Not than I know of. <s>Thanks goodness for the interweb moral police! </s>

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 11y ago

Yep, I don't get it. "Rich guy sets up foundation in tax-advantageous way." This is news?

issaria 11y ago
This is no news, the problem is that people are trying to make it like a big deal.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The only people I see trying to make it sound like a big deal are the ones criticizing it. If not for the relentless stream of naysayers, I wouldn't have even known this whole thing was happening. This whole thing is just celebrity gossip. It's exactly like those glossy magazines you see at the supermarket checkout line, except instead of movie stars it's tech stars.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

The proper way is a social contract: you set up a charity, get tax breaks, and in return, you're required to spend a certain percentage on charitable causes. Zuckerburg's pledge aside, if he were to do nothing with his new LLC, he would face no tax penalties and would essentially be moving money from one place to the other with nobody benefiting in any tangible way. The reason people are upset is because the last 30 years have amounted in an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich. All that wealth - everybody's wealth - was created by the labor of people long dead, all the way down to the first humans to develop agriculture. A staple of any society has been the need to tax wealth creation so public goods can be provided, from national security to a functioning court system. By dodging taxes (which is what happens when you make a "charity" that isn't structurally obliged to make donations) you are circumventing the social contract and depriving the public of a portion of the profits derived from being a part of that society. Creating Facebook or any other large company with a big workforce is no excuse to not pay taxes. Those people use roads, water, courts, and require protection from the police and military. That causes additional strain on the system and has to be paid for somehow. I don't care how he spends his money, but establishing an LLC as a charity is a poor form of philanthropy.

lgas 11y ago
The proper way is: However he wants. It's his money.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  In addition to that Zuck already dispels the meme that he isn't paying taxes in his post, the LLC will be paying taxes just like everyone else. All of the complaints really are just proxy reasons to complain about Facebook and the guy who founded it. If Warren Buffett did this exact thing last month none of these articles would have been written.
andzt 11y ago
First, he's not moving money currently. He's pledged to move a tangible asset to a new entity. Second, if you had read his latest comment or understood how a LLC functions and taxes apply, you would know that the LLC will have to pay taxes on the sale of those assets. Third, any profit the LLC makes from investments in for-profit organizations will also be taxed. In a previous comment I made on charities and trusts, he would be more likely to be avoiding taxes if he did create a charitable remainder trust for his kid. There's an immediate tax benefit, you get to use the yearly distribution any way you see fit, and there's no guarantee the money will ever see a charitable cause.

ritchiea 11y ago

It's not about "the proper way", no one is telling Zuckerberg that he needs to donate the money. People are calling into question whether his claim that he is donating the money is truthful or not. That's not western, that's asking a question and being skeptical about the content of a press release.

bkmartin 11y ago
It will take his entire lifetime to bear that out... so why are people trying to claim some sort of fraud before anything has even been done? It is not fair to try and call him a liar or to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead... let alone when he is in his early 30's. People just like to blow hard and complain for the sake of complaining. The guy is making a big promise and I'm going to watch what he does and hopefully he will make as big of a positive impact on society as he claims that he wants to... way to early to tell... I applaud him for even stepping out to take on the journey.
- cerebrum 11y ago
  > to suspect him of making some false claim when that cannot even be remotely verified until after he is dead... That's exactly the point. Why does Zuck make huge claims when not a single cent has changed hands yet. Fuck this PR campaign. Just to make it clear: I wouldn't mind if he kept the money for himself and invested it for profit as any good capitalist would. But if you open your mouth to make a claim then you need to follow trough in a credible way.
  - bkmartin 11y ago
    It is day #1! What the hell are you so upset about? He announced that he has some really big intentions for his massive fortune. Did you blast Bill Gates the day he announced he wanted to do the same thing? What about Warren Buffet? I am still not quite sure what you are so pissed about? Do you harbor some hatred for Zuck?
    - 11y ago

cookiecaper 11y ago

If he didn't want people to nitpick it, he shouldn't have been showboating about how much money he's giving away to charity. I'm a conservative so I'm not much into controlling what people do with their money, but Zuckerburg invited this when he decided he wanted a lot of praise for being charitable and telling the world he was giving away a lot of money. It's not news that he has that money; he could've spent it however he liked without having to toot his own horn and fish for accolades re: his "generosity".

Albright 11y ago
Okay, I can see the "it's not that he did it; it's that he did it in such a self-aggrandizing manner" argument. That's a fair argument. Thanks for the response.

cerebrum 11y ago

> his personal wealth the proper way. I'm irate because he didn't donate anything at all and yet still makes a big announcement. Let's talk again once a significant(more than 30% of the pledged) amount of money has actually changed hands.

wfo 11y ago

I think if his foundation wasn't accompanied by a multiple page long self-aggrandizing commitment to charity people would simply appreciate and not scrutinize. But in particular we have a model for what it looks like when a tech billionaire tries to donate his time and money to do something good for the world instead of building widgets and does it very well: the Gates foundation. And his previous "public works" attempt was a lobbying group for "immigration reform" that claimed to try to make life better for vast swaths of people and yet was simply a front to lobby the government to let tech businesses exploit immigrant slave labor more effectively. Accompanied by a similar impassioned speech about doing good works. Most of the lobbying was in the form of pretty despicable character assassination. In particular he takes jabs at the Gates foundation for not lobbying for example. The Gates foundation is enormously successful and Zuckerberg hasn't accomplished anything. Right now all he's done is set up a company that he has control over and promised "guys, I'll give this money to 'charity' however I define it at my discretion whatever that means". I'm hopeful and at its face I think it's a wonderful thing he's pledged to do but I think it's a bit premature to fall all over ourselves thanking him for reorganizing his finances because that's all he's really done so far.

__jal 11y ago

If Zuckerberg wanted people not to comment, perhaps his "letter to his daughter" should have been delivered to his daughter, instead of a "bunch of internet warriors". I mean, come on. Is everyone supposed to reverently worship their betters? Do we thank our $deities (in respectful silence) that we have such nice overlords who promise to someday pursue a structured financial transaction in a tax-preferred manner, along with a promise that it will promote "human advancement", whatever the hell that is? Sounds to me like whatever you have in mind as the opposite of "western culture" is a bit insulting to those cultures.