3 ms·

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "philanthrocapitalism" is a term used to obfuscate the issue of billionaires setting up tax havens in the guise

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "philanthrocapitalism" is a term used to obfuscate the issue of billionaires setting up tax havens in the guise of philanthropy. The term implies that philanthropy can be or is a mode of capitalism, whereas in reality it's the opposite because philanthropy deals with altruistic allocation of resources rather than profit-seeking allocation of resources. Let's not use this term, because it's deceptive and doesn't make sense internally. Instead, let's do some white hat thinking (purely facts, as little spin as possible) about Zuck's new venture. Fact: Zuck has laid down a large chunk of change for a new project, and marketed this project to the public as large scale philanthropy. Fact: Zuck will get a large amount of leeway on taxes and oversight by moving his money in this way. Fact: some billionaires before Zuck have made similar moves that actually turned into fantastic philanthropic organizations that have made tangible positive impact in the world (Gates Foundation)-- but others have used the construct as purely a means to protect their money and get good PR. These are some of the facts. I do not believe that there is any way to get around or reinterpret any of them without adding opinion, which probably snuck in anyway despite my efforts. At this point, I think that the reactions of those who question Zuck's motives are justified because we haven't had the time to see the program in action disbursing money as it claims that it will. A promise, a wad of cash, and a lot of PR do not make an effective philanthropic organization. Effective philanthropy requires that real, living people and real institutions are altered in an objectively positive way. The proper stance is skepticism and a request for more evidence of good will. EDIT: I will add that the rabid detractors of Zuck have counterparts with the rabid pro-Zuck crowd... I doubt Zuck is looking out for anyone other than himself, but there is more to life than celebrity-watching, and it seems petty no matter how you slice it.

jegutman 11y ago
Is it at all clear that Zuckerberg is getting any tax benefit from moving his shares? I believe the "foundation", which is not a non-profit, will still pay taxes when it sells FB shares. If the LLC donates to a non-profit then it will get a tax benefit. IANAL, so please someone who is actually informed feel free to correct me. A lot of what I've seen written is completely un-nuanced and probably wrong.
- hsitz 11y ago
  I am a lawyer -- or used to be one -- and your understanding is consistent with mine. I think some people are confused and think there's something shady going on, because they think Zuckerberg is getting some tax benefit from gifting to a non-charitable organization. But what you say is actually what's happening: no tax benefit to Zuckerberg on the gift to the LLC, although the LLC itself will be able to claim tax benefits by making subsequent gifts to non-profits.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I agree with your "white hat thinking" that Zuck's initiative may turn out either way, but I'm not so sure about your take on "philanthrocapitalism". Call me naive, but I think that the recent trend among tech billionaires to do philanthropy may actually be genuine. Look at it from Zuck's or Gates' perspective. They have pretty much all the money in the world, and they know there isn't much to spend it on. They've seen past the usual bullshit like boats and rolexes - they know how it's made, so it's nothing special. Zuck can't use that money to indulge in new toys, because he already has access to the cutting-edge toys and if he wants more, he literally has to fund their creation (which takes time). OTOH, they all know and see that the world is in deep shit, and they have some power to directly affect it. Not turning to philanthropy in this situation would be something weird. I don't believe that those people are literally made of greedonium, like the common stereotype of rich persons would like to paint them.

jegutman 11y ago

Is it at all clear that Zuckerberg is getting any tax benefit from moving his shares? I believe the "foundation", which is not a non-profit, will still pay taxes when it sells FB shares. If the LLC donates to a non-profit then it will get a tax benefit. IANAL, so please someone who is actually informed feel free to correct me. A lot of what I've seen written is completely un-nuanced and probably wrong.

hsitz 11y ago
I am a lawyer -- or used to be one -- and your understanding is consistent with mine. I think some people are confused and think there's something shady going on, because they think Zuckerberg is getting some tax benefit from gifting to a non-charitable organization. But what you say is actually what's happening: no tax benefit to Zuckerberg on the gift to the LLC, although the LLC itself will be able to claim tax benefits by making subsequent gifts to non-profits.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I agree with your "white hat thinking" that Zuck's initiative may turn out either way, but I'm not so sure about your take on "philanthrocapitalism". Call me naive, but I think that the recent trend among tech billionaires to do philanthropy may actually be genuine. Look at it from Zuck's or Gates' perspective. They have pretty much all the money in the world, and they know there isn't much to spend it on. They've seen past the usual bullshit like boats and rolexes - they know how it's made, so it's nothing special. Zuck can't use that money to indulge in new toys, because he already has access to the cutting-edge toys and if he wants more, he literally has to fund their creation (which takes time). OTOH, they all know and see that the world is in deep shit, and they have some power to directly affect it. Not turning to philanthropy in this situation would be something weird. I don't believe that those people are literally made of greedonium, like the common stereotype of rich persons would like to paint them.