3 ms·

> He wants to have an impact on the world. Every founder of a billion-dollar company wants to have an impact on the world. The question is whether the impact h

> He wants to have an impact on the world. Every founder of a billion-dollar company wants to have an impact on the world. The question is whether the impact he wants to have is something that needs (or deserves) preferential tax treatment, as well as the massive public praise he received for this act of 'philanthropy'. It is true that the wealthy commonly use foundations that they control in order to advance initiatives that also financially benefit themselves or for-profit companies they own. In itself, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's almost definitionally true that Zuckerberg is using the foundation structure for the tax benefits.

794CD01 10y ago
>The question is whether the impact he wants to have is something that needs (or deserves) preferential tax treatment. Which is itself really a question about whether the government should be able to spend that money how it likes, or whether the zuckster should be able to spend it how he likes. Has the American government really earned your trust in its competence in managing money?
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Is "managed to amass a fortune" adequate qualification for ANYONE to decide which social good gets funded and which one does not?
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    But Zuckerberg doesn't decide "which social good gets funded and which one does not." Things will or will not get funded independently of Zuckerberg's decision to fund or not fund additional things. He decides where to spend his own money. Does he need a qualification for that?
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Perhaps not adequate, but a hell of a lot less inadequate than "got a job in the government bureaucracy" or even worse, "got elected by the voting public".
res0nat0r 10y ago
Sad that every time this guy is discussing giving away literally BILLIONS of dollars to causes that are not even tangentially related to Facebook people on here are whining that it is some kind of personal enrichment tax dodge. I really don't even feel like reading these posts on this site anymore since they are filled with passive aggressive jealousy at people having a massively larger real world impact than anyone else commenting here. If this story had the words Facebook and Zuck replaced with Tesla and Elon there would be a much different tone.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > discussing giving away literally BILLIONS of dollars to causes that are not even tangentially related to Facebook Except he hasn't, yet. He's allocated billions to a corporation he owns, with the goal of, someday, spending those billions towards purposes that may or may not ultimately serve Facebook's very long term interests.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    Give me a break. Directly from the post: > Right now, there are amazing scientists, educators and doctors around the world doing incredible work. We want to help them make a bigger difference today, not 30 or 40 years down the road. Unless Facebook is trying to become the next Theranos complaining about a guy who is placing billions on the table for upcoming medical related treatments in no way related to Facebook sounds like whining more because you don't like the person doing it vs. the act itself.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >I really don't even feel like reading these posts on this site anymore since they are filled with passive aggressive jealousy I'll take that over unadulterated fawning over tech celebrities.

794CD01 10y ago

>The question is whether the impact he wants to have is something that needs (or deserves) preferential tax treatment. Which is itself really a question about whether the government should be able to spend that money how it likes, or whether the zuckster should be able to spend it how he likes. Has the American government really earned your trust in its competence in managing money?

ryandrake 10y ago
Is "managed to amass a fortune" adequate qualification for ANYONE to decide which social good gets funded and which one does not?
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  But Zuckerberg doesn't decide "which social good gets funded and which one does not." Things will or will not get funded independently of Zuckerberg's decision to fund or not fund additional things. He decides where to spend his own money. Does he need a qualification for that?
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Perhaps not adequate, but a hell of a lot less inadequate than "got a job in the government bureaucracy" or even worse, "got elected by the voting public".

res0nat0r 10y ago

Sad that every time this guy is discussing giving away literally BILLIONS of dollars to causes that are not even tangentially related to Facebook people on here are whining that it is some kind of personal enrichment tax dodge. I really don't even feel like reading these posts on this site anymore since they are filled with passive aggressive jealousy at people having a massively larger real world impact than anyone else commenting here. If this story had the words Facebook and Zuck replaced with Tesla and Elon there would be a much different tone.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> discussing giving away literally BILLIONS of dollars to causes that are not even tangentially related to Facebook Except he hasn't, yet. He's allocated billions to a corporation he owns, with the goal of, someday, spending those billions towards purposes that may or may not ultimately serve Facebook's very long term interests.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  Give me a break. Directly from the post: > Right now, there are amazing scientists, educators and doctors around the world doing incredible work. We want to help them make a bigger difference today, not 30 or 40 years down the road. Unless Facebook is trying to become the next Theranos complaining about a guy who is placing billions on the table for upcoming medical related treatments in no way related to Facebook sounds like whining more because you don't like the person doing it vs. the act itself.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>I really don't even feel like reading these posts on this site anymore since they are filled with passive aggressive jealousy I'll take that over unadulterated fawning over tech celebrities.