4 ms·

The thing is, his stated goal is to keep 1% of his money in the family for the next generation. Right now that 1% is 357 million. Estate tax is 40%. He has a si

The thing is, his stated goal is to keep 1% of his money in the family for the next generation. Right now that 1% is 357 million. Estate tax is 40%. He has a single child as of now. So, that child will inherit 214 million dollars. She could probably live her entire life of the interest in that money, make her own (smaller) charitable contributions and still give her own single child the same amount (adjusted for inflation and accounting for the estate tax). So I don't believe donating 99% of his money and ensuring the prosperity of his family for generations are mutually exclusive to Zuckerberg. His philanthropy does not conflict with his own self-interest. Also, like Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stanford, etc, he has a lot of fame and renown to gain from doing good in his own name and during his lifetime. Now, don't get me wrong, income inequality is a real problem and the fact that some world-scale social programs now seem to depend entirely on the wishes of a few men versus popular administration is in many ways troubling (in others, well, Bill Gates has potentially done more against AIDS in the third world than most democratic governments...). But Occam's Razor applies and although I imagine tax incentives pay a part on how and when billionaires donate (that's why they are called incentives...), I don't default to thinking that Zuckerberg is twirling his mustache over this, laughing maniacally and saying "this is how I shall defraud the IRS!". But let's see, in due time, what happens. So far the Gates foundation seems legit, for example, and there goes another mustache twirling villain of the tech world...

nsajko 11y ago
Income inequality is nothing compared to the enormous wealth (and thus power) inequality that is present here and it doesn't diminish when Zuckerberg donates his shares to the LLC. Why would he laugh maniacally about getting to keep his money, it's legal, not fraud, and of course he wants the power/influence wealth gives him/his family.
developer2 11y ago
>> his stated goal is to keep 1% of his money in the family for the next generation. Right now that 1% is 357 million 1% likely won't be anywhere near 357 million after another 10 years, let alone in 50+ years. Evaluations of wealth based on assets and stocks almost never wind up trading for that amount of cash. You are worth what you can liquidate today, not what market "experts" think your portfolio could be worth in some theoretical perfect scenario.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I agree that I wouldn't count on the exact dollar figure to stay constant. However, I believe Bill Gates is successfully divesting himself from Microsoft to fund his charity? I guess Facebook is a lot shakier and volatile than Microsoft? Yes but I'd assume it means the child will have a trust of at least 357M which isn't bad. I don't have any problem with the 0.01% having tremendous wealth as long as 1) it is out in the open (at least clear enough that the IRS can see all its activities) and 2) distributions from the fund get taxed as income for the recipient I am making this concession with the assumption that we will drastically increase marginal income tax on income over a certain amount (my proposal is 100 * 2000 * federal minimum wage per hour which at $15 is $3M). Marginal income under this threshold shall be no higher than say 40%? Tax on income above this amount ($3M as calculated today) shall be (just off the top of my head) 90%? I think that sounds fair. So, in the example above, if Maxima only draws salary and benefits (cars, personal jet rides whatever) worth less than $3M per year, I don't see a reason to see that as bad for society as a whole. I think this keeps the interests of the 0.01% in touch with the minimum wage. Yes, it sounds rather naive but it is a working idea. Thoughts?

nsajko 11y ago

Income inequality is nothing compared to the enormous wealth (and thus power) inequality that is present here and it doesn't diminish when Zuckerberg donates his shares to the LLC. Why would he laugh maniacally about getting to keep his money, it's legal, not fraud, and of course he wants the power/influence wealth gives him/his family.

developer2 11y ago

>> his stated goal is to keep 1% of his money in the family for the next generation. Right now that 1% is 357 million 1% likely won't be anywhere near 357 million after another 10 years, let alone in 50+ years. Evaluations of wealth based on assets and stocks almost never wind up trading for that amount of cash. You are worth what you can liquidate today, not what market "experts" think your portfolio could be worth in some theoretical perfect scenario.

newjersey 11y ago
I agree that I wouldn't count on the exact dollar figure to stay constant. However, I believe Bill Gates is successfully divesting himself from Microsoft to fund his charity? I guess Facebook is a lot shakier and volatile than Microsoft? Yes but I'd assume it means the child will have a trust of at least 357M which isn't bad. I don't have any problem with the 0.01% having tremendous wealth as long as 1) it is out in the open (at least clear enough that the IRS can see all its activities) and 2) distributions from the fund get taxed as income for the recipient I am making this concession with the assumption that we will drastically increase marginal income tax on income over a certain amount (my proposal is 100 * 2000 * federal minimum wage per hour which at $15 is $3M). Marginal income under this threshold shall be no higher than say 40%? Tax on income above this amount ($3M as calculated today) shall be (just off the top of my head) 90%? I think that sounds fair. So, in the example above, if Maxima only draws salary and benefits (cars, personal jet rides whatever) worth less than $3M per year, I don't see a reason to see that as bad for society as a whole. I think this keeps the interests of the 0.01% in touch with the minimum wage. Yes, it sounds rather naive but it is a working idea. Thoughts?