6 ms·

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The act

by ktpsns 9y ago

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Dropbox, like a good part of the US tech companies, has it's European site in Ireland, a country known for its low tax rates [1]. [1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/dropbox-confirms-irish-tax-dodge/news-story/1b9ac0b9df2139eb4d42d00c4bf21969 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator...

koolba 9y ago
> A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Not really. It depends on what you think taxes should be paying for. If you think they should cover essential services that can't be taken care of by the private sector (ex: roads, police, national defense) then lower taxes and private sector philanthropic spending is a better choice. It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on. The private sector has no such issues as by definition they're spending their own money.
- rb666 9y ago
  All the things you mentioned can also be handled by the private sector. Not a good idea, however. Also very typical American, not considering healthcare an essential service, lol.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    Sorry but this is completely ridiculous and disingenuously undermines the OP's very good point. First, even if some Americans don't support universal healthcare, that doesn't mean that all Americans don't support it. Even if they do, there are arguments to be made both for and against universal healthcare. I happen to fall on the pro-universal healthcare side, but it's certainly not without drawbacks. Second, the OP wasn't suggesting that we should have privately funded militaries and private roads, but that one possible government outcome is the government paying for such things while leaving other items (maybe donations to scientific foundations as an example) up to private sector interests. If you're Dropbox, and you strongly believe in a cause and you want to support that cause, it makes far more sense to withhold taxes (so far as it is legal to do so) that you have no control over and set up a foundation to pursue the cause that you're aiming for. Not only can you ensure that money goes toward that cause, but you're nearly guaranteed to do a better job than the government which is, by it's very nature, subject to the whims and opinions of people who may not share your view on the use of your money and less efficient in the handling of your money. I have a big problem with American companies not paying their fair share of taxes, and even more so with the obscene wealth inequality that has come to dominate the last few decades, but your post here is a drive-by at a reasonable discussion point, followed by a trite comment about Americans for no reason other than to stir up trouble.
    - rb666 9y ago
      That'd be great if Dropbox donates all the taxes they dodged into good causes. But you and I both know that's complete nonsense.
  - koolba 9y ago
    > All the things you mentioned can also be handled by the private sector. Not a good idea, however. Private sector military defense or police force has a lot of issues. It's a non starter. > Also very typical American, not considering healthcare an essential service, lol. Just because I didn't list something doesn't mean I don't consider it a service that should be provided as a public service. I picked the simplest examples to make a point. If I were king for a day my list would include a basic form of universal healthcare services (think Medicaid, not Medicare) and public education as well.
- simias 9y ago
  >It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on. That's actually a good thing in my book. Sometimes the right thing is not the easy or popular one. "Let's cut education spending and increase everybody's salaries instead" would probably be very popular but it might not prove very beneficial in the long term. If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent. More generally if you move this to the private sector then the problem is that you effectively weaken democracy. The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose. If you look at modern western societies the rich already have significantly more power than the average citizen (through lobbying, campaign funding etc...). Do you think that's a positive thing? Do you think we should cut the middle man and let them handle everything directly? Instead of complaining that my government doesn't spend money the way I want to I'll get to complain that Mark Zukerberg and Bill Gates don't spend money the way I want to? How is that a better proposition? Can I vote Bill Gates out? Do I have to become a Dropbox shareholder if I want homeless shelters to be funded? I'll admit that libertarianism in general baffles me. Many of its proponent seems very clever people, many certainly more clever than I am, yet when I discuss with them I feel like I'm talking with somebody from bizarro-earth. "Finance and banking are out of control, let's deregulate it completely!", "Governments are corrupt, let's give the power directly to the ones doing the corrupting!", "It's getting cold, let's get naked!"
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose. Taken out of context, it would be hard to know whether this is a criticism of the public sector or private. > If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent. Taken at face value, believing that this is how it works realistically is quite similar to the impractical beliefs of pure, staunch libertarians. Not that I take one side or the other, because I reside in the middle, but surely you can understand why people think governments are worse at things, waste more, and actually give individuals less control over where their dollars are spent.
- wfo 9y ago
  >is a better choice Well sure, the philanthropic model, which is in essence allowing the wealthy to control every part of society by determining what exists (i.e. is funded), who gets to live and die (by who they choose to give jobs to), what can be said (since every communications medium is privately owned), is a better choice for the wealthy, never for society or anyone else. It moves as much as possible of society from a public sphere where democracy exists into the corporate world, which is always a dictatorship. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is great in that it funds research and development in educational pedagogy and techniques and funds education in general. But its existence is also explicitly anti-democratic. It funds schools that accept its doctrine, and leaves the others to wither and die. The existence of charity will be used to cut public support (why do we need public support when these schools are funded without it?) and then we have the setting where one billionaire effectively sets educational policy without democratic input at all. The Kochs are trying to do this by replacing standard American History textbooks with the history rewritten and changed to better serve as Libertarian propaganda. Make no mistake, when you accept that philanthropy is a fundamental tenet of society you are literally ceding all decision making power to the ultrawealthy who can afford to take part in it, and cutting out nearly everyone else, ensuring they will be begging for scraps from their masters forever. You ensure that anything people have is framed as a kind gift from a wealthy benefactor (and you wouldn't want to make that benefactor mad and risk losing those gifts you need to survive, would you?), not a right or expectation. Even well-intentioned philanthropy is extremely dangerous.
montrose 9y ago
It is a big mistake to think that merely paying taxes is a sufficient substitute for donations. Governments are like the biggest of big companies: they tend to be very conservative about what they'll fund. Individual donors and small foundations play a crucial role in funding the sort of risky outliers that new ideas come from.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Voluntary donations are important, which is why it's so sad to see them diminished in the US (the increase i the standard deduction makes donations taxable for 80%+ of the population). Donations do have blind spots, though: They rarely go through the sort of assessment that is required for public spending. They are also susceptible to individuals' subjective motivations. I know of one charity caring for stray cats financed mostly by the estates of wealthy widows. Meanwhile, nobody donates to rehabilitation efforts of middle-aged sex offenders.
- lozenge 9y ago
  There is also something to say for the continuous, reliable stream of spending that is permitted by taxes. The world can't run on risky outliers alone. Actually, it's exactly the reliability of SS/medicare/etc that make people take it for granted and give it less attention than its dollar value would suggest. People can plan for it to be around in 20 years which can't be said for charity schemes.
  - montrose 9y ago
    That's true; nor are donations a sufficient substitute for taxes.
- claudius 9y ago
  While individual donors and foundations may play some role or another, nearly all risky outliers with new ideas are funded by taxes, not random individuals. The number of private research institutes is extremely limited (in particular in Europe, slightly less so in the US). Once ideas are less risky to pursue, industry is very happy to adapt and fund them, but the initial kickstart is nearly always paid for by public money.
humanrebar 9y ago
> The actually intended way... Companies should pay taxes, and more, lobby officials for fair and simple tax codes so these issues don't arise in the first place. Dropbox, Apple, Google, etc. shouldn't have a competitive advantage over companies unwilling or unable to play these games. That being said, funding and supporting non-profits and charitable work is fine. I don't know whose intentions are so important that we should discourage that kind of behavior.
lozenge 9y ago
Dropbox is an online company. They were never going to pay taxes in more than one European country. Unless we want to start charging taxes on IP packet ingress, that is.
- shaki-dora 9y ago
  You can simply start charging taxes based on money ingress, which I believe has actually happened in regards to VAT?
vlunkr 9y ago
I don't know if this is what you're trying to say exactly, but I get tired of the mentality that "they only give to charity for the tax incentives." The govt has these incentives in place to encourage charity, that's a good thing, yet the armchair critics love to criticize people for using them, because they aren't being fully altruistic or something. Were taxes part of reason for creating the foundation? Probably. But it still exists and does real work. Overall this is a win for everyone. Dropbox continues to offer a good product, this foundation gets to exist, and money goes to them instead of the govt where it's restricted by all sorts bureaucracy.
overeater 9y ago
I feel like there's so many of these foundations, but how are the people doing the research able to keep track of and apply to them all? It would take a growing amount of time to find, read the requirements, prepare application materials, and submit the applications for each one. So just by existing, each additional foundation decreases the amount of actual work or research time for the non-profits. I'm seeing more and more non-profits hiring armies of grants managers who basically just seek out and contact then apply for foundation grants. Especially those working in "social change". I would like to see these foundations "consolidate", and streamline their grants offering and application processes.
- privacypoller 9y ago
  You're right - there's a huge business in rent-takers who's role is connecting charitable organizations with these foundations and helping them get funding. Pretty similar to those streamlining government programs. It's surprising (and a little depressing) how much money goes to for-profit in the funding cycles of "not for profits"...

by ktpsns 9y ago

koolba 9y ago

> A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Not really. It depends on what you think taxes should be paying for. If you think they should cover essential services that can't be taken care of by the private sector (ex: roads, police, national defense) then lower taxes and private sector philanthropic spending is a better choice. It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on. The private sector has no such issues as by definition they're spending their own money.

rb666 9y ago
All the things you mentioned can also be handled by the private sector. Not a good idea, however. Also very typical American, not considering healthcare an essential service, lol.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Sorry but this is completely ridiculous and disingenuously undermines the OP's very good point. First, even if some Americans don't support universal healthcare, that doesn't mean that all Americans don't support it. Even if they do, there are arguments to be made both for and against universal healthcare. I happen to fall on the pro-universal healthcare side, but it's certainly not without drawbacks. Second, the OP wasn't suggesting that we should have privately funded militaries and private roads, but that one possible government outcome is the government paying for such things while leaving other items (maybe donations to scientific foundations as an example) up to private sector interests. If you're Dropbox, and you strongly believe in a cause and you want to support that cause, it makes far more sense to withhold taxes (so far as it is legal to do so) that you have no control over and set up a foundation to pursue the cause that you're aiming for. Not only can you ensure that money goes toward that cause, but you're nearly guaranteed to do a better job than the government which is, by it's very nature, subject to the whims and opinions of people who may not share your view on the use of your money and less efficient in the handling of your money. I have a big problem with American companies not paying their fair share of taxes, and even more so with the obscene wealth inequality that has come to dominate the last few decades, but your post here is a drive-by at a reasonable discussion point, followed by a trite comment about Americans for no reason other than to stir up trouble.
  - rb666 9y ago
    That'd be great if Dropbox donates all the taxes they dodged into good causes. But you and I both know that's complete nonsense.
- koolba 9y ago
  > All the things you mentioned can also be handled by the private sector. Not a good idea, however. Private sector military defense or police force has a lot of issues. It's a non starter. > Also very typical American, not considering healthcare an essential service, lol. Just because I didn't list something doesn't mean I don't consider it a service that should be provided as a public service. I picked the simplest examples to make a point. If I were king for a day my list would include a basic form of universal healthcare services (think Medicaid, not Medicare) and public education as well.
simias 9y ago
>It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on. That's actually a good thing in my book. Sometimes the right thing is not the easy or popular one. "Let's cut education spending and increase everybody's salaries instead" would probably be very popular but it might not prove very beneficial in the long term. If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent. More generally if you move this to the private sector then the problem is that you effectively weaken democracy. The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose. If you look at modern western societies the rich already have significantly more power than the average citizen (through lobbying, campaign funding etc...). Do you think that's a positive thing? Do you think we should cut the middle man and let them handle everything directly? Instead of complaining that my government doesn't spend money the way I want to I'll get to complain that Mark Zukerberg and Bill Gates don't spend money the way I want to? How is that a better proposition? Can I vote Bill Gates out? Do I have to become a Dropbox shareholder if I want homeless shelters to be funded? I'll admit that libertarianism in general baffles me. Many of its proponent seems very clever people, many certainly more clever than I am, yet when I discuss with them I feel like I'm talking with somebody from bizarro-earth. "Finance and banking are out of control, let's deregulate it completely!", "Governments are corrupt, let's give the power directly to the ones doing the corrupting!", "It's getting cold, let's get naked!"
- kodablah 9y ago
  > The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose. Taken out of context, it would be hard to know whether this is a criticism of the public sector or private. > If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent. Taken at face value, believing that this is how it works realistically is quite similar to the impractical beliefs of pure, staunch libertarians. Not that I take one side or the other, because I reside in the middle, but surely you can understand why people think governments are worse at things, waste more, and actually give individuals less control over where their dollars are spent.
wfo 9y ago
>is a better choice Well sure, the philanthropic model, which is in essence allowing the wealthy to control every part of society by determining what exists (i.e. is funded), who gets to live and die (by who they choose to give jobs to), what can be said (since every communications medium is privately owned), is a better choice for the wealthy, never for society or anyone else. It moves as much as possible of society from a public sphere where democracy exists into the corporate world, which is always a dictatorship. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is great in that it funds research and development in educational pedagogy and techniques and funds education in general. But its existence is also explicitly anti-democratic. It funds schools that accept its doctrine, and leaves the others to wither and die. The existence of charity will be used to cut public support (why do we need public support when these schools are funded without it?) and then we have the setting where one billionaire effectively sets educational policy without democratic input at all. The Kochs are trying to do this by replacing standard American History textbooks with the history rewritten and changed to better serve as Libertarian propaganda. Make no mistake, when you accept that philanthropy is a fundamental tenet of society you are literally ceding all decision making power to the ultrawealthy who can afford to take part in it, and cutting out nearly everyone else, ensuring they will be begging for scraps from their masters forever. You ensure that anything people have is framed as a kind gift from a wealthy benefactor (and you wouldn't want to make that benefactor mad and risk losing those gifts you need to survive, would you?), not a right or expectation. Even well-intentioned philanthropy is extremely dangerous.

montrose 9y ago

It is a big mistake to think that merely paying taxes is a sufficient substitute for donations. Governments are like the biggest of big companies: they tend to be very conservative about what they'll fund. Individual donors and small foundations play a crucial role in funding the sort of risky outliers that new ideas come from.

matt4077 9y ago
Voluntary donations are important, which is why it's so sad to see them diminished in the US (the increase i the standard deduction makes donations taxable for 80%+ of the population). Donations do have blind spots, though: They rarely go through the sort of assessment that is required for public spending. They are also susceptible to individuals' subjective motivations. I know of one charity caring for stray cats financed mostly by the estates of wealthy widows. Meanwhile, nobody donates to rehabilitation efforts of middle-aged sex offenders.
lozenge 9y ago
There is also something to say for the continuous, reliable stream of spending that is permitted by taxes. The world can't run on risky outliers alone. Actually, it's exactly the reliability of SS/medicare/etc that make people take it for granted and give it less attention than its dollar value would suggest. People can plan for it to be around in 20 years which can't be said for charity schemes.
- montrose 9y ago
  That's true; nor are donations a sufficient substitute for taxes.
claudius 9y ago
While individual donors and foundations may play some role or another, nearly all risky outliers with new ideas are funded by taxes, not random individuals. The number of private research institutes is extremely limited (in particular in Europe, slightly less so in the US). Once ideas are less risky to pursue, industry is very happy to adapt and fund them, but the initial kickstart is nearly always paid for by public money.

humanrebar 9y ago

> The actually intended way... Companies should pay taxes, and more, lobby officials for fair and simple tax codes so these issues don't arise in the first place. Dropbox, Apple, Google, etc. shouldn't have a competitive advantage over companies unwilling or unable to play these games. That being said, funding and supporting non-profits and charitable work is fine. I don't know whose intentions are so important that we should discourage that kind of behavior.

lozenge 9y ago

Dropbox is an online company. They were never going to pay taxes in more than one European country. Unless we want to start charging taxes on IP packet ingress, that is.

shaki-dora 9y ago
You can simply start charging taxes based on money ingress, which I believe has actually happened in regards to VAT?

vlunkr 9y ago

I don't know if this is what you're trying to say exactly, but I get tired of the mentality that "they only give to charity for the tax incentives." The govt has these incentives in place to encourage charity, that's a good thing, yet the armchair critics love to criticize people for using them, because they aren't being fully altruistic or something. Were taxes part of reason for creating the foundation? Probably. But it still exists and does real work. Overall this is a win for everyone. Dropbox continues to offer a good product, this foundation gets to exist, and money goes to them instead of the govt where it's restricted by all sorts bureaucracy.

overeater 9y ago

I feel like there's so many of these foundations, but how are the people doing the research able to keep track of and apply to them all? It would take a growing amount of time to find, read the requirements, prepare application materials, and submit the applications for each one. So just by existing, each additional foundation decreases the amount of actual work or research time for the non-profits. I'm seeing more and more non-profits hiring armies of grants managers who basically just seek out and contact then apply for foundation grants. Especially those working in "social change". I would like to see these foundations "consolidate", and streamline their grants offering and application processes.

privacypoller 9y ago
You're right - there's a huge business in rent-takers who's role is connecting charitable organizations with these foundations and helping them get funding. Pretty similar to those streamlining government programs. It's surprising (and a little depressing) how much money goes to for-profit in the funding cycles of "not for profits"...