7 ms·

I'm getting a bit miffed at the comments talking about this being a "PR move" or helpful for a "tax break". Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION

by epaga 14y ago

I'm getting a bit miffed at the comments talking about this being a "PR move" or helpful for a "tax break". Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? The cynicism must be pretty darn strong to try and explain that away by anything other than Zuck wanting to do some good with his shares and money. We should be applauding it, not over-analyzing it for how it benefits him.

crististm 14y ago
Why would such moves be automatically altruistic?
- Swizec 14y ago
  Why would it matter if they're altruistic or not? It's a move, it's going to help. Who the fuck cares why? The saying goes "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
  - meaty 14y ago
    You would look a gift horse in the mouth if the mafia gave it you right? It'd come with strings attached...
    - Swizec 14y ago
      I might be willing to accept a lot of strings for 500mil ... just saying.
      - meaty 14y ago
        Problem is Zuck wants your soul and takes it for far less than $500 mil then sells it to other people and gives someone some stock with those strings attached... When you put it that way, he can't be anything other than an asshole.
        jwoah12 14y ago
        Rock solid logic.
        bicx 14y ago
        Banks use your money for interest and loans (or at least a percentage) and you get "free" money in the form of credit cards and interest. Facebook uses your data for ads in exchange for "free" services. You can always opt out if you don't like it. Store your data in your mattress. :)
        meaty 14y ago
        That I do. People know how banks operate and they are regulated. The same is not true for Facebook, which makes negative policy decisions all the time.
        polyfractal 14y ago
        Yes, because the recent financial crisis proved how much we know about banks and their dealings. Banks are one of the most opaque industries and are constantly devising (ingenious) ways around regulation.
        meaty 14y ago
        Yes and that is with regulation. Imagine what Facebook is like.
  - aes256 14y ago
    > Why would it matter if they're altruistic or not? It's a move, it's going to help. Who the fuck cares why? You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world. Zuckerberg is donating an eye-watering amount of money to charity. That's cool, but what about the rest of his wealth? His net worth is something like $14bn last time I checked. That makes this a donation of around 3.5% of his net worth. No more impressive than someone with $200k of assets donating $7k to charity. In fact, given diminishing marginal returns to wealth, it's considerably less impressive. $500m is nothing to someone with a net worth of $14bn. It's just some digits on a piece of paper. Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came. Who is to say these investors, between them, would not be donating an average of 3.5% of their net wealth to charity?
    - edanm 14y ago
      "Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came" You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth. In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate. "You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world." No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact. Mark's impact was creating Facebook, with all that implies, the good and the bad. And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo). Unless by impact you mean something more like "considering whether someone is morally good or bad", in which case I'd agree with your statmenet, but still rule that Zuckerberg is good from the public info on him.
      - aes256 14y ago
        > You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth. There was literally $14bn in investors' pockets that moved to Zuckerberg. That's how it works. They liked the cut of his jib, so they gave him money in exchange for a slice of his business. If it hadn't gone to Zuckerberg, it could have gone to someone else, perhaps someone more charitable. > In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate. Zuckerberg may have created wealth, but he didn't create money. The money supply is controlled. > No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact. A person's impact on the world is determined by both the things they do, and the things they fail to do. We could argue at length about whether acts of omission ought to carry moral or legal punishments, but they are undeniably part of the overall impact that you have on the world. > And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo). My point is that, sure, Zuckerberg is cycling money into charitable causes, but in his absence the very same money may have been cycled in greater quantities, at a greater rate. That's the bar at which you measure Zuckerberg's character.
debacle 14y ago
If you go into a HN thread like this and expect someone to not shit all over someone giving away millions of dollars to charity, you haven't been paying attention. Unless HN is navel-gazing, negativity is the default.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- zemanel 14y ago
  Wouldn't say negative by default but inquisitive, which i believe is a good thing.
powertower 14y ago
> Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? This isn't directed at Zuck or Facebook, or anything. Because I really don't know him. But regarding your shock about the dollar amount... Keep in mind that it's incredibly easy to be generous when you are at the top. It's actually so easy, that it's almost effortless. There really is a difference between a man that writes a check that makes no difference to him (in the amount), and a man with nothing that roles up his sleeves, goes out, and dedicates himself to helping others. I'll celebrate the latter before I'll celebrate the former. One throws money away, the other helps change everyone around him.
- espadagroup 14y ago
  First, "throws money away", really? It's going toward something good, helping real people's lives. Second it's fine if you want to measure someone's charitableness by their personal sacrifice, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with measuring it by the impact of their actions. In your scenario I would say the money being thrown away would have much more of an impact.
  - powertower 14y ago
    I've long stopped believing that money helps improve the world. People do. If you throw money at a problem, often times you create a dependency on that aid, and other times you just end up with even more mouths to feed. It's not that monetary aid is always 100% ineffective. It's just that once you tally up the bad and the good, you're left with something that's in the red.
    - mahyarm 14y ago
      Money is an extremely effective social organization and incentive system. It's a way to get people to behave in a way you want to. The right investments can help change the world.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      And you pay people with money.
joey_muller 14y ago
Agreed. Who cares if there is a tax break for this. I think this donation is well-timed and I would like to see more "rich" corporations follow suit. I was initially thinking he might do something for Sandy Hook. There is a community torn to shreds that will never be the same. Here is a list of ways we can all help now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/14/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting-how-to-help_n_2302760.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/14/connectic...
- benjamincburns 14y ago
  I care. Or well, I care if there _aren't_ tax breaks for this. People who complain about this being a PR stunt or driven by self-interest are missing the point. If appeals to self-interest are what it takes to get people to do good, then we should appeal to people's self interest and applaud those who give in to those appeals. This kind of dignity just doesn't apply when it comes to solving certain problems. I doubt the kids with new opportunities in Newark, or the people without TB or Malaria in Africa give two shits about what motivated the people who helped them. Edit: One other thing worth noting is that tax breaks for charitable donations in the US are actually a really, really awesome thing for the government to do. It's basically Uncle Sam saying "yanno what, we understand that there are certain things that government doesn't do well, so we're going to approve you diverting some of your taxes to these other organizations who do it better."
joonix 14y ago
Does it even matter? A charity now has 500 million dollars. That's the only relevant point.
SeanLuke 14y ago
You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare this to an impoverished widow who lives off of $10K a year and donates half of that. Now that is charity. But by your measure, this is merely five thousand dollars, not 500. MILLION. DOLLARS. That miserly widow. Also, charity isn't charity if there is any kind of quid pro quo. Your name on a building. Donating to that orchestra you always patronize. In Mark's case, the quid pro quo is the positive press he and Facebook receives from it. If he really cared, he'd have given as anonymously as possible (like Chuck Feeney did). Generally, I view acts like this as the wealthy trying to buy their way out of hell.
- dudurocha 14y ago
  I think you are viewing in the wrong way. I see charity in terms of impact you can make. If I have 1000 bucks, and give 500 for charity, this means that I donate half of what I have. If Zuck fives 500 Million, he donated 1.000.000 times more than me. It doesn't matter how much do he has, it matter how much he can impact. 1 milion dollars are stiill 1 million dollars, despite if the donors has only 2 millions, or 1 billion.
- dclusin 14y ago
  The present value of the securities is certainly one aspect of measuring the value of said securities to Mr. Zuckerberg. Another aspect would also be the control of his company that he's giving up (since it's primarily stock I assume). The second one I believe is one that would interest Mr. Zuckerberg more than the dollar value of said securities. But even then, it probably amounts to a negligible steak in the company as well.
- pablasso 14y ago
  It doesn't hurt him as much as the widow, but taxes or not $500 million will do a whole lot more than $5000.
- 14y ago

by epaga 14y ago

crististm 14y ago

Why would such moves be automatically altruistic?

Swizec 14y ago
Why would it matter if they're altruistic or not? It's a move, it's going to help. Who the fuck cares why? The saying goes "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
- meaty 14y ago
  You would look a gift horse in the mouth if the mafia gave it you right? It'd come with strings attached...
  - Swizec 14y ago
    I might be willing to accept a lot of strings for 500mil ... just saying.
    - meaty 14y ago
      Problem is Zuck wants your soul and takes it for far less than $500 mil then sells it to other people and gives someone some stock with those strings attached... When you put it that way, he can't be anything other than an asshole.
      - jwoah12 14y ago
        Rock solid logic.
      - bicx 14y ago
        Banks use your money for interest and loans (or at least a percentage) and you get "free" money in the form of credit cards and interest. Facebook uses your data for ads in exchange for "free" services. You can always opt out if you don't like it. Store your data in your mattress. :)
        meaty 14y ago
        That I do. People know how banks operate and they are regulated. The same is not true for Facebook, which makes negative policy decisions all the time.
        polyfractal 14y ago
        Yes, because the recent financial crisis proved how much we know about banks and their dealings. Banks are one of the most opaque industries and are constantly devising (ingenious) ways around regulation.
        meaty 14y ago
        Yes and that is with regulation. Imagine what Facebook is like.
- aes256 14y ago
  > Why would it matter if they're altruistic or not? It's a move, it's going to help. Who the fuck cares why? You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world. Zuckerberg is donating an eye-watering amount of money to charity. That's cool, but what about the rest of his wealth? His net worth is something like $14bn last time I checked. That makes this a donation of around 3.5% of his net worth. No more impressive than someone with $200k of assets donating $7k to charity. In fact, given diminishing marginal returns to wealth, it's considerably less impressive. $500m is nothing to someone with a net worth of $14bn. It's just some digits on a piece of paper. Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came. Who is to say these investors, between them, would not be donating an average of 3.5% of their net wealth to charity?
  - edanm 14y ago
    "Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came" You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth. In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate. "You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world." No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact. Mark's impact was creating Facebook, with all that implies, the good and the bad. And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo). Unless by impact you mean something more like "considering whether someone is morally good or bad", in which case I'd agree with your statmenet, but still rule that Zuckerberg is good from the public info on him.
    - aes256 14y ago
      > You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth. There was literally $14bn in investors' pockets that moved to Zuckerberg. That's how it works. They liked the cut of his jib, so they gave him money in exchange for a slice of his business. If it hadn't gone to Zuckerberg, it could have gone to someone else, perhaps someone more charitable. > In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate. Zuckerberg may have created wealth, but he didn't create money. The money supply is controlled. > No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact. A person's impact on the world is determined by both the things they do, and the things they fail to do. We could argue at length about whether acts of omission ought to carry moral or legal punishments, but they are undeniably part of the overall impact that you have on the world. > And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo). My point is that, sure, Zuckerberg is cycling money into charitable causes, but in his absence the very same money may have been cycled in greater quantities, at a greater rate. That's the bar at which you measure Zuckerberg's character.

debacle 14y ago

If you go into a HN thread like this and expect someone to not shit all over someone giving away millions of dollars to charity, you haven't been paying attention. Unless HN is navel-gazing, negativity is the default.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zemanel 14y ago
Wouldn't say negative by default but inquisitive, which i believe is a good thing.

powertower 14y ago

> Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? This isn't directed at Zuck or Facebook, or anything. Because I really don't know him. But regarding your shock about the dollar amount... Keep in mind that it's incredibly easy to be generous when you are at the top. It's actually so easy, that it's almost effortless. There really is a difference between a man that writes a check that makes no difference to him (in the amount), and a man with nothing that roles up his sleeves, goes out, and dedicates himself to helping others. I'll celebrate the latter before I'll celebrate the former. One throws money away, the other helps change everyone around him.

espadagroup 14y ago
First, "throws money away", really? It's going toward something good, helping real people's lives. Second it's fine if you want to measure someone's charitableness by their personal sacrifice, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with measuring it by the impact of their actions. In your scenario I would say the money being thrown away would have much more of an impact.
- powertower 14y ago
  I've long stopped believing that money helps improve the world. People do. If you throw money at a problem, often times you create a dependency on that aid, and other times you just end up with even more mouths to feed. It's not that monetary aid is always 100% ineffective. It's just that once you tally up the bad and the good, you're left with something that's in the red.
  - mahyarm 14y ago
    Money is an extremely effective social organization and incentive system. It's a way to get people to behave in a way you want to. The right investments can help change the world.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    And you pay people with money.

joey_muller 14y ago

Agreed. Who cares if there is a tax break for this. I think this donation is well-timed and I would like to see more "rich" corporations follow suit. I was initially thinking he might do something for Sandy Hook. There is a community torn to shreds that will never be the same. Here is a list of ways we can all help now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/14/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting-how-to-help_n_2302760.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/14/connectic...

benjamincburns 14y ago
I care. Or well, I care if there _aren't_ tax breaks for this. People who complain about this being a PR stunt or driven by self-interest are missing the point. If appeals to self-interest are what it takes to get people to do good, then we should appeal to people's self interest and applaud those who give in to those appeals. This kind of dignity just doesn't apply when it comes to solving certain problems. I doubt the kids with new opportunities in Newark, or the people without TB or Malaria in Africa give two shits about what motivated the people who helped them. Edit: One other thing worth noting is that tax breaks for charitable donations in the US are actually a really, really awesome thing for the government to do. It's basically Uncle Sam saying "yanno what, we understand that there are certain things that government doesn't do well, so we're going to approve you diverting some of your taxes to these other organizations who do it better."

joonix 14y ago

Does it even matter? A charity now has 500 million dollars. That's the only relevant point.

SeanLuke 14y ago

You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare this to an impoverished widow who lives off of $10K a year and donates half of that. Now that is charity. But by your measure, this is merely five thousand dollars, not 500. MILLION. DOLLARS. That miserly widow. Also, charity isn't charity if there is any kind of quid pro quo. Your name on a building. Donating to that orchestra you always patronize. In Mark's case, the quid pro quo is the positive press he and Facebook receives from it. If he really cared, he'd have given as anonymously as possible (like Chuck Feeney did). Generally, I view acts like this as the wealthy trying to buy their way out of hell.

dudurocha 14y ago
I think you are viewing in the wrong way. I see charity in terms of impact you can make. If I have 1000 bucks, and give 500 for charity, this means that I donate half of what I have. If Zuck fives 500 Million, he donated 1.000.000 times more than me. It doesn't matter how much do he has, it matter how much he can impact. 1 milion dollars are stiill 1 million dollars, despite if the donors has only 2 millions, or 1 billion.
dclusin 14y ago
The present value of the securities is certainly one aspect of measuring the value of said securities to Mr. Zuckerberg. Another aspect would also be the control of his company that he's giving up (since it's primarily stock I assume). The second one I believe is one that would interest Mr. Zuckerberg more than the dollar value of said securities. But even then, it probably amounts to a negligible steak in the company as well.
pablasso 14y ago
It doesn't hurt him as much as the widow, but taxes or not $500 million will do a whole lot more than $5000.
14y ago