Zuckerbergs give away
Discussion
qube_TA said:
jonby said:
qube_TA said:
darth_pies said:
Not a huge fan of Facebook or Zuck but good on him for this gesture.
The cynic in me feels that yes he's giving money away, awesome. But he's giving it to his own 'charity' that he runs. His previous efforts swallowed up the money in fees and expenses, the output of his philanthropic work seems to be in the creation of computer software. I'd be interested to see what the outcome of his give away is but suspect he's doing this as a tax avoidance/PR thing rather than genuinely giving the money away. Awesome to be proven wrong.Edited by jonby on Wednesday 2nd December 14:25
If he gives money away as per Bill Gates then awesome, but if he's setting up a new company that makes software that 'makes lives better' and transfers all the money from his Facebook account to this then is it really charity in the normal sense? This is what he's done in the past which is why there's a bit of
with this announcement.The fact remains, regardless of the stronger arguments that others have made in reply to your post (which I am simply insufficiently qualified to conclusively comment upon), that it appears for some, whatever a rich person does with his money, will be criticized. Surely it's better he gives to his version of charity and benefit some people to some extent rather than sitting on the money ? (you can't actually spend the money once it's that large a sum).
It's also a great example to other super wealthy people
I find the criticism in general somewhat churlish - this is a guy that lives a pretty low key lifestyle all things considered and he's trying to do some good with his money - is that not enough ?
scherzkeks said:
Ultimately, it takes the power away from the state to decide what would benefit society and hands it over to wealthy private individuals.
As it should be imo.What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?Someone smart enough to generate that kind of wealth in a short time is likely more than capable of putting it to good use, and precisely the sort of person I'd want distributing it. Certainly more so than the like of Mr Corbyn, who has never had a proper job in his life, and certainly never been responsible for creating what he wants to spend. Curious why a ragtag bunch of chancer politicians is preferable to the man who raised it in the first place.
The state only spends other peoples money, and it's not even very good at it. Why this is being criticised is beyond my understanding tbh.
technodup said:
s it should be imo.
What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?Someone smart enough to generate that kind of wealth in a short time is likely more than capable of putting it to good use, and precisely the sort of person I'd want distributing it. Certainly more so than the like of Mr Corbyn, who has never had a proper job in his life, and certainly never been responsible for creating what he wants to spend. Curious why a ragtag bunch of chancer politicians is preferable to the man who raised it in the first place.
The state only spends other peoples money, and it's not even very good at it. Why this is being criticised is beyond my understanding tbh.
Spot on. If there's one thing governments prove over and over again it's that they should have less of our money to waste not more.What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?Someone smart enough to generate that kind of wealth in a short time is likely more than capable of putting it to good use, and precisely the sort of person I'd want distributing it. Certainly more so than the like of Mr Corbyn, who has never had a proper job in his life, and certainly never been responsible for creating what he wants to spend. Curious why a ragtag bunch of chancer politicians is preferable to the man who raised it in the first place.
The state only spends other peoples money, and it's not even very good at it. Why this is being criticised is beyond my understanding tbh.
technodup said:
s it should be imo.
What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
Because a good chunk is technically tax money, and him "donating" it to his pet projects or interests may not aid the greater good at all. But do go ahead believing the MZ is donating 45.5 billion Euros for the greater good. If this were even half true, he'd be donating to UNICEF or another legit organization that he does not have direct ties to.What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
BTW, I have some ocean-front property for sale in Iowa if you are interested.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 3rd December 08:45
scherzkeks said:
technodup said:
s it should be imo.
What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
Because a good chunk is technically tax money, What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
Still not heard why the government (in our case those who are now firing expensive bombs at a distant country when we have homelessness, disease and 'poverty' at home which supposedly we can't pay to resolve) are better at allocating resources than a guy who's created billions of dollars in a decade, and who wants to do some good with it. I'm all ears...
technodup said:
scherzkeks said:
technodup said:
s it should be imo.
What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
Because a good chunk is technically tax money, What makes you think the state can spend HIS money more wisely than he can?
Still not heard why the government (in our case those who are now firing expensive bombs at a distant country when we have homelessness, disease and 'poverty' at home which supposedly we can't pay to resolve) are better at allocating resources than a guy who's created billions of dollars in a decade, and who wants to do some good with it. I'm all ears...
Meanwhile we see governments squander our tax receipts on many undeserving causes and with a complete lack of commerciality. Of course he should want to have influence over how the money is spent. As for comments about why not give money to say UNICEF - it's laughable - UNICEF and the Red Cross are some of the most political and financially wasteful charitable organisations you can imagine plus of course, whilst Zuckerberg has never publically commented on Israel, it's highly unlikely many jews would donate money to either of those two organisations
If he wants his name to be attached to some form of legacy, so be it. If its ego driven, so be it. Most non for profit organisation at all levels, be they government or charitable, have poor track records so if he thinks he can do better if he has more control, its not flawed logic
bananaman1 said:
fblm said:
I use facebook, I love it. Its a great way to keep in touch with friends and acquantences scattered all over the globe. Why am I an idiot? 
Snap :-).......did we get an explanation? To keep in touch with the stuff I want to see or be notified about, I spend most of my time on there blocking or removing links and tagged stuff. 99% of what's around is just dross. Not interested people's personal details or stupid videos, animals, kids, food or the usual philosophical inane crap people seem to want to post or share.
technodup said:
ithout knowing all the ins and outs of his financial affairs I suspect (given I've never seen the 'Zuckerberg in court for tax evasion' headline) you would prefer this to be tax money, but that doesn't make it so.
Still not heard why the government (in our case those who are now firing expensive bombs at a distant country when we have homelessness, disease and 'poverty' at home which supposedly we can't pay to resolve) are better at allocating resources than a guy who's created billions of dollars in a decade, and who wants to do some good with it. I'm all ears...
A straw man. As we both know, the government generally attempts to spend tax money in ways that will benefit society. This doesn't mean it always makes wise decisions or is free of corruption. But I think we can all agree this is generally successful. Still not heard why the government (in our case those who are now firing expensive bombs at a distant country when we have homelessness, disease and 'poverty' at home which supposedly we can't pay to resolve) are better at allocating resources than a guy who's created billions of dollars in a decade, and who wants to do some good with it. I'm all ears...
However, a rich man avoiding taxes by funneling money into "donations" to organizations that further his specific interests (which may be quite detrimental to society)or even to his own personal LLC(!), is something different. This sort of thing has been heavily criticized in Germany on many occasions (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/facebook-gruender-die-zuckerberg-spende-altruismus-oder-eigennutz-1.2763875).
Also, lets consider how he made his money in the first place. Now he's donating 45.5 billion for the greater good. To his personal LLC.
exitwound said:
bananaman1 said:
fblm said:
I use facebook, I love it. Its a great way to keep in touch with friends and acquantences scattered all over the globe. Why am I an idiot?
Snap :-).......did we get an explanation? To keep in touch with the stuff I want to see or be notified about, I spend most of my time on there blocking or removing links and tagged stuff. 99% of what's around is just dross. Not interested people's personal details or stupid videos, animals, kids, food or the usual philosophical inane crap people seem to want to post or share.
fblm said:
exitwound said:
bananaman1 said:
fblm said:
I use facebook, I love it. Its a great way to keep in touch with friends and acquantences scattered all over the globe. Why am I an idiot?
Snap :-).......did we get an explanation? To keep in touch with the stuff I want to see or be notified about, I spend most of my time on there blocking or removing links and tagged stuff. 99% of what's around is just dross. Not interested people's personal details or stupid videos, animals, kids, food or the usual philosophical inane crap people seem to want to post or share.
Back of the net 
scherzkeks said:
the government generally attempts to spend tax money in ways that will benefit society. This doesn't mean it always makes wise decisions or is free of corruption. But I think we can all agree this is generally successful.
I must be imagining the neverending NHS crisis, the pensions black hole, expenses scandal and the housing shortage then. Governments are very bad at spending other people's money, and regularly decide to spend it on things the public never would, e.g. pointless and unsuccessful wars, a wasteful welfare system, NHS IT projects, HS2, windfarms- do you want me to go on?scherzkeks said:
However, a rich man avoiding taxes by funneling money into "donations" to organizations that further his specific interests (which may be quite detrimental to society
It's his specific money. He can spend it as he wishes. And as tax avoidance is entirely lawful I'm not sure why you're still banging on about it. He's a rich guy who wants to spend his own money on projects he cares about. If he's got $45bn and wants to burn it all KLF style he should be free to do so. If he wanted a solid gold Rolls Royce and diamond suits why not? As it is he pays himself nothing and wears the same t-shirts and jeans every day of the week. If he wants to spend it curing disease and encouraging learning I can't see why anyone would be opposed to it (other than jealousy and the misplaced sense "we know best" self entitlement favoured by socialists and grasping politicians of all colours).
technodup said:
t's his specific money. He can spend it as he wishes. And as tax avoidance is entirely lawful I'm not sure why you're still banging on about it.
He's a rich guy who wants to spend his own money on projects he cares about. If he's got $45bn and wants to burn it all KLF style he should be free to do so. If he wanted a solid gold Rolls Royce and diamond suits why not? As it is he pays himself nothing and wears the same t-shirts and jeans every day of the week. If he wants to spend it curing disease and encouraging learning I can't see why anyone would be opposed to it (other than jealousy and the misplaced sense "we know best" self entitlement favoured by socialists and grasping politicians of all colours).
Nothing I commented on had anything to do with his right to "donate" his massive fortune to his own personal limited liability company or even set it on fire if he so wishes.He's a rich guy who wants to spend his own money on projects he cares about. If he's got $45bn and wants to burn it all KLF style he should be free to do so. If he wanted a solid gold Rolls Royce and diamond suits why not? As it is he pays himself nothing and wears the same t-shirts and jeans every day of the week. If he wants to spend it curing disease and encouraging learning I can't see why anyone would be opposed to it (other than jealousy and the misplaced sense "we know best" self entitlement favoured by socialists and grasping politicians of all colours).
This far in and you've lost the plot? No point in continuing I suppose.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 3rd December 16:09
scherzkeks said:
Nothing I commented on had anything to do with his right to "donate" his massive fortune to his own personal limited liability company...
FFS. You keep bleating about this point. He only has any tax liability if he ever sells his shares, in the US the maximum tax would be 20%. Regardless of the corporate structure he uses, (you keep saying it will be an LLC but I have no idea how you know this, IMO it will be a trust like BMGF), if the gift is to be treated as a charitable donation and not incur CGT it will have to be with a registered charity. All arms length, all regulated. It's no longer his money, he can't go buy a private jet with it. Your attitude that government knows best is utterly and demonstrably absurd. The likes of BMGF and Zukerburgs charity will do more for mankind than countless tens of thousands of little idiots like you carping from the sidelines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gat...
Perhaps it's time to pull your head out your arse and recognise this for what it is; one of the most extraordinary acts of philanthropy in history.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff