Zuckerberg To Give Away 99% of His Facebook Stock (bloomberg.com) 260
An anonymous reader writes: The Facebook stock currently held by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan is worth roughly $45 billion. Today, the couple posted a letter addressed to their newborn daughter outlining plans to give away 99% of that stock so their daughter can "live in a better world." They say, "Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities." The letter also includes a long list of problems that need to be solved and situations that need to be improved: human health, learning, clean energy, equality, unhealthy childhoods, and more. They go out of their way to mention that many of these will not be solved quickly, and will need investments on a 100-year scale to be worthwhile. They're making internet access another major issue: "The internet is so important that for every 10 people who gain internet access, about one person is lifted out of poverty and about one new job is created."
I'd be happy with the remaining 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd be happy with the remaining 1% (Score:5, Informative)
but, Max and her siblings will still have a head start my children have only dreamed of.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'd be happy with the remaining 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?
I'm all for pointing out the evils done by people, but it's a bit sad to always focus on the bad things when there are also good things, on occasion.
Would it, according to you, be better if they did not do this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be better if there was more equality, and we all got a voice. That is, to be able to donate relatively large and meaningful sums to causes we each believe in, instead of being at the mercy of the few who "made it" by capitalizing on a system that's so convoluted and complicated, where a dollar spent by the consumer doesn't signify a "vote" in the product or person behind it anymore.
You communicate to the world how much you value something by your willingness to spend money on it. The problem is tha
Re:I'd be happy with the remaining 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
God you are so right. What a bastard! I wish he would keep all of that money instead of giving it away. That would totally make the world a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
...and... who believes that "statistic" about 1 of 10 provided internet service move out of poverty? How about 9 of 10 provided internet service become Facebook "customers"?
I'm honestly happy if Zuckerberg spends his dough to improve the world, but I'd rather see someone as obnoxious as Ellison blow it honestly on stuff in which he's interested than Gates disengenuously spend it "for the good".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see him use it like Elon Musk does, to develop technologies which really do improve peoples' lives. If this Hyperloop thing actually works out for instance, imagine how that will improve travel: safer than air travel, far less polluting and energy-using, and faster too. And if we get to commonplace and inexpensive electric vehicles soon, imagine how that will improve things: far less pollution and energy use again, plus no more dependence on fossil fuels (since electricity can be generated by r
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy receiving 1% of 1% of the distribution.
Re:I'd be happy with the remaining 1% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He'd make a great favor on the human race by just shutting down facehook.
Really? What would you gain?
Re: (Score:2)
It'd save countless lives.
Lives of people so concentrated looking at Facebook on their phone while walking (or, worse, riding their bike or driving a motor vehicle) that they don't pay attention and have an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously there is something wrong with our society. So it's nice to have some of the big wigs to jump in.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that big wigs can jump in is exactly one of the things that are wrong. Their existence alone points to the problem itself.
What makes an hour of one man's lifetime more valuable than an hour of another man's?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes an hour of one man's lifetime more valuable than an hour of another man's?
I think what is done during that hour makes the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on how that last hour of his life is spent. I would not want to have to experience the last hour of my life dying from pancreatic cancer. By all accounts it's maybe next to crucifixion one of the lesser pleasant ways to go.
What matters is that you put a price tag on the lifetime of a person. When you do that, you have to justify it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no 'pricetag' on the lifetime of a person. People get paid not for existing, but for what they do or have. Zuckerberg created a company. Many people thought their lives would be improved if they owned a piece of that company, so they each VOLUNTARILY paid him a relatively small amount for a piece. In the process, he became rich. There was no value judgement on the value of Zuckerberg's or anyone else's life. They wanted what he had, so he sold it to them.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes an hour of one man's lifetime more valuable than an hour of another man's?
What an odd question. It seems you're implying that all hours of all lives should be valued equally.
That's not what that question implies at all. That question asks, quite plainly, what is it that we as a society value such that we as a society value one man's hour more than another. Obviously we don't value everyone's time the same, but we do value some things more than others. It appears that *what* those things are is the crux of the matter, and what the question was asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning stock worth $x != $x in your pocket. Until you have a buyer for your share, it's worth about as much as the paper your share certificate is printed on. Considering nowadays it's usually just bits on a computer, that value is about $0.
There's some $45 bln worth of stock in his account. To use this to actually do stuff such as finding a solution to malaria would mean you have to sell it. Now here's the problem: are there enough people willing to put down cash to make the total amount they put down for
On the Importance of the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting, but I've never heard such a claim before. That also sounds like correlation but perhaps not causation. And is the person who is lifted out of poverty and/or the job created one of those 10 people who gained internet access? What type of job is created? How is someone lifted form poverty? How soon after getting internet access? Maybe it's "eventually" due to education?
Re:On the Importance of the Internet (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting, but I've never heard such a claim before.
Really? I'm constantly seeing articles about how people made large amounts of money in their spare time, working from home on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I'm constantly seeing articles about how people made large amounts of money in their spare time, working from home on the internet.
I've read the same articles as well as a couple of others regarding the enhancement of male genitalia. I am currently working on both fronts, with the calluses to prove, and apparently neither work all the time. So I guess correlation rather than causation... :-)
Re:On the Importance of the Internet (Score:5, Informative)
How is someone lifted form poverty?
The biggest single reason is easy access to commodity prices. Farmers can see the market price for their crops, and avoid getting ripped off by middlemen. They can also make more informed choices about which crops to grow, which fertilizers to use, how to irrigate, and when to harvest. Once they have access to the Internet, many farmers in Africa soon stop growing low value subsistence crops like rice and maize, and switch to much higher value cash crops like mangoes and coffee, which are exported to Europe and the Middle East. Once they are growing crops that generate cashflow, they have access to credit, and can buy machinery, buy fertilizer, hire additional labor, and even buy out and consolidate neighboring farms.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare and family planning information too. Smaller, healthier families = less poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how that might work - in theory. In practice, is it really that easy to switch your crops (climate, soil composition, etc.)? Also... where would one of these farmers get the seed/starter crops to switch?
Also what's interesting to me here is that - why do these farmers need the internet to do this? What about word of mouth? Why don't the European / Middle Eastern purchasers approach the farmers and say "hey, we want lower prices for these goods, let's cut out the middlemen and if you grow these c
Re:On the Importance of the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a very good answer to the question. The more general answer is "information" and "education" in all areas of life. The correlation between education and status growth is well studied and I'm surprised the question even had to be asked.
the correlation is reversed (Score:2)
The correlation is probably the reverse of the one stated. With prosperity comes consumption of services, like internet access.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends on which definition of the word "dissipate" you are using. If it's the first definition, "to disperse, or scatter", then it absolutely makes the world a better place. If you use the second definition, "squander or fritter away", then maybe yes, maybe no. Economically, if Mark Zuckerberg's shares were turned into $100 bills and dropped from a helicopter, it would without a doubt improve the world more than having it remain as Facebook capital
Re: (Score:2)
Our current economy's problem is not a lack of investment capital. It's a lack of consumption capital.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you do. If it stays locked up it is not free to circulate and enrich people. Money wants to circulate, it wants to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
Money "wants" nothing. It has no will of its own.
What you maybe mean, and that would actually be correct, is that the velocity of the circulation of money is a very good indicator for the health of an economy system. The faster money moves, the better the economy is doing. Money being held back and hoarded is toxic for any kind of economy. Any. It needn't even be a free economy, even in a planned economy this will end in a disaster.
Only money on the move generates revenue. Only when it exchanges hands, when
Re: (Score:2)
Money doesn't like to be anthropomorphized ;)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not our economic problem currently. There is plenty of capital on the supply side, more than we need even. We do not lack investment capital. We lack worthwhile investments. And investments only get created when there is something that can be expected to be sold.
The economy depends on consumption. Selling something is not enough, that something has then to be consumed. Removed from the economic cycle. So it has to be replaced. Buying something with the intent to resell it does not aid the economy, f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hoarding real-estate and luxury goods while consuming mass quantities of energy (private jet travel, for instance) is dissipating capital.
Focusing $44 Billion on specific programs can make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
not really, the priorities are wrong. Serious list of problems to solve would go 1. thirst 2. hunger 3. sanitation then all those other nice things
how he could really make the world a better place (Score:5, Insightful)
0. Sell 5% of FB stock. Hold profits for step 3.
1. Destroy the data-mined profiles of people's lives that Facebook builds.
2. Shut down Facebook.
3. Use remainder of his fortune to fund a distributed, censorship-resistant, surveillance-resistant, easy to use social network not beholden to or run by data brokers.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about he gets clean drinking water to Haiti?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the whole island is populated by people with dark skin. DR is pretty poor in comparison to what people in the US are used to, but yeah, they live pretty well there. I personally cannot give an answer to why it is so much worse in Haiti compared to DR, but it isn't the number of people with dark skin.
When I was in the DR last Christmas/New Years, I took one of my kids out 4 wheeling, and as part of that excursion, they took us to a Haitian refugee village. It was suggested we bring candy for the Haiti
"give away 99% of that stock" (Score:5, Informative)
Or... you could pay Facebook's taxes with it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah .. so the government can fund critical programs. Like war on terror, war on drugs, and medicare and social security.
Talk about pissing money down a rat hole.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's the justification behind tax dodging?
How is that different from "But EA is a huge, faceless corporation making billions of dollars, who cares if one person rips a game?"
Re: (Score:2)
He really has to do this (Score:3)
He really has to do this. The company isn't growing anymore, and has not been growing for a while. All of the side projects and ostentatious giving is necessary to try to hype up this over-hyped stock. I'm sorry for FB fanboys, but this is the dark and honest truth.
From a human standpoint, his commitment is amazing, much like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been and continues to be.
I say, best of luck trying to keep FB "profitable."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, those are long shots. FB is in a very precarious position, like AOL in the early 2000s.
Cynicism (Score:2, Interesting)
I love how so many people posting here are so cynical.
Personally I don't see why his motivations are hard to believe at all as they would be pretty much the same if I was in his shoes. No one on this planet needs to own more than a few million dollars, forget about billions.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. Mark Zuckerberg could give away 99% of his Facebook shares and it would not affect his standard of living, or that of his children and grandchildren, one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't see why his motivations are hard to believe at all ...
I see you have not used facebook, or know its history. When Larry and Sergey said "don't be evil", ... well, if facebook had existed back then, they would be looking at Zuckerberg. But then, Gates seems to have turned away from evil, and not spent _all_ his billions on a hollowed-out volcano.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really seeing a lot of cynics questioning his sincerity at wanting to do something good with his money that outlasts his time on the planet. I think MANY people with a lot of money start considering these options, because you really can't take it with you. And it's a little depressing sometimes seeing the inanely stupid things wealth goes to in poorly thought out wills.
Where I think people have valid reason to question him is with the whole "foundation" angle. Many people take issue with the Bill an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He probably doesn't own even a few million dollars. What he owns is shares in companies, companies that produce useful stuff.
Selling those shares and putting the money into non-profits is not necessarily good for society.
We know that he'll be a tax cheat. (Score:2)
Unless there's some push to remove the avenue of using "charity" as a cover, there's a 99% certainty that it's just tax cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, you insensitive clod!
Good on him. (Score:2)
Basically the only reason I'd want to have the burden of billions of dollars is to use them to try to make the world a better place.
curing disease when in the usa you may have to go (Score:2)
curing disease when in the usa you may have to go to lockup to find a doctor that will see you as soon it will be very hard to find one that will take meadcade as that will be the best you can get with your mc job after an H1B takes you job.
He's simply got a better job lined up (Score:2)
99% of his stock ... (Score:3)
too bad (Score:2)
Giving the money to non-profits is largely going to be a waste. Zuckerberg would do much better to pick another big commercial project and focus on that: space travel, asteroid mining, human cloning, nanotech, whatever.
Not a leader (Score:2)
Giving the money to non-profits is largely going to be a waste. Zuckerberg would do much better to pick another big commercial project and focus on that: space travel, asteroid mining, human cloning, nanotech, whatever.
It's a fine idea, but it's missing a key ingredient: the drive and capability of the person spearheading the project.
Mark is not well known as an innovator, a leader, or even a creator.
I'm not saying that this is bad in any way, or that this is some sort of deficit in his character, I'm just saying that he's *probably* not the right person to pull off a big commercial project. Compare with Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Richard Branson.
And it's *highly* unlikely that he can find the right person to run such a ve
Frugal usage? (Score:2)
At least half of it should go to the sciences imo.
What else would he do with the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's some truth to the premise of the movie "Brewster's Millions". After a certain point, spending money is not easy to do. If Zuckerberg is keeping half a billion to support his family, the other $45 billion won't make any difference to him. He can still live more extravagantly than most other multi-millionaires.
By giving away what is basically his surplus, he gains positive publicity and maybe a bit of personal satisfaction. That's probably worth more to him than keeping the money in the bank. It wouldn't even affect his Forbes ranking since he has already said that he will still effectively control the donated Facebook stock.
But I don't begrudge him his notion of philanthropy anymore than I begrudge the NBA stars their philanthropic foundations. They all get their publicity, tax benefits, etc. It's their money, so they get to decide what to do with it. The one criticism that I have is that I don't think much of Zuckerberg's priorities. Curing a widespread third-world disease like malaria a la Bill Gates is an impactful thing. Increasing internet access is not even a first-world problem and will do not much for people who worry about basic necessities. The one philanthropist that I really admire is Andrew Carnegie, who used his gifts to build over 2500 libraries in the world, many of which are still operating after a hundred years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's some truth to the premise of the movie "Brewster's Millions". After a certain point, spending money is not easy to do. If Zuckerberg is keeping half a billion to support his family, the other $45 billion won't make any difference to him. He can still live more extravagantly than most other multi-millionaires.
By giving away what is basically his surplus, he gains positive publicity and maybe a bit of personal satisfaction. That's probably worth more to him than keeping the money in the bank. It wouldn't even affect his Forbes ranking since he has already said that he will still effectively control the donated Facebook stock.
But I don't begrudge him his notion of philanthropy anymore than I begrudge the NBA stars their philanthropic foundations. They all get their publicity, tax benefits, etc. It's their money, so they get to decide what to do with it. The one criticism that I have is that I don't think much of Zuckerberg's priorities. Curing a widespread third-world disease like malaria a la Bill Gates is an impactful thing. Increasing internet access is not even a first-world problem and will do not much for people who worry about basic necessities. The one philanthropist that I really admire is Andrew Carnegie, who used his gifts to build over 2500 libraries in the world, many of which are still operating after a hundred years.
He's not giving anything away. This is a 'donation' to his family 'charity'. In other words a way to get around the inheritance tax. It's not by accident that this decision comes just after having a child.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some truth to the premise of the movie "Brewster's Millions". After a certain point, spending money is not easy to do. If Zuckerberg is keeping half a billion to support his family, the other $45 billion won't make any difference to him. He can still live more extravagantly than most other multi-millionaires.
I think spending money is easier than you think. At one point when the Powerball lottery was at some big number, I put together a spreadsheet to see how easy/hard it would be to spend it, and found that I could spend it pretty easily. A private jet, like a G650 will set you back $65 million and that doesn't include hiring a flight crew or operational costs. Real estate is another place you can sink a lot of money.
You do kind of have to throw out the kind of common sense thinking about money, though, and
Lobbying orgainzations? (Score:2)
If the Zuckerbergs give their money to organizations that help people directly, then good. But I wonder if they plan to give part of their money to lobbying organizations, including organizations that push for more immigration. From their letter to our daughter [facebook.com]:
Can we build inclusive and welcoming communities?
Can we nurture peaceful and understanding relationships between people of all nations?
Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented minorities, immigrants and the unconnected?
Maybe they mean just that and nothing more, but maybe they're preparing to push for freer immigration into the US.
Space Elevator (Score:2)
Instead of creating charities against diseases, inequality and whatnot, as they all do, maybe one of these billionaires should finally invest into the stuff that will actually save humanity as a whole. Such as large-scale investment in renewable energy and other means of dealing with climate change. Or a Space Elevator to finally start opening the solar system for humanity.
Estimated cost of a Space Elevator: 20 billion $. Zuckerberg alone could build two of them.
Foundations are the biggest scam in the world. (Score:5, Insightful)
This always cracks me up how wage slaves erm people continually fall for this.
Foundations are the biggest tax dodge ever. In fact, since Zuck is opening up a foundation he can "donate" his shares to an organization he wholly controls who can then sell that stock capital gains tax free. The best part is he can use that f*ck all amount as a tax write off on his future earnings as well.
Then with whatever the obscene amount of money he can pay some small group of people to manage it. His daughter when she comes of age can then become a "director" or some other BS title and get paid $350,000 or more for the privilege of doing so. His family can then live off of this foundations free cash from being properly managed for the remainder of time. It's how the Rochefellers and Rothchilds continue their wealth without doing any real work.
He's smart to be doing this now before the next big dip in the market which should be coming soon enough.
Don't forget avoiding the estate tax (Score:2)
That's the real purpose. You know how conservatives alway say to get rid of the estate tax because the really rich can just avoid it but farmers and small business people get screwed? Well here is your example. Hundreds of billions that won't be taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The slave world looks at this and is all giddy and in awe about the kindness of these people and how generous and amazing they are. When in reality they are just using the system to further their wealth and position in society.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, since Zuck is opening up a foundation he can "donate" his shares to an organization he wholly controls who can then sell that stock capital gains tax free.
And those gains will go to the foundation and the causes it supports, not to buying millionaire toys for Zuck.
The best part is he can use that f*ck all amount as a tax write off on his future earnings as well.
No, the basis for the write-off is the price paid for the property, not the appreciated price.
His daughter when she comes of age can then become a "director" or some other BS title and get paid $350,000 or more for the privilege of doing so.
And here $350,000 salary will be taxed like any other salary.
Whenever money comes out of the trust, it either gets used for charitable purposes, or it gets taxed. And no, they cannot just let the capital sit there and appreciate forever. Charitable trusts are subject to minimum distribution requirements, so
misleading (Score:3)
In fact, it seems it isn't a charity at all:
"Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have set up the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a limited liability company - not a charity or charitable trust. Legal filings show that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is owned and controlled by Zuckerberg.
A spokesperson has confirmed to Buzzfeed that as a company, the Initiative can spend its money on whatever it wants - including private, profit-generating investment."
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Out of the Three Comma club? (Score:2)
That means that he will be stripped of his honors from being in the Three Comma club. No more cars with doors that open "like this" or "like this".
Or does he have worth anywhere else?
Yeah sure.... (Score:2)
Sure, he will give it all to a "foundation" that he and his progeny can live off of tax free in perpetuity just like Bill Gates while employing an army of public relations teams to amplify the tiny percentage of the wealth spent on others to huge levels.
This is a win win for Z. He gets credit today for "giving it all away" without actually giving it all away today.
Important years for Z to think about (Score:2)
1381. 1793. 1917.
Manipulation is not almsgiving (Score:2)
There is a difference between giving away your wealth and using your wealth to manipulate. Zuckerberg says that his goal is, “advancing human potential and promoting equality,” That's sounds suspitiously like manipulation, not almsgiving. It's just another way to use wealth to project, and even build, power. It might be a kindler and gentler way of doing it, but that's what it is.
At any rate, the Zuckerbergs are very vague so far about what, precisely, they plan to do, so I suppose there is
Re: The bigger picture (Score:2)
Re:The bigger picture (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The bigger picture (Score:5, Interesting)
Since he's selling his stock, he's also selling management of the company.
He may not be selling his stock. He can donate the stock directly to his foundation, and take the tax write-off, without selling it. Then he can name himself and Priscilla as trustees of the foundation. So he can give away his stock, but still retain full voting rights and control of Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the real reason. The kids can become employees of the foundation and be paid salaries without being hit by the estate tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't give it away, that's the point. You move the shares from the left pocket to the right pocket. You don't own the shares your foundation does. Of course you run the foundation so you still control the shares. And of course the foundation has business expenses like private planes and hotels for traveling the world and meals at the best restaurants in order to oversea this foundation. And you can pay yourself and your kids a salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Since he's selling his stock, he's also selling management of the company.
He may not be selling his stock. He can donate the stock directly to his foundation, and take the tax write-off, without selling it. Then he can name himself and Priscilla as trustees of the foundation. So he can give away his stock, but still retain full voting rights and control of Facebook.
Not to mention passing the whole thing off to the next generation of Zuckerberg-Chans without incurring any inheritance taxes.
It's amazing how many people look at this move and see altruism when it's nothing but a rich family tax dodge.
Re: (Score:2)
Control is the currency of the super-rich (Score:2)
Since he's selling his stock, he's also selling management of the company.
He may not be selling his stock. He can donate the stock directly to his foundation, and take the tax write-off, without selling it. Then he can name himself and Priscilla as trustees of the foundation. So he can give away his stock, but still retain full voting rights and control of Facebook.
This is also speculation. But this falls in line with what Bill Gates and the other super-techno-rich are doing or are planning to do. Philanthropy is a different beast from your typical street corner charity. If I donate to a charity, I basically don't have any control over how the money is spent, whether it goes to feed the poor, save the turtles, or arm Al-Qaeda. Of course, I can refuse to donate in the future the minute I learn about the charity's shenanigans. On the other hand, something like the Gates
Re: (Score:2)
100%. Next question please.
Re:The question people ought to be asking themselv (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wanted to be charitable you could have actually made your product less expensive, ...
(a) Facebook is free. (b) Its users *are* the product - already given freely.
Unless you mean Facebook could sell user information and content to advertisers for less...
Re: (Score:3)
or you could remit that money to the government instead which is governed by the people.
Or he could realize he has already amassed enough money to do meaningful change, unlike the rest of society that needs to pool their money into the government to amass wealth of a similar scale. Now that he has this wealth, I feel there are two "best" options based on where his motivations lie:
1) He doesn't care about helping people: Start a charity to funnel money into and avoid as much taxes as possible.
2) He does care about helping people: Start a charity to do enact meaningful change in a much more effi
He's not THAT stupid. Already paid 55% tax (Score:3)
> 1) He doesn't care about helping people: Start a charity to funnel money into and avoid as much taxes as possible.
This is his stock. He's already paying 40% income tax plus 15% double FICA on his -salary- either way. The stock income is long term capital gains, taxed at 15%. Which means that for every $100 he gives away, he saves $15 on his taxes.
So let's do the math. He could either:
Gross gain: $45 billion
Tax: $7 billion
Net he keeps: $38 billion
Or:
Gross gain: $45 billion
Give awa
Bullshit, defender of another tax cheat. (Score:3)
$38M, since it's honest money not obtained by cheating while the other $162M is blood money. Besides, it's not as if one wouldn't end up receiving the $162M some other way.
You don't get to play the Almighty just because you're the 21st Century version of a robber baron.
Supporting 45,000 people (Score:2)
If you wanted to be charitable you could have [...], or you could remit that money to the government instead which is governed by the people.
Just to be clear, you are suggesting that money given to the government will go towards the needs of the people. That's what you're saying... yes?
Hypothetically speaking, a $1 million mutual fund well-invested can return roughly 7% over a long period and require 0.5% in management fees. Assuming 2.5% inflation, that amount would provide $50,000 per annum in perpetuity.
If you disagree with the numbers you can use other numbers, but the central point is the same.
$45 billion could be set up as a fund that supp
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanted to be charitable you could have actually made your product less expensive
That's certainly a legitimate criticism of, say, Bill Gates. His money came from a lot of individuals (as well as corporations) who might have different priorities for their charitable donations - quite why one man gets to aggregate their money and give it away as he chooses is a bit of a moral puzzle.
In the case of Facebook, perhaps they should be paying their users for the exploitation of their personal data and allowing them to do with that money as they see fit. If I were looking for a suitable candi
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't consider handing over my privacy "free".
In neither definition of free.
Re: (Score:2)
If every life matters how would you pick? You could do nothing and then 1 person would die, or you could employ your sidearm and then 1 person would still die.
Which death would be better for your friend? I'm sure they would argue for the criminal's death over their own. Which one would be better for you? I would guess you would pick the cri
Re: (Score:2)
Every life saved matters? I would argue that is not true. If you had to choose shooting a criminal or letting the criminal kill your friend which would you do?
Both lives still matter. That doesn't mean you can't choose one over the other when placed in a situation where it's impossible to save both, but obviously saving them both would be the best outcome. In this situation if you wanted to save both lives you'd have to start much earlier, and prevent the first person from turning to crime. By the time you're forced to choose between them that opportunity has already been lost. However, it is possible to look ahead and take actions that will prevent others from t
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Africa. Africa is a country that has one resource in abundance that we lack: Affordable Manpower.
Re: (Score:2)
You say nigger, I say opportunity.
Africa has a lot of potential. It's like China, all it takes for Africa to take over is stability. But as long as we keep it destabilized we can continue gobbling up its raw materials and not be worried about them turning into the next China or India.
Re: (Score:2)
But that kind of money should easily buy a few local politicians. I mean, if it buys whole senators, how hard could it be?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not denying that some good may come out of it, but Gates and Zuck are not 'giving their money away' . They are investing it in a 'foundation' which they and their descendants retain control of. If they lost all their other money tomorrow they are still guaranteed an income (as Chairman/Chief Exec of the Foo Foundation) that would keep them in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. And the power and influence that comes with that.
Buffet I couldn't speak for, as I haven't read what he intends to do.