All of the people who are criticizing Zuckerberg for not donating 45 billion in the manner in which they would have donated their 45 billion are idiots. Zuckerberg’s gift is not to humanity. It’s to his daughter who will not have to carry the burden of all this money. And that’s a beautiful gift.
By the way, on Russian websites, the story is being discussed mostly from the perspective of, “Of course, something must be wrong with Zuckerberg. See what an incredibly ugly woman he married? He doesn’t deserve his own money!”
Clarissa's Blog 
How did he donate his money differently?
LikeLike
He didn’t give it to a charity but, rather, to an LLC that remains und we his control.
LikeLike
His daughter may have a different opinion about his “gift” when she reaches legal age!
LikeLike
Let’s not decide she will grow up to be a brainless twat. She has brilliant parents, she’ll get a great education. There’s no reason for her to be stupid.
LikeLike
You don’t have to be stupid to be unhappy about missing out on millions of dollars of inherited loot. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, you do, though. Handouts don’t bring happiness. Only achieving things on one’s own does.
LikeLike
In the legal sense, that money is Zuckerberg’s to do with what he will.
In the moral sense, the money isn’t his. It’s basically stolen.
The dichotomy is between people who are examining it from the moral dimension vs. the legalistic one.
I fall more on the moral side. No one should have that much wealth, even to “give” to charity — which in reality is just a PR move as it’ll likely be used as a cudgel to bash and bully others into doing what Zuckerberg wants.
LikeLike
\ In the moral sense, the money isn’t his. It’s basically stolen.
Stolen from whom and how?
When you say “stolen,” you imply there is some zero-sum game: the more money Z has, the less money “people” (?) have. I don’t think it really works this way.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, and for that matter you and I, are entitled to every dime that we earn through the capitalistic system that rewards us greatly while simultaneously also rewarding other lessor contributors to a lessor extent. No one is stealing from anyone, because everyone involves makes money — no zero sum of a total, limited pool of money is involved.
LikeLike
Stolen from whom??
LikeLike
My first thought was about why Zuckerberg chose a limited company to be the vehicle for his philanthropy, and whether there was some sort of American tax angle that I was missing …
That hunch turned out to be more or less spot on:
Sovereign Man —
“Mark Zuckerberg just bought 26 days of world peace”:
https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/mark-zuckerberg-just-bought-26-days-of-world-peace-18305/
“The Zuckerbergs formed a limited liability company (LLC). It’s not a non-profit or charitable trust. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is a for-profit, privately held vehicle that’s intended to make investments that will advance their vision.
Over the course of their lives, they’ll transfer Facebook shares to the LLC. But as that transfer is considered a donation, the Zuckerbergs will be able to completely eliminate capital gains tax from their Facebook shares. Plus they’ll be able to shield billions of dollars of other income from tax by writing off the donation as a charitable contribution.
Perhaps the biggest benefit is that the Facebook shares could now entirely avoid US federal estate tax.”
So that’s why Zuckerberg chose the limited company approach over a traditional foundation in the mould of Bill and Melinda Gates.
And if some people in the US Government decide that’s not acceptable, the Zuckerberg LLC could simply shift part of its tax base to a country where they’ve signed a tax agreement that’s financially beneficial.
I wouldn’t put it past HM Revenue and Customs’s High Net Worth Unit to approach the Zuckerberg LLC precisely because there would be a huge benefit to the UK for having some of that money sitting in British investments and charitable organisations.
Sovereign Man is more or less right: Zuckerberg probably did just buy 26 days of world peace, and then some …
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s about philanthropy at all. This was done right after the baby was born, and it seems like it’s about the baby.
Quite a few rich people do something like this in order to avoid destroying their children. A loving parent doesn’t saddle a child with 45 billion and, instead, gives her an understanding of why she doesn’t need them and a sense of self-worth that doesn’t reside in money.
I’ve seen enough children of rich people who, for my sins, seem to follow me everywhere I go, to know that not having any actual needs that you’ve got to work for destroys people. And I obviously never met anybody of Zuckerberg’s wealth.
People have got to want or they can’t exist.
LikeLike