Zuckerberg’s Choice

Posted by Tina

A while back Mark Zuckerberg decided he would create an LLC in order to direct his massive wealth to both charity and innovation. This development will deny the federal government sizable “donations” to the collective coffer. In other words he decided he would choose how the wealth he acquired through the development and promotion of FACEBOOK would be spent or invested rather than having it distributed, often unwisely, through the federal government. Progressives across the globe cried foul! One German socialist claimed Zuckerberg lacked the “legitimacy” to direct the course of what he had acquired. Only the government, in his eyes, should redistribute that much wealth. Zuckerberg’s choice is distasteful to the socialist zeitgeist who believe humans cannot be trusted and so we must act as a collective with forced equality ensuring every child is of the village and deserving of an equal portion regardless his contribution.

In America we strive to do things differently. We believe in freedom and realize that with freedom comes responsibility. It begins with the idea that we are equals and that as equals it is up each of us to overcome obstacles and make our own way in the world. As free persons we can make whatever associations and alliances we choose in the pursuit of our dreams. We believe we have a moral obligation to personally aid those who cannot help themselves or who need a temporary helping hand. We realize it’s imperative to prepare for adult responsibilities and so we teach our children to study and work hard to become contributing members of society. We recognize the obligation to pass these concepts and traditions on in our children. We believe most decisions about our lives should be made within our homes first, cities and counties second, and finally at the state level. These ideals reflect the ideals expressed by our founders. We believe all citizens should contribute to the federal government for the cost of defending our nation and settling disputes between the states and within our legal system.

I don’t know if Mark Zuckerberg is conservative or if he leans toward the progressive. As an American I do know Mr. Zuckerberg has a constitutional right to decide how his wealth will be spent and invested. His wealth is his property; it is his to direct. But as we know politicians have placed great restraints on our personal freedoms and ignored founding principles, particularly within the last century. The progressive movement has already greatly influenced tax law as well as how the principles of our founding are perceived. Now the powers that lead this movement are poised to go after even more control of personal wealth. The next election will highlight stark differences in how our nation should economically and morally advance going forward and ax policy will be a contentious agenda item in the debates.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrat candidate for president she will play politics on this issue trying to straddle the fence to appear reasonable while maintaining her progressive creds. A statement she made at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York betrays any political ploys she might advance and exposes her true position:

“One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country. You know, I’m out of American politics, but it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally.”

A couple of things strike me as odd about her statement. One is, she fails to include herself in that pack of elites when she says, “they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally.” Not only does she fail to include herself, a very wealthy woman, in her assessment, she sweeps a lot of important history under the rug. here. Another site lists specific sizable donations made by the wealthy: The Estate of Walter Annenberg donated $1 billion to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2002; The estate of Bill Daniels, who made his fortune in cable television, donated $1.1 billion to the Daniels Fund which provides scholarships, and grants to nonprofit organizations in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming; In 2001 Jim and Virginia Stowers donated $1.1 Billion to the Stowers Institute for Medical Research which they also founded. (Scroll down at the link for more examples)

You can see that Hillary’s statement is demonstrably false. Wealthy people do invest in the public good in many ways.In fact they got wealthy by bringing us out of lives of hardship and early death, curing diseases, improvements in transportation and everyday life, and creating new ways to entertain ourselves. Wealthy investors contribute by funding research and development in technology, new medicines, and specifically to Hillary’s comment, the wealthy contribute to schools through high property taxes on the very expensive properties they own. Some pay property taxes in multiple states. Many of them also donate yearly to the college they attended. And let us not forget, that some of our most prestigious universities were founded by the wealthy.

Stanford was founded by Leland and Jane Stanford. The conservative Stanford’s announced their motivation following the early death of their only son, “…the children of California shall be our children.” They also chose non-traditional policies for their times. Their school would be co-educational and have no religious requirement. The Stanford’s also used their wealth to build a museum that would later become the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University.

In more recent times Bill and Malinda Gates created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a means for distributing their wealth as they see fit. Globally their goal is to “enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty” and in the United States their focus has been “to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.” (Gates has donated to both political parties and prefers a global perspective)

The Zuckerbergs of the world contribute in taxes when they earn, when they invest, when they realize a capital return, when they purchase expensive items, when they purchase homes and just as the rest of us, through various taxes imposed on everything from car licenses to utility taxes. But they also contribute in other ways. It is often their money that is put toward the innovation and growth that create good jobs. They indulge themselves in expensive pampering and vacations, they initiate corporate meetings and retreats, and these help to provide good jobs to service oriented industries, generating more tax revenues. The Zuckerberg’s choice to legally keep their wealth under their own administration seems perfectly sane to me, how about you?