This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.

You also have to take into account that the average age of Congress is almost 60. I.e. they have been working and accumulating assets for decades. Adjusted for age, the net worth of the median Congressman is at the 80th percentile: http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribut.... Is 80th percentile "wealthy"? It's within one standard deviation of the median. I'd call that upper middle class.

Fun fact: the median doctor is worth over $1 million by age 50, and about $2 million by age 65: http://www.medicalpracticeinsider.com/news/which-doctors-sta....

Which, again, fine, but I can't be the only one who thinks we'd be better off if we had more doctors in Congress.

Heck, I'm in Alberta where we've had a government returning taxes when we had budget surplus... just before the election.

It would slow the pace of government doing stuff down and if someone got bribed, it would be me.

And even if we did wrong, at least we'd truly be responsible. And screwing things up is kind of our birthright.

They way you describe it is not how it works in the real world, unfortunately.

Yeah yeah yeah, being cynical about democracy is cool, blah blah blah.

I suppose you should, what, just burn the motherf*cker down and be done with it, then?

You know, in 50 years the GOP will be able to look back and point to one of their most brilliant victories of all time: actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise.

It's utterly brilliant. "Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.

I'm not sure you know what a "neocon" is. Neocons derived from Trotskyism and are found in both major U.S. political parties. Neoconservatism has done more to expand government than perhaps any other ideology present in American politics.

>actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise.

Ironically that strategy sounds a lot like a strategy that's been deployed by progressives. If you look at some of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy--healthcare, banking, housing, wall street, etc--those are the same areas which progressives hold up as free market failures.

Varies considerably between things which get lumped together as representative democracies, from very poorly in systems like the US's which feature a strong duopoly, to very well in many modern multiparty systems. (More detail in, among other places, Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy.)

What about Bill Gates or Charles Koch, do you think they have about $8k worth of influence?

But a change coming through the electorate process should have a more lasting effect as simply boycotting Facebook would merely shift the wealth and influence to another person instead of Zuckerberg.

How is that any different from the comment you're replying to? If the government is running something, it's a government ("public") program rather than a private one.

What he says is bad is shifting the decision to the wealthy instead of the public.

Now, if the public is deciding by choosing where to put their own funding, in the form of donations, that makes more sense. But in that sense, the millionaires and billionaires creating or donating to charitable foundations are doing the same thing: deciding where to put their own funding.

It's his money, so it's his choice where it goes. Beyond that, this is just an argument for higher taxes to take that choice away. If you want to argue against allowing people to have and direct the wealth they've created, then make that argument, rather than assuming it as a premise. Once you've assumed that as a premise, then it starts to sound obvious to deemphasize charity and emphasize government programs; that step isn't the interesting part of the argument. As it turns out, we have multiple countries in the world, with different sensibilities about the relative value and efficacy of public and private work, among many things. The US model, evaluated by European sensibilities, is broken in many ways; the European model, evaluated by US sensibilities, is broken in many ways. Neither of those is as interesting or relevant for evaluating potential changes as a country's evaluation of its own models by its own sensibilities.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to have significantly less of my income directed by government to the causes they care about; I currently donate a significant fraction of my annual income to charity, and if I had the money back that currently goes to a pile of things I mostly don't care about, I'd love to donate even more to charity. I know for a fact that it'd do more good. Changing that would require changing what government is spending the money on, and I'm far more confident that I can change the course of a charitable organization (or choose a better one) than change the course of government.

As it stands right now, I think I could do more good with a pile of cash by setting it on fire than by giving it to government; additional money in government hands has negative utility, and may be used to hurt me and people I care about.

As a random thought experiment, I've often wondered how it would work if charitable donations produced a deduction directly from your tax burden, rather than from your taxable income. In other words, every dollar you donate comes straight off your taxes. That would produce some interesting results.

But if the money ever belonged to the individual, then the public cannot "subsidize" the individual keeping what he/she earned.

Put another way: if I walk up to someone on the street and forcibly take their money - and if that wasn't mine to begin with - most people would call that 'stealing' (or at least 'coercion' of some sort). If I chose to not forcibly take their money, and they then give that money to the homeless person on the corner, I'm not "subsidizing" the person whose money I didn't forcibly take.

It was theirs to begin with - not mine.

Without the infrastructure provided by society as a whole, no large business would be possible.

No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid.

If the argument is that he isn't paying taxes on the money he never had, that seems a little odd to me, but even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good.

In either scenario, I don't see any way in which Zuckerberg's charitable donations has avoided his obligation to the society which has chosen to prefer charitable giving to taxation.

So income tax is the only just form of taxation? What about consumption tax? Property tax?

> Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid.

Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income?

>even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good.

That's true and I'm OK with that. I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions.

I didn't specify income tax, but 'earned'. This would include a variety of taxes, including capital gains, income, etc. To be fair to the situation, this type of donation would likely trigger capital gains, but if the foundation set up is a 501c3, then they would be (possibly?) exempt -- as it seems to be an LLC, there doesn't seem to be a tax dodge here at all.

FWIW, I wasn't disputing whether any taxes were just or not; rather, disputing the notion that society is being robbed as a result of non-taxed earnings being withheld. As society has determined that is kosher, then there is no theft.

Personally, I consider income tax to be one of the least just forms of taxes, but that did not bear on my argument at all.

> Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income?

To be honest, it's still a bit ambiguous. If he's holding shares for now, he's paying capital gains on the shares that he holds -- to my knowledge, there's no way to earmark that money for charitable tax exemption without actually donating it, and in the short term, Zuck has stated that he won't be giving it all away immediately. Either way, if we accept the premises that society has chosen tax exemption for charitable contributions is something that society wants, and that he's paying taxes on his current earnings until he gives those shares/moneys away, he isn't robbing anyone of anything.

> I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions.

I won't go as far as to say that taxation is theft, but as I alluded to earlier, I lean that way on income tax. Regardless, I don't think that's really the point of the argument here. Regardless of whether or not tax is theft, Zuck is still paying his taxes. Any portion of income or potential income he gives away to charity is not theft from society because society has stated it hasn't via tax code.

In the counter-hypothetical that guntar made though, wherein Zuckerberg pays the full taxes owed on his earnings and incomes, and yet is still not entitled to do what he wants with his post-tax money, hence the state must be entitled to it? That would definitely be theft, in my opinion.

I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism.

"Feudalism is bad, so anything that can be vaguely compared to it must also be bad."

The state has a right to a fixed share of its subjects' income due to the contractually agreed-upon system of taxation. This is what that whole "no taxation without representation" slogan was about.

Your connection of representative government to feudalism is puzzling. Are you a libertarian?

Yes, because organizations are just collections of individuals. So of course an organization can't do anything without the action of individuals. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

> Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism.

There are many examples where groups of individuals have rights that are greater than the rights of individuals without bringing up feudalism.

No individual has the right to imprison another (for long periods at least). No individual has the right to use violence to enforce a contract. Do you imagine a society where individuals have those rights, or one where the state does not?

>which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land)

No the state isn't society. In a democratically controlled system, the state is the proxy designated to act on behalf of society (the extent to which states actually fulfill this duty is highly variable).

Nothing belongs to (as distinct from being immediately, physically controlled by) anyone except in the sense that social convention grants them some, usually limited, exclusive control over it.

The typical avenue through which that social convention for both the right to control and its limitations is expressed in the modern world is the institution of the State via law (most obviously, property law, but the whole body of law, including tax and other civil and criminal law, addresses either the rights to control or its limitations.)

To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and society taketh away"

Implied in the argument is that the state is synonymous with society. Even in a democratic society you have the issue that a) a limited percentage of the population actually vote and b) of those who vote a minority did not get what they wanted.

Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. If you believe those rights exist only because society willed them be for whatever reason, then arguing that no one really owns anything is quite the circular argument.

We have a system of personal property rights in which personal property is subject to taxation, both ad valorem taxation of wealth (usually, in practice, certain classes of assets are targeted for this, but there is no systemic prohibition in our system of it being applied anywhere) and taxes on particular uses or exchanges of property.

So using the existence of those property rights to argue against taxation to support public priorities is quite the self-contradictory argument.

If that is the case, what would function as a better proxy through which society can collect its debt?

Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication.

Courts that enforce contracts.

Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B)

Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics)

That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.

Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery.

Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.

The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it's not the self-evident axiom that I once thought.

There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is.

There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either.

To explain why I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I'd accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of.

I haven't moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system.

There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it's not the most egalitarian). But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.

>There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either.

As I said previously, at least for me, believing that the non-aggression principle should be the governing principle of society is a utopian view. That is, to say, it is a hope of what society could be, not a pragmatic solution that could be implemented today or tomorrow. Similarly, anyone who holds any concept of a utopian society likely recognizes they will never see it come to fruition but they hope to move things in that direction.

>but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system.

But this is a mis-characterization of what capitalism is. Some of the most poor people of the world today face the exact lifestyle that nearly everyone faced a few hundred years ago. It was only through capitalism, existing sometimes in a very limited fashion, which fueled the industrial revolution and enabled those of us who are so rich to enjoy our lifestyles today (and let's face it even the poorest of any first world country, are vastly rich compared to living conditions a few hundred years ago).

>But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.

I would be curious to hear what situation you would describe as capitalism reaching a "local optimum". In my experience, every situation categorized as a "market failure", when investigated, is anything but. That goes for the idea of "natural monopolies", recent market crashes, skyrocketing tuition, skyrocketing medical costs, pollution, etc. I would be happy to point you to material to research any one of these issues.

The state is simply the name given to whatever aspect of a bounded society the society itself recognizes as governing it.

Is there a quick shorthand way of referring to the notion that tax is theft?

The question arises: How would the government be able to "give" Zuckerberg's fortune rather than him giving it himself? Through extremely high taxation for the wealthy that would take away the lion's share of his billions so that the government can put it to work more effectively. So what? 90% tax rate on the megarich?

Government isn't known for it's efficiency in spending or giving. I'm left leaning, but we don't need to give the government new ways to not spend money where it's needed.

But you gotta spend money to give money!

Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires."

It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.

Fixed that for you.

Taxes are used as inflation control or to incentivize certain activities.

What you're suggesting is that Treasury would have a cash flow problem if people payed less taxes, which isn't the case. Although you could start to see an inflation problem.

Its ability to sell bonds is controlled by the markets perception of its ability to pay those bonds, which is tied to a number of factors including, inter alia, its perceived ability, willingness, and track record of revenue sources with which to pay them.

People paying less taxes directly effects that.

>revenue sources with which to pay them

Can you show me where Treasury says fiscal outlays are funded by tax receipts, or solely through payments from primary dealers? The government doesn't work like a business in this case.

It may be the case that it theoretically is authorized to do so (though it does not in practice), but if so it would do so in support of the goals its employment/inflation related goals, not to finance the debt. In fact, the whole reason for having an independent (of the entities setting and executing fiscal policy) central bank is to reassure users of currency and investors in government debt that fiscal concerns will not drive monetary policy.

> Can you show me where Treasury says fiscal outlays are funded by tax receipts, or solely through payments from primary dealers?

I can show you where the Fed says that they don't purchase directly from the Treasury, and that their purchases are tied directly to their mandates regarding employment and inflation targets, not supporting Treasury's fiscal needs. [0]

> The government doesn't work like a business in this case.

The government may seem not to work like most businesses because its debt is perceived as risk-free, which gives it seemingly limitless ability to borrow money at extremely low rates, which makes it possible to make spending decisions with little short-term regard for balance with revenues; but the perception of lack of risk in government debt is driven by the underlying perception that the government has, and is willing to use to the extent necessary, the power to tax assets and income subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the perception of the size of those current assets and expected income.

[0] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-does-the-federal-rese...

> Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a discussion and re-hash of other notable charities and comparison of charitable contributions per country, which is a side-tangent.

Asking for a quote misses the point. Look into it yourself and the first link is Where Zuckerberg's $100 million gift went wrong http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million...

>Zuckerberg envisioned the teacher contract reform to be a centerpiece of the reform and contributed $50 million — half of his total donation — to go to working on that cause.

So he decided to throw $50 million at teacher contract reform around the same time that, according to the CNBC article, "the state cutting $56 million in school aid."

Comments like this are bad.