I recall a few years back when multi-millionaire Warren Buffet announced that he would give away his fortune……I thought “what a nice guy” and then I thought “what’s the angle”?

Then shortly after Buffet’s announcement came a similar one from Gates……that he would donate his fortune to help others not so fortunate….and again I thought “what’s the angle”?

Just this week another multi-millionaire has announced a similar desire for his fortune…….and again I asked that same question…..something smells like bad fish…….

The announcement by Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg that they’ll donate 99% of their Facebook shares—$45 billion at today’s value—to a foundation they created with the birth of their daughter isn’t being met with universal praise. Some examples:

• ‘Big waste’: “It sounds angelic, but it will probably end up being, mostly, a big waste,” writes Sam Biddle at Gawker. For one thing, the money is going to the Zuckerbergs’ own foundation instead of, say, Oxfam, and the broad goals of “advancing human potential and promoting equality” are mushy. “Does anyone really want to experience ‘100 times more than we do today,’ whatever that entails?” asks Biddle. “Do you want to be ‘connected’ to literally every ‘idea’ and ‘person’ in the world? This is a technocrat’s dream and an actual normal human being’s nightmare.” It’s emblematic of the code-fixes-all philosophy of Silicon Valley, “and Zuckerberg’s massive giveaway will clearly be predicated on that conceit.” Here’s the full piece, whose headline refers to Zuckerberg’s “blinkered worldview.”

• Imperial roots’: This kind of giving perpetuates inequality and smacks of imperialism, writes Devon Maloney at the Guardian. The “rich are still effectively buying the future they’d like to see, no matter how selfless their intentions may be,” she writes. “International philanthropy and the western world’s desire to eradicate poverty and disease can’t ever truly rid themselves of their imperialist roots.” Maloney also cites the “white savior industrial complex” in the full piece.
• More on that: A writer at Forbes pushes back hard against the Guardian piece, calling it a “misunderstanding of economics,” while the Washington Post recalls a German billionaire’s argument that having the rich, and not the state, decide what people need is a “really bad” idea.
• Not a charity: It’s not exactly a slam, but Alex Kantrowitz points out at BuzzFeed that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is structured as an LLC, not a charitable trust, as much coverage is suggesting. Meaning that not all of the money will go to charity; some will go into profit-generating private investment.
• ‘Guardedly optimistic’: Not all the reaction is skeptical, of course. At Slate, Jordan Weissmann calls the move “admirable,” adding that “I think that as a rule, we would all prefer that our modern overlords give away their riches rather than pass them on to their children.” Plus, he thinks the Zuckerbergs have learned lessons from previous charitable misfires, and so he is “guardedly optimistic,” despite the still-vague goals. “These seem like the sorts of endeavors that aren’t going to cause a lot collateral damage, and may well do some actual good.” The full piece.
• Read the Zuckerbergs’ announcement, in the form of a letter to their daughter.

Apparently I am not the only one that is skeptical……..

Source: Not so fast, Mark Zuckerberg: 4 reasons to be skeptical of his $45 billion giveaway – Salon.com

Rich people do not do anything this selfless without something in return…..begging the question……..WHAT’S THE ANGLE?

The Zuck has responded to the skepticism……

Zuckerberg explains that Chan Zuckerberg Initiative LLC, the entity he’s donating 99% of his Facebook shares to, is being set up as a limited liability company instead of a traditional foundation so it can engage in actions like “funding non-profit organizations, making private investments, and participating in policy debates,” reports TechCrunch, which notes that some critics accused Zuckerberg of having ulterior motives or said the move could be “a big waste.”

The initiative will focus on “personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities,” building on previous investments in “education, science, health, Internet access, and inclusion,” Zuckerberg explained. He also addressed concerns that the donation—equivalent to the GDP of Serbia, or around $38 for every Facebook user—could be some kind of tax dodge, explaining that “we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively” and that if he wanted to avoid tax, it would have been far more effective to set up a traditional charity, the Verge reports. (A ProPublica piece calls the initiative a “tax vehicle.”)

Sorry but I am still looking for the “angle”…..