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).