Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech (fortune.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley. From a report: "Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said. Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on.
Perhaps he can take $60 billion of that and fund 10 million people with a $6,000 UBI all by himself? He'd still have that massive $3 billion to live on and feel guilty about...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There are a lot of proposals, but the fully costed ones I've seen for the UK set the UBI rate at about the same as the current tax-free earning allowance. They then raise each of the tax brackets' rates by a few percent, and introduce one extra one for people earning more than £100K/year. The last one I looked at would leave me about £1000/year worse off, but people on minimum wage jobs better off. It would also be likely to bring a lot of people back into part-time work, as they wouldn't face losing unemployment benefits if they worked a little bit (and would be paying tax on that income for every pound that they actually earned, though at a low rate). It seemed like a pretty good deal for me.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
A medicore realtor could manage that.
HELL, in Silicon Valley a realtor could manage that with a single home sale.
Now home sales are a pretty trivial thing. But there are far more interesting (life saving) activities you would discourage with your communist nonsense.
You're probably sabotaging your own cubicle dweller corporate job with that kind of nonsense.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
People starve because they buy TV's instead of food.
Citation needed. I would like to know about people who literally starved to death because they spent their money on televisions instead of food.
Ah, the Warren Buffet canard. First of all, Mr Buffet isn't making billions. He holds assets that represent unrealized capital gains in the several tens of billions (primarily shares of Berkshire-Hathaway; if BH were to go belly up tomorrow, his holdings there become worthless). His company pays him a salary of about $100,000 each year, and he "earns" a few million dollars every year in interest and dividends. This income, plus his salary, and whatever CGs he may realize, is what he pays taxes on, much of which is taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than income tax rate. Quoting his tax rate, based on CG rates compared to his secretaries, based on income tax rates (and not at his or her *effective* income tax rate, at that) is apples and oranges.
Mr Buffet takes full advantage of the tax system to minimize his taxes. He has accountants and tax lawyers. He has clearly structured his affairs to minimize his taxes, as, for example, when he established trusts for his children.
It is further worth noting that when Mr. Buffet and his friends Bill & Melinda Gates set out to figure out how to improve the world, they created the tax-exempt foundation and donated billions of dollars to the foundation, rather than simply letting the government have that money. We have to ask why? Didn't they trust to government to do the "right thing" with that money?
Finally, note that both Gates and Buffet, when they donated to the foundation, did so by giving away appreciated shares of their respective companies, thus garnering for themselves the largest tax break possible--not only did they not have to pay GC taxes on the gains (substantial they were, too), but they get to claim the *appreciated* value as a deductible charitable contribution. So, if WB had been granted one share of BH when it sold for $1000, he would owe income taxes on on the $1000. But if he held that share until BH sold for $200,000 per share, he would owe income taxes on the $1000, and CG taxes on the $199,000 difference. But by donating the share to the foundation, he still owes income taxes on the $1000, pays no CG taxes, and gets to claim $200,000 charitable donation (which can go a long way to offsetting any other income he has).
Buffett told [interviewer Charlie] Rose his 2010 adjusted gross income was $62 million. He implied that most income came from long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends currently taxed up to 15%. Only a small portion of his gross income – a few million dollars for Buffett – is ordinary income, like wages and interest income, taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates currently up to 35%.
Buffett [said] that he uses the maximum 30% charitable contribution deduction each year – for appreciated property – and he has a $10 billion carryover of charitable contributions for subsequent use too.
Buffett’s 30% charity tax deduction offsets his entire ordinary income, and next it offsets his lower long-term capital gains income. Hence, he pays approximately 15% long term capital gains tax rates only, and – as he likes to say – it’s a lower tax rate than others in his office pay.
Buffett also avoids nasty alternative minimum taxes (AMT) of 28%. Charity is a powerful tax savings tool to avoid income, AMT and estate taxes.