Comment by throwaway1980 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway1980 | Hacker News Reader

> So I’ve arranged to fund a significant research program through the Voice Health Institute, which he will lead.

I find this rather awkward. Here we have someone with a ton of money giving a tiny fraction of it away in a very public manner to a cause that seeks to remedy one of his own personal afflictions. He comes off looking like a good guy, and in the process generates excellent PR for his company and social network. What is the downside? It's as if there isn't one. I don't know why, but it gives me the squeamy jibbly icks. Same vibe as when he gave away flu shots at Target.

I guess I have the following questions. Why do the rich need to be our saviors? Do we really need to justify extreme wealth disparity with extreme condescension? Can't we just shuffle some defense money to healthcare and make democratic decisions about how to allocate healthcare funds? Or, god forbid, raise taxes on the wealthy?

Is the answer really, sorry, no, that's how it has to work in "free market" capitalism?

It's not a binary decision. Those with the means can still chose to donate some of their money to causes they like, and we as a society can (or should) still chose the way in which we want to allocate public funds towards more health spending or away from defense spending.

Choosing to donate to a cause that affects him personally is no different than when people create charities or foundations or donate money to fund research for diseases that affect their immediate family members - which happens quite often.

I agree, more or less, because certainly there's a long history of people creating charities to fill in the gaps left by government. It's the way he's doing it, on Google+ and as the CEO of Google that I don't like. Maybe it's just because of the mixing of personal and work life or something. I don't know why, it just gives me a creepy feeling like I wouldn't want to get involved with the guy. Maybe I'm just jealous because I don't have my own fuck you money.

> [Can't we just] make democratic decisions about how to allocate healthcare funds?

And then, the rare conditions are starved of funding because everyone votes to throw more money at cancer/something well publicised because they spend a lot of money in marketing.

How does that help the rare sufferers, if their vote is never enough, and their voice drowned out by the megaphones?

I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of funding for rare (and not photogenic) stuff came from 'selfish' wealthy individuals with a vested interest.

Good point, the largest share ("majority") rule in democracy as we know it does tend to leave people out. Has anyone tried a political system where minorities are formally taken into account in the allocation of funds by percentage of the population?

It has more to do with the fact that most rich people know that they can't trust the government to use their money efficiently. In both cases, in a perfect world the rich would be our "saviors", but in the case of higher taxes you just wouldn't know, I like it the other way, I want to know who I'm benefiting from so I can say a proper "thank you".

It's his money. Are you okay with him telling you what to do with your money? Huh?

I didn't tell anybody what to do, I just said how it made me feel and asked some questions. If my spending made you or Larry Page feel awkward, yes I'd want to hear about it.

And anyway, it's not necessarily the spending itself, but the way that he announces it that makes me feel uneasy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com