The thing is, his stated goal is to keep 1% of his money in the family for the next generation. Right now that 1% is 357 million. Estate tax is 40%. He has a single child as of now. So, that child will inherit 214 million dollars. She could probably live her entire life of the interest in that money, make her own (smaller) charitable contributions and still give her own single child the same amount (adjusted for inflation and accounting for the estate tax). So I don&#x27;t believe donating 99% of his money and ensuring the prosperity of his family for generations are mutually exclusive to Zuckerberg. His philanthropy does not conflict with his own self-interest. Also, like Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stanford, etc, he has a lot of fame and renown to gain from doing good in his own name and during his lifetime.<p>Now, don&#x27;t get me wrong, income inequality is a real problem and the fact that some world-scale social programs now seem to depend entirely on the wishes of a few men versus popular administration is in many ways troubling (in others, well, Bill Gates has potentially done more against AIDS in the third world than most democratic governments...). But Occam&#x27;s Razor applies and although I imagine tax incentives pay a part on how and when billionaires donate (that&#x27;s why they are called incentives...), I don&#x27;t default to thinking that Zuckerberg is twirling his mustache over this, laughing maniacally and saying &quot;this is how I shall defraud the IRS!&quot;. But let&#x27;s see, in due time, what happens. So far the Gates foundation seems legit, for example, and there goes another mustache twirling villain of the tech world...