David McManus says the Facebook creator’s donation is questionable

Christmas is upon us and in the witty wordplay of Cliff Richard, it’s a time for giving and for getting, a time for forgiving and for forgetting.

I doubt Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg would class himself as the world’s greatest Sir Cliff fan but news of his festive giving might indicate that he spends his evenings plotting social media’s next great innovation.

Or perhaps not.

Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have just announced the birth of their baby daughter. It is a time that prompts new parents into acts of euphoria and a newfound shared love for their fellow humans.

I recall buying an absurdly generous round of drinks so that all my friends could join me in wetting the baby’s head.

Mr and Mrs Facebook over here have said they are going to give away $45 billion.

You would think that such an extraordinary act of generosity would earn the couple at least a smattering of brownie points among the cynical public.

But no. Seconds after they made the announcement, column inches, blog posts and website comments where being filled with the written equivalent of rolled eyes.

It’s just a publicity stunt, you know? Oh yes, they’re just saying they’ll do it so that more people will sign up to Facebook because that makes perfect sense.

And of course the usual claim that it is all a jolly tax ruse that is really only designed to draw in more money for that rainy day.

It’s hard to imagine why someone with $45 billion in the bank (yes, or shares with that potential value) would be hatching plans to increase an amount that is already orders of magnitude greater than could actually be spent in several lifetimes.

Perhaps I am being naive and this is just a standard act of corporate capitalism. After all, didn’t Facebook pay the UK exchequer tuppence ha’penny in tax last year?

Sorry if I fail to fall into either side of the argument here but I suspect the motive lies somewhere in that grey area between the two.

The tax breaks offered to wealthy philanthropists have been put in place specifically to encourage them to donate swathes of their fortunes to those in greater need. The wealthy tend to be a shrewd bunch and know a deal when they see one.

Rightly or wrongly they need to see something in it for them. Their teams of financial advisers also need schemes they can advise on and justify their own hefty salaries.

Rather than Zuckerberg being approached with a wheeze for making more money, I suspect he made the initial request of those who manage his wealth that they find him the best means to do good things. ‘Best’ meaning the most advantageous for all parties.

Is this morally acceptable? The answer to that question lies buried in the way capitalist systems are managed and is the subject of many books and Russell Brand anecdotes.

A legitimate question might be to ask how one couple can accumulate such wealth in the first place.

Given that they can and apparently have, should we not welcome any means by which they decide to redistribute it?