Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, will give 99 percent of their $45 billion in company stocks to help good causes.

The couple explained the move in a letter to their first-born child, a daughter named "Max." They said the gift could improve the future, describing a society so advanced it might cure most diseases. All lives "have equal value," they wrote. The letter offered refreshing optimism at a time when bad news seems the norm.

"Health is improving. Poverty is shrinking. Knowledge is growing. People are connecting. Technological progress in every field means your life should be dramatically better than ours today," they wrote.

Chan and Zuckerberg, 30 and 31, respectively, are wise beyond their years. The world is improving because people do good deeds, mostly in pursuit of profits or wages. Zuckerberg's invention connects people without charge in a manner that eliminates old barriers of distance, time and cost. Chan, a pediatrician, helps children survive. Each has been rewarded financially by market participants who appreciate their contributions.

The couple are not dropping cash from a helicopter in some sort of nonproductive free-for-all. They are creating a limited liability corporation that will receive the stocks to fund endeavors they believe in. It is nothing so unusual. They will use a business model to benefit humanity, as inventors and physicians tend to do. Obtuse and angry reactions to the decision highlight troubling misconceptions about money.

The Washington Post's editorial board, attempting to defend the couple against suspicious critics, asked: "Would we rather they imitate so many other billionaires and just pamper themselves?"

If self-pampering could create and maintain fortunes, all humans would be rich. The Post's owner, Jeff Bezos, has an estimated net worth of $59 billion. Like other successful business leaders, he does not use money to "just pamper" himself. He invests in ventures that will generate profits only if they help people. Useless endeavors do not generate sustainable profits.

Social media is abuzz with theories about sinister motivations for the gift announced by Zuckerberg and Chan. Ideologues want the couple to keep their shares, pay taxes on gains and let government allocate the proceeds. Never mind that government - unlike self-made billionaires - invents, discovers and creates almost nothing. Comments under the Post's editorial include:

"It's a tax dodge the rest of us cannot take advantage of."

"Replace the word Foundation with 'Slush fund.'?"

"Zuckerberg and Chan could pay their taxes at a fair rate like the rest of us do."

"Until we see the details of this tax dodge, there is no sympathy."

"Zuckerberg is a total sleazeball and I don't believe this at all. You can bet he has an angle to get it back."

Buried in the vitriol was a comment that probably got it right.

"'Giving it away.' I think this is incorrect. They are investing in their own ideas, interests and human potential. Brilliant idea but its not 'giving it away.'?"

Indeed, they are not "giving it away" in a manner tantamount to throwing it away. They are giving, in the most constructive way they see fit. They are trying to improve conditions for those who will receive. It is the motive behind all meaningful investments and gifts.

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

Photo credit: Ken Walton