Donating his shares*
Ftfy
Ftfy
It goes way back over the years to the Rockefeller family and others.
Not only is it a tax shelter, they can control what the charity or whatever does. It is a good way to avoid paying a capital gains tax by donating shares to their own charity or organization.
A pity the taxes on the shares could have been collected by the federal government and used to pay off our national debt or create some good paying jobs.
People who aren't billionaires have to pay a capital gains tax if they sell shares that have a value more than the original investment.
I know a few critics of Mark Zuckerberg who would be very happy if all he did was sit on his money. They fear what he will do, not if.
Every founder of a billion-dollar company wants to have an impact on the world. The question is whether the impact he wants to have is something that needs (or deserves) preferential tax treatment, as well as the massive public praise he received for this act of 'philanthropy'.
It is true that the wealthy commonly use foundations that they control in order to advance initiatives that also financially benefit themselves or for-profit companies they own. In itself, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's almost definitionally true that Zuckerberg is using the foundation structure for the tax benefits.
Which is itself really a question about whether the government should be able to spend that money how it likes, or whether the zuckster should be able to spend it how he likes. Has the American government really earned your trust in its competence in managing money?
I really don't even feel like reading these posts on this site anymore since they are filled with passive aggressive jealousy at people having a massively larger real world impact than anyone else commenting here.
If this story had the words Facebook and Zuck replaced with Tesla and Elon there would be a much different tone.
Except he hasn't, yet. He's allocated billions to a corporation he owns, with the goal of, someday, spending those billions towards purposes that may or may not ultimately serve Facebook's very long term interests.
Directly from the post:
> Right now, there are amazing scientists, educators and doctors around the world doing incredible work. We want to help them make a bigger difference today, not 30 or 40 years down the road.
Unless Facebook is trying to become the next Theranos complaining about a guy who is placing billions on the table for upcoming medical related treatments in no way related to Facebook sounds like whining more because you don't like the person doing it vs. the act itself.
I'll take that over unadulterated fawning over tech celebrities.
Are you seriously comparing MZ pledging to spend millions on fighting disease and poverty around the world to the (actual) rape, murder and conquest of thousands of people?
I'm seriously suggesting that wanting to have an impact on the world doesn't imply anything positive.
Reminds me of https://medium.com/conquering-corporate-america/mark-zuckerb...
Another example is there were threads for GOOG and AAPL missing their Q1 targets but I don't see one for FB for crushing their earnings. Or may be there is one but it's not upvoted that well which just proves the point even more.
This is one of the things which is driving me away from HN. But I would be missing out on lot of technical and industry knowledge if I stop reading HN.
I'm looking. Any solid proof of said illegal procedure, or just some more conspiracy theory from Alex Jones website?
Pick a different example if you'd like; plenty of "foundations" exist only to let some oligarch's kids play philanthropist.
Letting people play philanthropist is kind of the point of a philanthropic foundation.
[1] better in the sense that more money goes to the charity and less to the government, and better in the sense than the charity can hold the shares and sell at an advantageous time.
Edit: I just remembered, I think that Bill Gates is doing it in the opposite way, by liquidating and donating cash, so there may be some legitimate cases when donating cash instead of stock is preferable.