5 ms·

Donating his shares* Ftfy

by a13n 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 11y ago
When one "gives away" that volume of money, what you are doing (whether you like it or not) is trading it for influence. At a minimum you are setting your funding priorities, which has rippling policy effects as people compete for your funding (see the Gates foundation). At a maximum you've just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) or converted it into an unaccountable ideological blight completely opposed to your original desires (see the Ford Foundation).
- joering2 11y ago
  > just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) I'm looking. Any solid proof of said illegal procedure, or just some more conspiracy theory from Alex Jones website?
  - fiatmoney 11y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... Pick a different example if you'd like; plenty of "foundations" exist only to let some oligarch's kids play philanthropist.
    - tgb 11y ago
      That example is of a secretary of state potentially being influenced by foreign donations, going around the usual laws against campaign contributions from foreign countries. But we're taking about Zuckerberg, who can already take foreign money all he wants. Letting people play philanthropist is kind of the point of a philanthropic foundation.
- Anderkent 11y ago
  Sure, that's the point of money. You give it to people who think can make the world a better place, and thus buy influence.
corin_ 11y ago
From a legal point of view he will presumably be selling his shares and donating his cash, not donating his shares.
- dpark 11y ago
  Nope. He'll donate the shares. Charities are tax-advantaged. It's generally better[1] for them to take the shares and sell them than to sell the shares and donate the proceeds. [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.
  - corin_ 11y ago
    I stand potentially corrected.
  - erikpukinskis 11y ago
    In Microsoft's case the purpose is stalling them so you can buy something that will grow.
bkeroack 11y ago
"Donating" his shares to his own charity that he fully controls and his children will inherit. It's little more than a smart tax shelter.
- orionblastar 11y ago
  It is something that rich people do to show they are a philanthropist by selling shares of their company or donating them to the charity or organization they control and their children will inherit. 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.
  - praneshp 11y ago
    Not the biggest fan of Zuckerberg's philanthropy, but your government wouldn't have paid off its national debt or done much good with the taxes he'd have paid. One example (from New Jersey, maybe not directly applicable at the Federal level): https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+zuckerberg+100+million+new+jersey&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+zuckerberg+100+million+...
    - orionblastar 11y ago
      I meant all the billionares do this to avoid paying taxes. I assume they are the 1% that own half the wealth.
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  You haven't been paying attention to Mark Zuckerberg's past philanthropic initiatives if you think that this is just a tax scheme. He wants to have an impact on the world.
wnevets 11y ago
is he donating his shares to a trust that he controls?

Donating his shares* Ftfy

by a13n 11y ago

Donating his shares* Ftfy

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fiatmoney 11y ago

When one "gives away" that volume of money, what you are doing (whether you like it or not) is trading it for influence. At a minimum you are setting your funding priorities, which has rippling policy effects as people compete for your funding (see the Gates foundation). At a maximum you've just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) or converted it into an unaccountable ideological blight completely opposed to your original desires (see the Ford Foundation).

joering2 11y ago
> just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) I'm looking. Any solid proof of said illegal procedure, or just some more conspiracy theory from Alex Jones website?
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... Pick a different example if you'd like; plenty of "foundations" exist only to let some oligarch's kids play philanthropist.
  - tgb 11y ago
    That example is of a secretary of state potentially being influenced by foreign donations, going around the usual laws against campaign contributions from foreign countries. But we're taking about Zuckerberg, who can already take foreign money all he wants. Letting people play philanthropist is kind of the point of a philanthropic foundation.
Anderkent 11y ago
Sure, that's the point of money. You give it to people who think can make the world a better place, and thus buy influence.

corin_ 11y ago

From a legal point of view he will presumably be selling his shares and donating his cash, not donating his shares.

dpark 11y ago
Nope. He'll donate the shares. Charities are tax-advantaged. It's generally better[1] for them to take the shares and sell them than to sell the shares and donate the proceeds. [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.
- corin_ 11y ago
  I stand potentially corrected.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  In Microsoft's case the purpose is stalling them so you can buy something that will grow.

bkeroack 11y ago

"Donating" his shares to his own charity that he fully controls and his children will inherit. It's little more than a smart tax shelter.

orionblastar 11y ago
It is something that rich people do to show they are a philanthropist by selling shares of their company or donating them to the charity or organization they control and their children will inherit. 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.
- praneshp 11y ago
  Not the biggest fan of Zuckerberg's philanthropy, but your government wouldn't have paid off its national debt or done much good with the taxes he'd have paid. One example (from New Jersey, maybe not directly applicable at the Federal level): https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+zuckerberg+100+million+new+jersey&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+zuckerberg+100+million+...
  - orionblastar 11y ago
    I meant all the billionares do this to avoid paying taxes. I assume they are the 1% that own half the wealth.
onewaystreet 11y ago
You haven't been paying attention to Mark Zuckerberg's past philanthropic initiatives if you think that this is just a tax scheme. He wants to have an impact on the world.

wnevets 11y ago

is he donating his shares to a trust that he controls?