4 ms·

Why do people keep saying this. They keep some control but they don't keep ownership. It's not like they sold the company and saved 700M on the deal... they sti

by sixo 4y ago

Why do people keep saying this. They keep some control but they don't keep ownership. It's not like they sold the company and saved 700M on the deal... they still gave away their stake in the company. Why are people trying to spin this as a tax scheme?

barry-cotter 4y ago
Some people hate the idea that other people are both more accomplished than them and morally better than them. Others hate those individually but the combination of accomplishment, moral worth and wealth really drives a lot of people to hatred.
- elevaet 4y ago
  People are so brainwashed into thinking that money is the only thing that matters that they get suspicious when others behave as if it isn't.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    If you want to communicate some message I suggest trying to be clearer. All I can get from that is that you’re probably trying to be insulting.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
cavisne 4y ago
Because it’s the same hypocritical behavior from all rich people who push socialism (for thee but not for me). They will all whine about billionaires not paying their share and how we need to tax carbon to fix the planet. But given the chance to make a 700m donation to the government of course he used a structure to avoid making that donation.
e9 4y ago
Ownership is just equity. Sure they won’t be able to sell shares for themselves but if they have control then it means they can divert profits to themselves in a way of salaries. Which is fine I guess.
refurb 4y ago
The article lays this out pretty well I thought? They avoided a ton of tax if they had sold the company or even passed it to their heirs. Instead, they created a couple non-profits, special ones that can make unlimited political donations, then put their family in charge of the non-profits. So while they don't retain ownership, they retain control and are able to direct the company's money to their own political causes, all while saving on a $700M tax bill. I mean, that doesn't seem that "altruistic" to me? HN seems to be the first to say "paying your taxes is the right thing to do for society". But these guys get a pass when they avoid a $700M tax bill and get to continue to use their billions in wealth to influence politicians?
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I thought the money going to the 501(c)(4) isn't deductible? edit: ah nvm, this is focused more on them not paying cap gains since they didn't sell anything
- Pearse 4y ago
  Would it be legal for them to influence political bodies with money from a non profit? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations#:~:text=Under%20the%20Internal%20Revenue%20Code,candidate%20for%20elective%20public%20office https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz.... From what I understood, the reason people are supporting this move is not because he's giving up money but because he is ensuring that the company doesn't have stake holders that will push for profit above all else.. Because that could lead to bad outcomes for the environment. So he gave the company to a non profit to run. Because itvs a... Non profit.
- smt88 4y ago
  The choice for them was between: A. Sell the company for multiple billions, pay $700M+ in taxes, and end up with multiple billions B. Keep the company (don't sell or donate) and have billions in assets C. Donate the company and lose billions in assets They were never considering option A, so the choice was between B and C. So their total tax evasion was negligible. They had no tax obligation to avoid because they were never selling the company.

by sixo 4y ago

barry-cotter 4y ago

Some people hate the idea that other people are both more accomplished than them and morally better than them. Others hate those individually but the combination of accomplishment, moral worth and wealth really drives a lot of people to hatred.

elevaet 4y ago
People are so brainwashed into thinking that money is the only thing that matters that they get suspicious when others behave as if it isn't.
jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  If you want to communicate some message I suggest trying to be clearer. All I can get from that is that you’re probably trying to be insulting.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

cavisne 4y ago

Because it’s the same hypocritical behavior from all rich people who push socialism (for thee but not for me). They will all whine about billionaires not paying their share and how we need to tax carbon to fix the planet. But given the chance to make a 700m donation to the government of course he used a structure to avoid making that donation.

e9 4y ago

Ownership is just equity. Sure they won’t be able to sell shares for themselves but if they have control then it means they can divert profits to themselves in a way of salaries. Which is fine I guess.

refurb 4y ago

The article lays this out pretty well I thought? They avoided a ton of tax if they had sold the company or even passed it to their heirs. Instead, they created a couple non-profits, special ones that can make unlimited political donations, then put their family in charge of the non-profits. So while they don't retain ownership, they retain control and are able to direct the company's money to their own political causes, all while saving on a $700M tax bill. I mean, that doesn't seem that "altruistic" to me? HN seems to be the first to say "paying your taxes is the right thing to do for society". But these guys get a pass when they avoid a $700M tax bill and get to continue to use their billions in wealth to influence politicians?

Rebelgecko 4y ago
I thought the money going to the 501(c)(4) isn't deductible? edit: ah nvm, this is focused more on them not paying cap gains since they didn't sell anything
Pearse 4y ago
Would it be legal for them to influence political bodies with money from a non profit? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations#:~:text=Under%20the%20Internal%20Revenue%20Code,candidate%20for%20elective%20public%20office https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz.... From what I understood, the reason people are supporting this move is not because he's giving up money but because he is ensuring that the company doesn't have stake holders that will push for profit above all else.. Because that could lead to bad outcomes for the environment. So he gave the company to a non profit to run. Because itvs a... Non profit.
smt88 4y ago
The choice for them was between: A. Sell the company for multiple billions, pay $700M+ in taxes, and end up with multiple billions B. Keep the company (don't sell or donate) and have billions in assets C. Donate the company and lose billions in assets They were never considering option A, so the choice was between B and C. So their total tax evasion was negligible. They had no tax obligation to avoid because they were never selling the company.