The Philanthropic Arm of Google

GoatJuggler writes "I accidentally visited google.org recently and ended up at a different Google site that appears to be a placeholder for Google's future foray into the world of philanthropy. A quote from Sergey Brin & Larry Page is there now, 'We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems.' Not much to see there now, but it's certainly refreshing to see a successful company leveraging their success to do good. Googling part of that quote led me to a blog that references the uniqueness of Google's SEC filing. The Google Foundation is referenced, and Google's job page now mentions that they are looking to fill the position of Executive Director for the Google Foundation. So, expect Good Things(TM) (like saving 3-legged kittens) from Google soon."

Comments

Their first task

[daveKfs]

Google's first task for humanity should be to explain to us what philanthropic means.

Re:Their first task

[BlacBaron]

May I suggest you google it :)

Answers

Re:Their first task

[ggvaidya]

Done!

So what's the next task?

Saving three legged kittens from Google?

[DoorFrame]

We need to save three legged kittens from Google now? What, do they want to rip off the remaining legs? Are they going to come back to finish the job?

Now I truly fear the monstrosity that is Google.org.

Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google?

[BlacBaron]

Yes they plan to rip off their remaining limbs, and replace them with artificial super strong ones. With this army of artificially enhanced super cats they should soon be able to complete their plans for world domination (TM)

Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google?

[PornMaster]

When they liberate a 2-legged cat from a Chinese restaurant, that's when the "saving" really begins.

Sergei: We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

Then, they fuse together the two- and three-legged cats, and create Cat5, a supercat to guard the Googleplex.

Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google?

[BeerCat]

hey fuse together the two- and three-legged cats, and create Cat5

Would that Cat5 be twisted pair, then?

Cleaning their image

[sellin'papes]

Just another major corporation saying 'don't be afraid of us, look at all the generous things we do'. That scares the shit out of me.

If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?

Re:Cleaning their image

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, looking at the recent spendings of the US government, I think the money will be better spent by Google than by the folks collecting taxes.

Just my opinion.

Re:Cleaning their image

[zkn]

You are saying that you would trust the government to use the money in good intentions rather then google, on the grounds that google intend to spend them in good intentions?
This is just expanding the "don't be evil" policy to "Be good" wich can't really hurt anyone(Exept 3legged kittens apparently).
Besides google cant stabilice an intire economy on it's own, even if it does decide to pay more taxes then it rightfully should.

Re:Cleaning their image

[William Robinson]

Hmmm.. your fears are not baseless. Their monopoly and financial muscle certainly brings some concerns. But if the organization is giving better signals, why not just accept it.

Moreover this is not their first gesture. If u are aware, Google is supporting Firefox big way. Internet world has gained a lot from Google.

Re:Cleaning their image

[spongman]

more tax money doesn't help bad schools, it just makes bad schools more expensive.

collecting taxes to pay off debt just moves the burden of debt from the government to the people. the only way for a country to pay off debt is to become more productive, and raising taxes isn't the best way to do that.

Re:Cleaning their image

[ajs]

We (that is those of us in the U.S.) have made decision, either directly or by proxy through our lawmakers to allow companies, to a certain extent, to decide to funnel money into charitable causes instead of into their tax bill. Companies do this because there's more PR in charities than paying your taxes.

If, every time a large corporation does this (and they all do), you're going to get scared of what horrible evil that PR is covering up, you're going to end up cowering in fear at every step. It's just one way of the government spending tax dollars that doesn't involve the government getting to decide HOW to spend those dollars. IMHO, that's a heck of a lot better than handing it to war-mongers.

What really boggles me is that a genuinely good company like Google (I've talked with several people there, and watched their business closely, and they ARE good) gets accused of having horrible malicious goals more than any 3 other companies I've ever heard of. I mean, for Pete's sake, GE makes NUKES! It's their job. They crank them out like candy. And yet, somehow it's Google that we focus our scrutiny on?!

Re:Cleaning their image

[aav]

Hmm, I don't know which post will be more off-topic: this or the parent. Anyway...

The government is not an independent entity. It actually represents the people and whatever it does affects the people. The debt of your country is your debt as well, and you share it with your co-nationals. Moreover, your government operates with the money from your taxes which is, ultimately, your money. Basically your country being a debtor means that your government has been spending the money you haven't given to it yet (simplistically written, admittedly, but you haven't gone beyond the republican slogans either).

If you didn't like that thought, then think for whom you vote next time.

You might find excuses to prove me wrong, but they won't amount to more than being just excuses.

Raising taxes is not a problem. It's how they are spent that makes a difference. If your government raised the taxes to provide universal health care, nobody would need to pay for insurance. Take with one hand, give with the other. However, that also means that your government would be managing more of your money, and some people have a problem with that (for good reasons too).

You don't provide any reason for saying that low taxes encourage increasing productivity and, implicitly, economic growth. And that's because it's wrong and you don't have a valid reason. The statistics waved so dearly by the republicans are misleading at best. They are measured in yearly intervals and the reference is always the worst year of the recent period (e.g. 1982 for Reagan's tax cuts, 1999 for Bush II). The claims made based on these numbers are fraud. The measurements should be compared over whole economical cycles (i.e. periods between two successive recessions; this usually translates into one decade). The peaks and the averages should be considered, not the lowest points.

If you did all this, you'd find that the tax rate doesn't have any significant influence on the state of the economy.

Re:Cleaning their image

[SA Stevens]

Companies do this because there's more PR in charities than paying your taxes.

Actually, some entities do this because the government is so corrupted, slanted by special interests, and utterly incapable of doing certain needed things. Many charitable foundations have people who might be termed 'captains of industry' sitting on their board, people who have PROVEN they are capable administrators. Government, on the other hand, is composed of careerist civil service sloths, and the overgrown shyster 'used car salesmen' types who succeed in politics.

Re:Cleaning their image

[The Cisco Kid]

Google hardly has a monopoly.

Their search isnt their income-producing profit, their advertising is. And they surely have no lock on the advertising market, even the web advertising market. They also dont really have much power to abuse any perceived monopoly you think they do have, since if you dont like their search, you *are* always free to use another one, on a moments whim (yahoo/msn/whatever).

Someone else's choice of search engine hardly has any effect on your choice (unlike the case where someone sends you a document that your job depends on, and sends it in a proprietary format that the vendor of only one brand of software refuses to document, and even goes so far as to *patent* key technology that would have to be used in any competing software trying to read/interpret that data - which would definitely be an abuse of monopoly)

cool

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe one day they'll give as much and do as much as microsoft/bill gates has.

i dont really think the starving people in africa bill gates has fed really give two hoots about where the money comes from.

sometimes, being capitalist swine can be a good thing.

Re:cool

[northcat]

Yeah, we are all really greatful for our Capitalist care-takers in USA. Can we please have the priviledge of worshipping your feet?

Re:cool

[Lord_Dweomer]

Oh grow the fuck up. Nobody is saying to worship the "capitalist care-takers". All we're saying is stop whining when a company does something good with their money by giving it to charities.

But wait, they're getting something out of it, they're getting a tax writeoff and lots of PR! HOLY CRAP! What is this world coming to.

If companies are giving money to poor starving people, thats a GOOD THING. Don't bring your prejudices against America into this.

Other Philanthropists

[gihan_ripper]

Though much maligned in our community, Bill and Melinda Gates and Steve Case have also set up charitable foundations.

Of course, it's up to the reader to determine whether their goals are truly philanthropic or whether they serve to extend the agendas of Bill and Steve. More to the point, is any philanthropic organisation ever agenda-free?

Re:Other Philanthropists

[Tim]

Well, here in Seattle, a number of researchers are being paid by the Gates' Foundation to conduct applied research into malaria infection.

Given that malaria is one of the biggest third-world killers, and that very few drug companies are willing to invest research money into drugs for poor people, I think the Gates' are actually doing some good work in this area.

I suppose you could tie that to an "agenda," but you'd have to be awfully cynical.

Re:In other words...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?

Sure: put this into your /etc/hosts.conf file:

0.0.0.0 slashdot.org

"No Evil" and its meaning

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

Everyone on /. loves to discuss whether or not google's rather benevolent attitudes about technology, innovation and being a business is genuine or not.

Many like to say that google is somehow the golden child of corporations. That they are above all others, magically concerned with not only their own profits.

Others like to say its all bullshit; a happy face they stick on to look more appealing to the masses. After all, any corporation is as evil as any other, and their primary concern for their stockholders is obviously profit.

But who's right? I'd say that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think the founders of Google and its staff truly, genuinely wish to keep themselves untainted. People always get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear about businesses like Enron. And I for one would certain prefer to employ the business of a company who has this positive attitude, its refreshing. By virtue of this admirable reputation, they generate more business. Seems win-win.

To the editors

[JDOHERTY]

How and when did Slashdot become a press release spot for Google? Is this a technology story? The poster nor editor make any mention of other companies efforts in this area. Can we do something with 'Goole-giving' right now? Have they innovated the process? Do you think they'll have a 'Google-stock-picker' next, after all we're all need a little help?

I've been thinking of subscribing to Slashdot...

[ShaunC]

...but this story gives me yet another reason not to. I mean come on, a Google story once in awhile is valuable, as is a Firefox story once in awhile, or a Perl story every now and then.

But for the past month, it seems that every day brings a new Google story or three to Slashdot. Then we start getting "news" stories like this which aren't news at all, but instead describe features of Google which have existed for at least a year. I suppose that I could submit a story about Google indexing belly-button lint, referencing a two paragraph article that I posted somewhere, and it would wind up on the /. front page.

This story is a non-story, like many of the Google stories lately. Google.org has a bit of text promising to be philanthropic, in some undetermined manner, at some undetermined point in the future. How in $DEITY's name is this a news story? If I were to buy the .org version of my company's domain, and erect a similar site claiming that I want to do great things, would it be worthy of an entry on Slashdot's front page? Of course not.

Does OSDN get a kickback from Google for every Google article posted here? I really want to know, because it's getting ridiculous, and if Slashdot doesn't provide a way to opt-out of the multitude of unnecessary Google articles, there's no way that I'm going to start paying for this.

Re:In other words...

[SA Stevens]

What's wrong with the regular /etc/hosts file?

Have they unleashed another new, non-standard boondoogle into the new systems that crufts up plain /etc/hosts?

Bill Gates and Sergey Brin & Larry Page

[3770]

Sergey Brin & Larry Page say they will do Philantropy.

Conclusion: They, and Google, are the greatest on earth.

Bill Gates is one of the largest philantropes on the planet.

Conclusion: He, and Microsoft, is the spawn of satan.

Don't misunderstand my sarcasm above. I think that what Sergey Brin & Larry Page are doing is great. But lets keep things in perspective. And lets not keep a dual standard here.

I love Google, and I dislike Microsoft, but I know that to some extent I'm being irrational.

Purpose of charitable tax "write offs"

[anti-NAT]

The government (well the AU government anyway) doesn't want to apply tax to money you've earned that you give to charities.

In AU (and possibly other places), a "tax write off" doesn't really directly reduce your tax at all. What it does is reduces your taxable income, IOW, the income that tax is calculated against. For example, if, before tax, you've earned $30 000, and you donate $2000 to a charity, your taxable income then becomes $28 000. The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.

Another way to look at it is that your taxable salary is your "profit" for working - you're allowed to make tax deductions on things necessary to generate that salary "profit". For example, being in IT, I can claim Internet access, IT Books etc. All these tax deductions are not reducing my tax, they are reducing the portion of my salary that I'll pay tax on.

So, if you want to pay no tax, give away all of your salary to a Charity until your taxable salary is below the taxable salary threshold eg. in AU, $6000 p.a.

I'm fairly sure that companies have the same general options - if they donate part of their profit to charity, they don't pay tax on their donations. Of course, they could give away all of their profit to a charity, pay no tax, but also not pay the shareholders any increase in their investment (dividend, increased stock price via stock buy back).

I'm not accountant so I could be somewhat wrong about the above. I am fairly sure about the concept of tax deductions not "directly reducing" your tax though - I used to think that way, as I think a lot of other people do. It's all about reducing your taxable income.

Re:Purpose of charitable tax "write offs"

[jonbryce]

I am an accountant, and I can confirm that what you say is correct.

There are some companies that donate their entire profits to charity. They are mostly trading subsidiaries of the charity in question, and they pay their profits to the charity as a donation rather than as dividends so that they don't have to pay any tax on their profits.

They'll give people money

[ProsperoDGC]

I'm very amused by the complaints about Google starting a foundation. Yes, Google gets a tax break by donating to charity. But so do most US citizens when you give cash (or time, or gas expenses, or whatever) to charitable causes. So suggesting that Google is being somehow underhand by starting a foundation is a petty argument sourced in sheer cynicism... Unless you only contribute to charity for the tax break?

The fact is, Google has scads of money just lying about the place. They can invest it, but sometimes the "return on investment" is better if that same money is invested in good works, such as scientific research, food programs, and the like. It depends on your definition of "return," I guess.

Regardless of what you think about their ethics or business practices, Brin+Page, Gates, Case, and the like have chosen to invest their capital in ventures that will (ideally) generate more than a capital return in the short-term. By doing so through a foundation, they're demonstrating both good business sense and laudable philanthropy. They shouldn't be condemned for either.