Slashdot Mirror
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."
Google's first task for humanity should be to explain to us what philanthropic means.
i r baboon
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.
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?
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
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.
Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?
/etc/hosts.conf file:
Sure: put this into your
0.0.0.0 slashdot.org
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
hilarious
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)
Update Watch - Automatic software update notification
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?!
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.
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.
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.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf