Mark Zuckerberg Gives $990 Million To Charity

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mark Zuckerberg Gives $990 Million To Charity

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:38AM from the pocket-change-we-can-believe-in dept.

mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from Business Insider: "This morning, Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to give 18 million Facebook shares to charity by the end of the month. Facebook is currently trading at $55 per share, so Zuckerberg's gift is worth just under $1 billion. The money will go toward Zuckerberg's foundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and The Breakthrough Prize In Life Science, a [Nobel] Prize-like award. Zuckereberg is giving his shares away as part of a secondary stock offering from Facebook. Reuters says Zuckerberg will sell 41.4 million shares, reducing his voting power in the company from 58.8% to 56.1%. Other insiders selling include board member Marc Andreessen, who will sell 1.65 million shares. Facebook is selling 27 million."

149 of 230 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

so he gave by dale.furno · 2013-12-19 04:41 · Score: 5, Informative

to his own charity?
1. Re:so he gave by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2013-12-19 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So did Bill Gates. And Bill Clinton. Those two at least do some good work.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
2. Re:so he gave by Dave+Whiteside · 2013-12-19 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  best way to avoid tax
  
  --
  who where what when now?
3. Re:so he gave by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. As charitable deductions change radically in next years tax laws. He is basically protecting his wealth by putting it somewhere he thinks he might use it for in the future...
4. Re:so he gave by Pope · 2013-12-19 04:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Correct. Gates has one of the biggest tax dodges in history.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
5. Re:so he gave by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  Private charities come in two variants.
  The first are a thin veil for a tax dodge. Set up a charity, pay yourself fat fees, transfer wealth capital gains free while retaining voting rights, give cash to the local opera and get sweet exclusive access, make sure the back 40 acres of your house remains undeveloped to protect your view and not pay property taxes. It can be useful for social climbing.
  The second is that you have a concern and you want to remain hands on. I will point to Bill Gates and Carnegie. Both had very specific view on education and how the charities should be managed.
  Both try to sneak in a little good PR. Carnegie has been dead for a long time yet his charities still spread good things about their name. Or Harvard who had one of the better deals in history – donating a few hundred dollars and we still remember his name.
6. Re:so he gave by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Horrible way to avoid paying taxes.
  If MZ sold his stock he would keep 72%. Assuming his cost basis was $0 and a tax rate of 28%
  By giving his stock away he keeps 0%. I mean, yes, you do stick it to the man by not paying taxes but you would have the same effect if you burned large piles of money.
  MZ probably has other motives for giving his money away then avoiding paying taxes.
7. Re:so he gave by jellomizer · 2013-12-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  I am still thinking of Creating the MFM foundation. (Money for Me) It is a good cause, I will use your money to give myself a better life and such improvements will help my local economy.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
8. Re:so he gave by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-12-19 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're not operating under the assumption that all rich people are evil and incapable of doing anything without personal gain. Most of the people in this thread are.
9. Re:so he gave by LordNacho · 2013-12-19 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Is he financially better off by giving away stock?
10. Re:so he gave by Em+Adespoton · 2013-12-19 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  How is giving stock avoiding taxes? Giving away a billion dollars in stock is far more wealth than if he sold the stock and paid the taxes on it. I hate to break this to people but the super rich are not nearly as worried about taxes as you think they are.
  Giving stock is avoiding taxes because you avoid the capital gains, and the loss/transfer can be counted against REAL wealth.
  You see, stock is actually pretty much worthless when it comes to conversion to every day uses. Its value has no stability, and you can rarely use it to directly purchase things you actually need/want. At the end of the day, stock is just the ability to have a certain percentage of say in how a corporation is run. People speculate on these voting shares, with some people willing to purchase this voting capital in a company not because they're interested in the direction of the company, but because they anticipate someone else might be willing to buy it off of them for a higher price. The last price people are willing to pay to trade these shares is what we usually refer to as "stock value".
  If you give all these shares to another entity, you get tax benefits as if all of the shares are worth that value. HOWEVER, if you sold those same shares on the open market, you'd not get that value for every share. As you dumped the shares, the first few would go for around the current valuation, but the more you dump on to the open market, the less demand there is for new shares, and the overall stock value drops. This is how pump and dump stock scams work: you take a stock with a low value, get people speculating on it, pump up the value, and then dump your cheap stock at the high value until it deflates back to the original purchase price. Rinse, repeat.
  As a result, you get someone like Zuckerberg transferring almost $1billion of his stock to his charity, sheltering it from taxation while at the same time giving him a HUGE tax break similar to if he had donated his personal wealth to the charity -- and that stock would be worth nowhere near that much if he had instead sold it on the open market and donated the money to the same charity.
  This is one of the reasons that the super rich aren't worried about taxes -- they have enough of these sorts of tax dodges to work with that they have no need to worry.
11. Re:so he gave by Sarten-X · 2013-12-19 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I used to work in finance, managing accounts for those "tax dodge" charities. It's pretty clear you don't actually know how they work.
  You're right on the surface, of course... as long as you control your own foundation, you have control over those voting rights and the development of that lot. The devil's in the details, though. You don't have control as you, but as an agent of the foundation. That means that the donated assets are not a part of your own estate, and you personally don't own them any more. You can't transfer money back to yourself (as those "fat fees" run afoul of the charity's tax-free status), you can't build a vineyard on those 40 acres, and you can't pass on the charity to your heirs.
  Those foundations are their own entities, and they must be managed separately. It's actually pretty hard to use them for your own financial gain. You can, however, use them to improve your standing in the community, but you don't really need money for that.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
12. Re:so he gave by sl4shd0rk · 2013-12-19 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  Those two at least do some good work.
  If you're into crushing competition through litigation and signing trade agreements that screw up your entire economy, sure.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
13. Re:so he gave by Wycliffe · 2013-12-19 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  to his own charity?
  And then less than 5% of his net worth/stocks. It reduced his voting by a little over 2% and
  he's keeping more than half of it so he's giving less than 1% of his voting power to a charity
  he controls. 1 billion is a quite impressive, but as a percentage of his wealth it is nothing
  and add to that the fact that he's basically giving it to himself, it's not much at all. At least
  when Bill Gates gave it to himself he gave a substantial percentage. Warren Buffet I believe
  is giving 5% of his net worth per year to charity at this point.
14. Re:so he gave by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that is probably not the best way. Bond fraud is not the in thing these days but I hear that dot coms are making a comeback.
  On to the technical issues. Most foundations, if we are weighing by size, are run legitimately. However, there are a lot of rinky family foundations that are not.
  Sadly I have seen money transferred back to the owners. Spouses and children are given high paying low responsibility jobs in the foundation. Foundations buy overpriced services from the founder’s family; Investment advice, rent, consulting series, etc. Often the annual meeting is held in a tropical resort during winter. Etc. Lots of ways. It can be directly and the laws limit the strip-mining but I have seen some pretty sad cases.
  You are technically right that you give up ownership but there are methods of abuse. One can used different share classes, preferred shares, partnerships, bearer stock, and pyramid structures to maximize the tax benefit while minimizing the loss of economic value and control. The Ford family has sold most of their Ford stock decades ago yet still controls Ford thanks to the super voting rights stock that the Ford Foundation holds. Let face the facts, Bill Ford Jr. did not become the CEO of Ford because he was the best candidate. Who knows what Ingvar Kamprad is doing with IKEA - his foundation is a black box.
  It comes down to why the foundation was founded. If the person was black of heart there are methods of abuse open.
15. Re:so he gave by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  And I made a mistake. The super voting right Ford Stock is owned by the Ford Family Trust, no the Ford Foundation. So that example is a bust. There are others out there.
16. Re:so he gave by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is not how it works. When he gifts stock he does not have to pay capital gains tax on the stock gifted. That's it.
  If he wanted to abuse the charitable system he could have gifted preferred shares. Dr. Bose of Bose speakers did that. He is not doing that.
  If he wanted to avoid capital gains taxing he could start a plan of tax harvesting or completion funds. Transferring restricted shares to trusts and insurance plans. Special dividend payouts. Deferred compensation and pension plans. Which I am going to guess that is doing but that is another story.
17. Re:so he gave by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Better question : of his own shares? Or of the company-held shares. Because if they are company-held shares, I'd love to know how that benefits the other shareholders (ie, the owners of the company).
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
18. Re:so he gave by quenda · 2013-12-19 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  to his own charity?
  to The Human Fund.
19. Re:so he gave by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  How is giving stock avoiding taxes?
  Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
20. Re:so he gave by Em+Adespoton · 2013-12-20 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  How is giving stock avoiding taxes?
  Because the only right that the piece of paper the stock is printed on allows you to have is voting. And you get to vote regardless of whether you own the stock or your charity does. But "donating" to charity creates a tax write off.
  Bingo!
21. Re: so he gave by stenmansimon · 2013-12-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  ofcourse he did he want to know that the monny don't fall in the wrong hands of greedy people. connsidder this mark is a smart man and I beleve in his work. "money is worth nothing untill you use it" so why not to people who acctually needs it the most and not to the people who allready sitts on their asses with lots of materialized stuff in desire to have more and more.
tax shelter or buying a legacy? by lyapunov · 2013-12-19 04:45 · Score: 1

A tax move or trying to buy a legacy... I wonder. This reminds me of the story of the founding of the Nobel Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#History

--

Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
oh boy... by globaljustin · 2013-12-19 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

TFA Headline was misleading...saying it like this:
"X gives [huge sum of money] to charity."
X being an often criticized figure and "charity" being the incongruent thing that supposedly makes the headline interesting.
But it buries the lead...the story isn't some tech/dork/genius/villain giving a huge sum of money away to needy people...it's about him transferring it to his own charity.
Huge difference.
Jerry Sandusky used the Second Mile Charity to find victims. Clinton uses his charity to maintain his personal/family brand and...I admit...do good things. Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
IMHO, Gates and Zuck are bad models for tech chartiy. I would rather him take that money and pay off every home mortgage in the poor communities in his area....Oakland. The also need to stop all attempts to use his charity to get student data via "donating" some student info system and calling it some innovative name.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
1. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 04:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  IMHO, Gates and Zuck are bad models for tech chartiy. I would rather him take that money and pay off every home mortgage in the poor communities in his area....Oakland. The also need to stop all attempts to use his charity to get student data via "donating" some student info system and calling it some innovative name.
  I would rather have a more egalitarian world, where money does not accumulate obscenely like that.
2. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 04:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As I remember it Gates didn't give a damn about charities until the Microsoft anti-trust trial was underway. It was a PR move.
  I could be wrong though, feel free to jump in if you have citations otherwise.
  --
  Hey, ACs need sigs too!
3. Re:oh boy... by pepty · 2013-12-19 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  So when you donate shares to a foundation you control do you still get to vote the shares? Seems like an awesome loophole: you still get to use the voting power of the shares to further your own best interests, not necessarily those of the foundation.
4. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  He's giving the stock, not money. When he monetizes the stock is when he'd get killed in taxes. The Foundation can then sell the stock for cash tax-free but is under a lot of regulation as to what can be done with the money. Taxes in America make this the only reasonable way for the wealthy to "give." You can't do things like pay off other people's mortgages without a massive tax burden both ways. (Having your mortgage paid off by someone else is income.) Blame the IRS for these goofy constructs, not those giving millions and billions.
5. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Gates gained a soul when he got married. Finally getting laid mellows you out.
6. Re:oh boy... by pepty · 2013-12-19 05:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Gates is an awesome model for billionaire charity: Warren Buffet likes it so much he is going to donate 85% of his wealth to it. Most of the money goes to biomedical (TB, AIDS, sanitation, fresh water, vaccines, orphan diseases) issues that can't really improve the market for M$ other than through brand management ... and healthier customers.
7. Re:oh boy... by dkleinsc · 2013-12-19 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
  His charity also does a ton of good stuff in areas like public health and sanitation. He's not a saint, he may be doing it primarily as a PR move, but that's definitely doing more good for the world than having it just sitting in some trust fund for his 3 kids or something. And yes, he could have also given it to a bunch of organizations rather than creating a foundation of his own, but my impression from those who have done work in the area where his foundation operates is that they have a fairly good reputation as far as non-profits go.
  I don't like Bill Gates' business tactics. I do like what he's chosen to do with a lot of his time and money.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
8. Re:oh boy... by smooth+wombat · 2013-12-19 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
  
  So you're saying there shouldn't be any standards for whether a teacher does their job? They should just be able to show up and get paid? Where do I sign up?
  
  Also, while Bill does push his Microsoft bent, his charity does provide tons of money for vaccinations and education in poor countries.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Re:oh boy... by Sir_Sri · 2013-12-19 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
  
  And you know, curing polio, fighting AIDS, TB and malaria, etc.
  Lets not leave out the the stuff that saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
10. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the money goes to biomedical (TB, AIDS, sanitation, fresh water, vaccines, orphan diseases) issues
  With all the attached under-the-table negotiation strings to assure his own investments continue to grow. For example, "giving away millions of dollars in life-saving medicines" on conditions that poor countries adopt intellectual property laws forbidding them from manufacturing the same drugs themselves for pennies on the dollar. Bill Gate's personal wealth, after giving away billions to "charity" has gotten bigger than before "giving away" the money: because he's heavily invested in non-Microsoft megacorporporations, too, like Big Pharma and private education vultures.
11. Re:oh boy... by sribe · 2013-12-19 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
  Uhm, no. He has done some tinkering with that in the US, and has been slammed for it here--rightly, in my opinion. But his real focus has been fighting disease in the 3rd world--childhood vaccinations and anti-malaria efforts, and those are hugely worthy efforts.
12. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Citations in response to a non-cited and subjective post?
  PR people are a lot cheaper than billion dollar foundations. And PR for what? A retired guy? Who cares? If this was a PR move why keep it going?
  In the end he is giving. There isn't a timetable for this and he isn't required to do it at all.
13. Re:oh boy... by NatasRevol · 2013-12-19 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Blame congress for making the rules that the IRS *has* to play by.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
14. Re:oh boy... by NatasRevol · 2013-12-19 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Stop pointing out that Bill Gates is a money grubbing asshole.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
15. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The thing is with teachers, especially in under-achieving schools, the community and students don't show up.
  My wife taught in Detroit for a while. Half her class missed half their classroom time over the course of a school year. Is it her fault that all those kids have low test scores (if they even show up on testing day)? It's the same at many of the under-achieving schools around the US. The kids and parents don't show up.
  Perhaps if you tried looking into the problem rather than rattling off overly generalized bullet points that align with what you've heard on the blue glow box in the corner of the couch room you'd have a clue.
16. Re:oh boy... by king+neckbeard · 2013-12-19 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's also worth considering how he got the money in the first place. You have to weigh the harm of his prior actions against the benefits of his current actions.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
17. Re:oh boy... by Sarten-X · 2013-12-19 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.
  Having a spouse means you're forced to consider another perspective, which in turn makes it easier to understand and empathize with others you're not related to. Life isn't just about pursuing your own goals any more, but suddenly there's a concern for helping everyone. Perhaps not all the way to meeting their goals, but at least living long and well enough to have a chance.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
18. Re:oh boy... by Jason+Levine · 2013-12-19 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, but the current model for "evaluating teacher performance" is giving kids a lot of standardized tests (designed by Pearson and other big companies and not evaluated by any third party). Teachers whose students do poorly on the tests are claimed to have done a bad job - regardless if said students are English Second Language students or have special needs that might interfere with test taking. Furthermore, since teachers' jobs are tied to the results of these tests, they wind up teaching to the test. Any time spent covering items that won't appear on the test is time spent risking your job.
  Of course, the whole testing system is designed to punish public school teachers and push business-owned, for-profit, publicly financed charter schools (which all too often don't require a background in education to teach), but that's a different rant.
  (I have two kids in elementary school dealing with the whole Common Core/EngageNY/high stakes testing nonsense so I know first-hand what this is doing to our kids and teachers.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
19. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really? Gates demanding that people and governments sign long term contracts with US Agriculture and Medical corporations and not produce or grow locally as a condition of receiving his "Free" medicine is a benefit to society? Who's society are you referring to, the starving people in Ethiopia that can't grow local food any more because they received "Free vaccines"?
  Good grief man, use your head just a little. If Mr. Gates was really just "helping everyone with his money" why has his wealth continued to grow while the people he is supposedly helping go further down in poverty? Some of the vaccines being pushed overseas are illegal in numerous Western Countries after being proven harmful to recipients.
  Your view of an "awesome model" seems to be very low and abstract.
  More on topic, look for Facebook to report some major loss in value causing the stocks to drop. Zuckerberg is not the only one donating lots of stock. These people are not idiots, and didn't get to be as wealthy as they are because they are altruistic.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
20. Re: oh boy... by um...+Lucas · 2013-12-19 06:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not like he did a sham transfer to a strawman. He transferred them to his foundation, irrevocably. Just because the foundation has his name doesn't mean he gets anything from it. Aside from getting to vote the shares the way he and the rest of the board agree, the shares are gone to him - any appreciation, all dividends, they all are for the bill and Melinda gates foundations benefit, and that organization publicly discloses their tax return so you can verify that.
  Creating and funding that foundation did nothing with regards to microsofts antitrust case, except make bill a lot less rich (but still in the top 3)
21. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.
  Your post makes you out to be a much more condescending shitbag than I think you intended.
22. Re:oh boy... by UnknownSoldier · 2013-12-19 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  You DO realize money is just a convenient form of energy, right?
23. Re:oh boy... by Derec01 · 2013-12-19 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  His wealth has continued to grow irrespective of any of that, I'm sure, due to a massive spread of investments.
  However, I can't find any reference to these contracts stipulating restrictions on food growth or the alleged unsafe vaccines. Do you have a source for either of those? I'd like to follow that up.
  In any place receiving these vaccines, wouldn't it be a headache to enforce that kind of contract anyway given the state of the local judicial system?
24. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Gates demanding that people and governments sign long term contracts with US Agriculture and Medical corporations and not produce or grow locally as a condition of receiving his "Free" medicine
  
  [citation needed]
  Not that I have any doubt that Gates is a money-grubbing asshole, but this just sounds weird. What's the reasoning behind it?
25. Re:oh boy... by UnknownSoldier · 2013-12-19 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  Apple used to sell their OS for $20; now 10.9 and all future OS versions are free. Microsoft wants ~ $100+ for Win7/Win8. Microsoft wants $100/year for Office 365.
  Will Apple is no saint, Bill Gates was responsible for Microsoft nickeling and diming customers every chance they get.
26. Re:oh boy... by Radtastic · 2013-12-19 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Citation definitely needed here.
  
  This document https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/agricultural-development-strategy-overview.pdf from the gates foundation would lead one to believe that they are promoting local farmers, not suppressing them.
  
  --
  You stereotypers are all the same...
27. Re:oh boy... by xobyte · 2013-12-19 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  The Gates Foundation does WAY more than tech to schools and stuff... They have given hundreds of millions of dollars to Rotary in their push to eradicate polio.
28. Re:oh boy... by PRMan · 2013-12-19 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have 2 kids in school and teaching to the test has reduced the wasted time from ludicrous to merely ridiculous. I'm really not seeing the problem here.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
29. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  This is better than nothing. Look what Jobs left behind... a legacy of $0 to any charities.
30. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  How can you function with such severe cognitive dissonance? "He is altruistic so giving away his wealth" directly conflicts with the reality that he has been gaining more wealth.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
31. Re:oh boy... by master5o1 · 2013-12-19 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.
  I'm sorry, but using M$ as a shortening for Microsoft, you have just discounted any quality opinion about Bill Gates, his charity or Microsoft.
  It's not just the use of M$ that irks me, it is also those who shorten company names to their stock symbols. Using GOOG does not make it easier to get your point across when discussing Google. AAPL only shortens your sentence by one letter. Unless you're discussing the companies as investment entities, then there is no reason to use their stock symbol as the reference.
  
  --
  signature is pants
32. Re:oh boy... by Penguinisto · 2013-12-19 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  PR people are a lot cheaper than billion dollar foundations.
  True, but PR people can't effectively bribe 3rd-world governments into avoiding Linux and buying Windows - at least not as much as you can with "donations" from your "charity" to El Presidente's wife's own "charity". See also Mexico.
  
  And PR for what? A retired guy? Who cares?
  He's not quite retired, eh?
  
  If this was a PR move why keep it going?
  For highly-driven people, retirement doesn't mean saying 'aww screw it' and letting one's entire life's work to do whatever it wants to. Doubly so if the vast majority of your money is tied up in the continued stock/corporate performance of that life's work. Hence the palm-greasing on the side, the PR designed to make sure his company looks as good as he does when he writes those big-assed checks, etc etc.
  Note that I haven't even touched on the ego aspect of it all...
  Also note that he isn't the first to do this: Andrew Carnegie did it because as an older man, he realized his afterlife and name were in serious jeopardy of being snuffed out and/or dragged through the mud once he wasn't around to enforce the respect that he enjoyed.
  
  In the end he is giving.
  Certainly he is - though only for his own goals and purposes. Otherwise, it would be a whole helluva lot easier (and way more efficient) to simply write a ginormous check or two to UNICEF, CRS, CARE, Red Cross/Crescent, or a whole host of other existing and effective charities.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
33. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  You are a shill, and shockingly an "anonymous" shill. This is one report out of thousands I have read in the last decade.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
34. Re: oh boy... by Penguinisto · 2013-12-19 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like he did a sham transfer to a strawman. He transferred them to his foundation, irrevocably. Just because the foundation has his name doesn't mean he gets anything from it.
  Well, technically he could make himself a board member of that foundation (if he isn't already), give himself a massive salary, etc...
  After all, trusts and foundations are among the oldest tax dodges in financial history, you know?
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
35. Re:oh boy... by pepty · 2013-12-19 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  These are projects (TB, cholera, rotavirus, vaccines) that don't generate much revenue for Big Pharma: that's why Big Pharma doesn't often invest in them. Googling "giving away millions of dollars in life-saving medicines", which you put in quotes, comes up with one single result: your comment. The Gates foundation requires that it's research programs share results and that global prices for products using its grant money be kept low. I fully realize Microsoft's contributions to the global IP situation, but do you have a source for what the Gates Foundation is doing to further them?
36. Re:oh boy... by blackbeak · 2013-12-19 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And you get to fly in your Foundation's aircraft, be chauffeured about in your Foundation's limo, you get to direct funds to friends' pet projects, to hire relatives with cushy salaries, to avoid taxes on almost a billion dollars that will remain largely under your influence, to expense fine dining and gifts, you get to insert meddlesome NGO's into foreign lands (furthering your ties with clandestine government agencies), you get to influence politicians and voters, you get to serve on "advisory committees" and write legislation, you get to implement sweeping changes like "Common Core Curriculum" that will effect almost everybody (without their input) .... I'm sure I didn't list all the perks!
  
  --
  Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
37. Re:oh boy... by pepty · 2013-12-19 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  Apple used to sell their OS for $20; now 10.9 and all future OS versions are free. Microsoft wants ~ $100+ for Win7/Win8. Microsoft wants $100/year for Office 365.
  Will Apple is no saint, Bill Gates was responsible for Microsoft nickeling and diming customers every chance they get.
  http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-might-drop-licensing-fees-windows-phone
  MS is considering dropping license fees for Windows Phone and Windows RT. So you're ... So it's really ...
  So there.
38. Re:oh boy... by mythosaz · 2013-12-19 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  It is silly to rate the performance of teachers by the performance of their students.
  It is equally silly to suggest that teachers shouldn't be rated by their job performance.
39. Re:oh boy... by pepty · 2013-12-19 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Another way to look at it as you can build a $400 PC and then spend $100 to put Windows on it or $0 to put OS X on it. Not really Apple's intention, but it still works fine if you buy parts with that goal in mind.
40. Re:oh boy... by Smauler · 2013-12-19 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Having a spouse means you're forced to consider another perspective, which in turn makes it easier to understand and empathize with others you're not related to.
  Alternatively, having a spouse and family makes it much harder to understand and empathise with those outside of that family. "Old money" refers to this - people preferentially give money to those they are related to, to the detriment of others. Massive family fortunes have been accumulated and held on to this way, and have been influential despite those currently being in control being incompetent.
  People who don't have spouses and family are _more_ forced to consider other perspectives, because they actually decide what will happen to their money when they die, rather than just passing it on.
41. Re:oh boy... by master5o1 · 2013-12-19 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you may subscribe to my newsletter where I communication at great lengths. It is, in my opinion, quite an interesting read. You might be delighted to know that I was already planning my next issue to be about idiosyncratic rules for communication.
  
  --
  signature is pants
42. Re:oh boy... by bobaferret · 2013-12-19 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I concur. I took my 12 year olds test. Just to see what it was like. It covered his school year quite well and was focused on the things the kids that age should be learning. It did lack some art and music sections, but was very strong in reasoning and analytical skills. And teaching to the test as far as I can tell, means making sure that you cover a number of basic subjects thoroughly. Esp. math and reading. Also kids with special needs have the scores factored out. Schools are required to provide IEPs for those kids. Also our public schools in Southern IL and elsewhere have AT programs where above average kids can be challenged and what not. At least around here the schools don't mind the tests too much and try and deal with all of the kids above and below average as well as they can. The tests and "teaching to them" seems to have a nice added effect, that when the child goes on to the next grade, the teacher knows what basic skills they'll have from the previous year.
43. Re:oh boy... by JD-1027 · 2013-12-19 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I would take this one slight step further. Having children is the next step that further deepens your perspectives. With children, you are not only thinking of your own generation, but those of the future. And, for me at least, the relationship is different enough than the relationship with my wife to give me quite a lot of introspective. This greatly affects anything I do today.
44. Re:oh boy... by globaljustin · 2013-12-19 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  You might be delighted to know that I was already planning my next issue to be about idiosyncratic rules for communication.
  word.
  i'm sure it will be pretty interesting...if you post a link I might even take a look
  i'll use 'M$' as an abbreviation until the day I die and no blog, Oxford English Bullshit, or w/e will change that...
  as for why, its part of how the internet allows for different modes of communication to layer meaning...i think it's cool, and I experiment with different things to see the effect
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
45. Re:oh boy... by NatasRevol · 2013-12-19 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It was sarcasm.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
46. Re:oh boy... by Zalbik · 2013-12-19 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  How do you function without knowing the meaning of common words?
  altruism (n): the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
  One can be altruistic, and still gain wealth. You may be claiming that he is only funding Gates foundation as this is the best means of producing more wealth, but that would take a severe misunderstanding of investing & economics.
  Oh, and still waiting on that evidence that gates's foundation is suppressing local farming....
47. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  So the action words are what lose you? Verbs are hard? Honestly, this is not my lesson to learn. "He gives away all of his money to help others" can NOT be true of the person is in fact GAINING WEALTH. It is impossible. Now will you come back and argue that "he" needs to be properly defined?
  Now if the fact is that he is gaining in wealth clicks, and you get that there is a perpetrated lie of "him giving away money" you will see that the altruism people associate with Bill Gates is also a lie.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
48. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  In some ways this might be true, but having kids also gives a very real and uncompromising need to provide for someone other than yourself. For many many people, this seems to be the point in their life when they switch from "live and let live" mode to "live and let die". A lot of the "screw you, I've got mine" attitude is driven by the desire to provide for your own, even if it costs everyone else dearly.
  This isn't a particularly human thing either. Many other animals have no problem killing others of the same species if it benefits their offspring even marginally.
49. Re:oh boy... by clarkkent09 · 2013-12-19 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not possible without sacrificing freedom.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
50. Re:oh boy... by clarkkent09 · 2013-12-19 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  There are many ways to rate teachers but none will work as long as the teachers union rejects any mention of performance based compensation.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
51. Re:oh boy... by phantomfive · 2013-12-19 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  (I have two kids in elementary school dealing with the whole Common Core/EngageNY/high stakes testing nonsense so I know first-hand what this is doing to our kids and teachers.
  I don't know NY specifically, but every 'common core' exam I've looked at so far has questions so simple that kids should be learning them without too much trouble....
  
  I met some kids from Japan who swore they were bad at math. Then I found out they'd gone through calculus in High School. We're not exactly pushing the envelope with what we're requiring kids to learn.....
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
52. Re:oh boy... by Derec01 · 2013-12-19 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, honestly, I not interested in arguing that point.
  I am legitimately curious about Gates foundation stipulations. Can you provide a link? I know nothing about these contracts, so I would be interested in seeing what you're talking about.
53. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Google will be my friend later, since I have read numerous articles over the last few years but didn't see anything immediately on Google. Play with keywords and see what you can find, I'll do the same. Replying now so you don't think your comment is ignored ahead of digging for links when I have time later.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
54. Re:oh boy... by Sabriel · 2013-12-19 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  An AC posted this elsewhere in this thread: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,290910,full.story
  Doesn't mention contract lock-ins; does describe how the foundation invests in the very companies which are the source of the problems its charitable works are meant to reduce.
  I'm reminded of the old medieval practice of buying forgiveness for your sins.
55. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · 2013-12-19 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  Wait a minute AC. I realize that Google searches can be difficult, but this did not require any playing with keywords to find. Tell me how much money he is giving away when his wealth has continued to increase by "BILLIONS" of dollars annually!
  From Forbes we have Bill Gates' net worth rose $6 billion from last March due to gains in his investment portfolio; his holdings include tech hygiene firm Ecolab, waste collector Republic Services and Mexican Coke bottler FEMSA. In February the first 12 non-Americans joined Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge, in which the ultra-wealthy pledge to give away at least half their net worth to charity.
  If Bill gave away 1/2 his wealth, should he not have today only 33.5billion dollars instead of 67billion? Was it only 1/2 his wealth of.. income on some stock investment? 1/2 of his wealth only in Mexico? There are obviously numerous conditions and stipulations on his definition of both "wealth" and "giving away" which are not disclosed meaning there is no sincere altruistic motives.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
56. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  You won't find such a reference because it doesn't exist. Gates (who is far too rich and too old to spend all the money on himself, and announced years ago that he thinks inheriting such wealth is bad for kids so he won't leave it to them) has been giving huge piles of money to completely altruistic programs like Guinea Worm Eradication, and some people can't stomach the idea of someone they hate (yet never met) not being an evil monster so they make up lies.
  GWEP is a really good example of how screwed up the economics would have to be if you weren't doing this out of just pure human goodness. Guinea Worm has no impact on anybody who gets drinkable tap water, let alone can afford to buy water in a supermarket. It's entirely a disease of the very poor, mostly now rural subsistence farmers. These people are barely making enough food for themselves, they could no sooner enter into a contract with a US agribusiness than fly to the moon. And yet, loons like the one in this thread would have you believe they're such a threat that Gates is forcing them to enter complicated international contracts in exchange for treatment. Even more crazily, these abjectly poor African farmers (oh yeah, Guinea Worm is extinct outside Africa) are supposedly being held to these imaginary international contracts despite the fact that the countries they live in are war-torn hell-holes where a western lawyer is most likely to get kidnapped and held for ransom, not given assistance in wrestling worthless mountain pastures from some peasant who has broken an entirely imaginary contract. And all this under the auspices of a UN program to which Gates just provides (some of) the money.
  But you know, the nuts will say if you google, you might find someone mentioning that they read something which they think mentioned someone who knew something about it. So that's your proof right there, isn't it? :eyeroll:
57. Re: oh boy... by Spottywot · 2013-12-19 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you totally, what needs to happen though is the economy needs to run in a way that reflects that. A lot of problems could be solved.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
58. Re:oh boy... by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  You DO realize money is just a convenient form of energy
  I used to hold that view. But it's completely shattered by supply/demand dynamic. Money is a token for enumerating exchange. It's there to make voluntary cooperation precise. Prices go up during times of shortages because value (ie, usefulness) of goods goes up. Prices go down in the conditions of oversupply because value (ie, usefulness) goes down. The only time this dynamic breaks is when the exchange becomes less than voluntary. If someone puts a gun to you head, you might sell things at his price rather than at what your view of the correct price is. If someone can legally print money, they can make one area of the economy over inflated and worth more by making sure that the money they print is only spent in that area. But then the enumerative character of the token is broken (ie, it's a false count).
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
59. Re:oh boy... by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  empathise
  
  I'll take it out on you even though you probably don't merit it. But the times do. Empathy is a physical impossibility. "Compassion" is the word you are looking for. Empathy is feeling the feelings experienced by another human beings. You can understand feelings of others, you can experience compassion for the feelings of others (commiserate). But you can't actually physically feel the feelings of others. Unless you are into mysticism. But I don't think most people who use that word are trying to use it in a spiritual sense.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
60. Re:oh boy... by mcgrew · 2013-12-19 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, I'll bet I've spent a bigger proportion of my money to charity than Zuckerberg and you probably have, too. Why does he get ink for being charitable to his own organization but you don't for putting that C-note in the Salvation Army bucket? Mark 12:41-44
  
  And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
  And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
  And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
  For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
  
  Then there's Matthew 6:2,
  
  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
  That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
  
  I don't think Zuckerberg cares, he's certainly not Christian. His name sounds Jewish, and few Jews (God's chosen people) are Christians. But I could be wrong, I often am.
  Oh, and merry Christmas, everyone! Can we stop being mean o each other? Please?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
61. Re:oh boy... by mcgrew · 2013-12-19 13:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From what I read, his father (an IBM lawyer!) shamed him into it.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
62. Re:oh boy... by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  And you get to fly in your Foundation's aircraft...
  That's actually not as important. Stock is a piece of paper. The only paper which is worth money is the paper which entitles one to some legal rights. Bonds give you a legal right to collect debt. Why are stocks worth money? If you think you own part of the company, try to walk through it's front door to examine your property. An owner doesn't have to make an appointment to walk in. So what rights do come with stock ownership? Dividends are not rights. They are not mandatory. So you are not entitled to them... not a right. The only right that a stock gives you is the right to vote for the top management of the company. Why do people pay so much for that right? Disregarding the speculators hoping to sell to the greater fool, they pay for it because the management, in fear of getting fired, used to pay shareholders dividends so that they would keep voting for them. Stocks costing money is just a throwback to that era. Without that, the right to vote for IBM's management? Who the hell wants to pay for that? But if Zuckerberg gets to have a 1 billion tax right off (conveniently at the same time he sold 1 billion of his own shares) and still control the voting rights of the "donated" shares, then he literally gets to eat his cake and have it, too. The 2nd billion shares (the donated ones) don't lose him any voting rights and at the same time do give him the tax write off. Even if they are voted through an escrow, it's still his patsy escrow.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
63. Re:oh boy... by superwiz · 2013-12-19 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's just not how it works. Congress makes laws, but the rules interpreting them are made by the IRS.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
64. Re:oh boy... by Stuarticus · 2013-12-20 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Only in the sense that all matter or data is also a convenient form of energy.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
65. Re: oh boy... by superwiz · 2013-12-20 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  How? Through what physical means? Feelings of others are aggregate results of synapses firing in their brains. In what physical way do they make synapses fire in your brain? ESP?
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
66. Re: oh boy... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2013-12-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, technically he could make himself a board member of that foundation (if he isn't already), give himself a massive salary, etc...
  So, he puts billions in, and then... what? At most, he could pay himself like $1 billion a year til they ran out of (his) money, paying income tax on money that used to be his? Or money tat was going to be taxes at 15% instead of almost 40%?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
67. Re:oh boy... by Smauler · 2013-12-21 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Empathy is feeling the feelings experienced by another human beings[sic]. "Compassion" is the word you are looking for.
  No it isn't... I feel something different to compassion when I see someone in severe pain. A lot of it involves "thank god that is not me", which is nothing to do with compassion. If you have a better word for it, go for it. As it is, "empathy" is the best I could find to express what I meant. I know I literally do not feel what other people in pain feel, to claim so would be false, and I did not intend to give that impression. If you actually thought I meant that I was claiming that I was feeling a direct simulacrum to the other person, you misinterpreted me.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 04:52 · Score: 1

Let's see if Gates can outdo this. So far Bill's "philanthropy" has been a joke.
Oh? Do tell..
Charity by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hell, say what you will about Shumckaberg, but it looks like this was a good move. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation does good work as far as I can tell. It's not like he's investing back into technology or anything else that will do him any direct good - again, as far as I can tell.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
1. Re:Charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Silicon Valley Community Foundation does good work as far as I can tell.
  What, pray tell? They're not directly a charity, but an investment firm with charities as clients. In other words, someone else gives the money; someone else does the actual charity work. They just sit in the middle, getting to wield billions of dollars of dollars of other people's money for investments that bolster billionaires' agendas (while claiming the credit for other people's charity).
2. Re:Charity by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I [rolls blinking eyes] call him that affectionately. He's taken his great human insight and directed it toward creating an interface that enables real people do become virtual people, by taking advantage of a basic human trait - as you call it, "pride". It's with this pride that people are disconnecting themselves from the real world, in order to appear to others - again, in a virtual way - to be social and complete. With Smuckaberg's ambition and insight, he could have done a lot of good for humanity, but instead he takes advantage of people using his site and selling their data to the corporate demons (for his own benefit), and in the end that data is used against all of humanity in ways that most people cannot ...connect the dots. Some may say that he's done humanity a favor, but I can't see how, maybe you know.
  
  I didn't come up with the name (maybe the spelling), I just think it fits along with my definition of "shmuck". I generally base my pride on things that I do in the real world, and not because of things I type into Slashdot's interface.
  
  I suppose that you post as AC because... pride?
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 04:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

That's what I hate about those greedy rich people. Always giving their money away to charity, endowing the arts and building sports facilities for all to enjoy. Who the hell do they think they are?
1. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by swb · 2013-12-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  There was a great op-ed piece in the paper the other day about how self-serving these tax-deductible "charitable" donations end up being.
  A lot of them end up being donations to private schools that principally benefit their own children (easing "legacy" admissions to private colleges) or the other children of other plutocrats.
  There's even criticism of donations to arts groups. While on the surface, I like the idea of keeping the performing arts groups going, it doesn't really benefit anyone who isn't buying $100 tickets to the Opera or Ballet. Museum donations are less vulnerable to this kind of criticism because the admission is low (ie, there's a low barrier to enjoying the value of the institution). But overall you can say these kinds of donations really are about enhancing the plutocracy's cultural cachet and social standing. They don't really improve social welfare for poor people.
  And I don't remember the plutocracy building any free sports stadiums. There's a near universal habit of extorting local governments into paying for professional sports stadiums outright or covering all the costs that "seat licenses" and "naming rights" don't cover.
  When the plutocracy starts building housing, providing direct subsidies for medical care, free food and direct cash donations to urban school districts it'll be a lot easier to see them as being driven by actual altruism.
2. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by ApplePy · 2013-12-19 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  They don't really improve social welfare for poor people.
  There's no net benefit to that.
  Making donations to medical universities, libraries, symphonies, etc., is not only providing cultural benefit, but it is giving to people who are working for it.
  Housing and medical care for the poor? What's the use? No amount of charity ever done on Earth has left us with any fewer poor people.
  No, this is not a nice view. I'm just pointing out the pragmatic side.
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
3. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by swb · 2013-12-19 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would at times agree with your perspective, but I find that people without medical care with simple illnesses that are not covered often develop catastrophic illnesses that result in hospitalizations that they never pay for. In effect, costing more than had they gotten treated to begin with.
  Often their bad housing contributes or even causes their diseases to begin with, starting the above cycle of uncovered illness that results in expensive hospitalization.
  I'm pretty sure that eliminating poor people is a statistical impossibility, since, by definition some chunk of the population will always be poor in even the most charitable society, as poverty is often a relative measure.
  The best charity would be one that reduced the number of people who were poor by promoting birth control. If I won the hundred-plus million dollar lottery I would seriously consider founding a charity that promoted incentivized long-term birth control and sterilization. Cash for vasectomies, tubal ligations and implantable birth control. Breaking the generation cycle of poverty is trivial if you eliminate the next generation.
4. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by ApplePy · 2013-12-19 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I would seriously consider founding a charity that promoted incentivized long-term birth control and sterilization. Cash for vasectomies, tubal ligations and implantable birth control. Breaking the generation cycle of poverty is trivial if you eliminate the next generation.
  That, right there, goes farther than anything else to a solution, and I am 100% agreed.
  However... the PR for doing something so sensible is pretty awful. Accusations of "eugenicist" (as if that's a bad thing) will come your way, and people will scream "Hitler!" The fact that you're trying to control the *poor* population will be lost because of the fact that many of said poor are non-white, so therefore you would be a racist puppy-kicker.
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
5. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by alexander_686 · 2013-12-19 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that there is a difference between feel good charity and effective charity.
  As a example I would point to your desire to promote birth control? Why is the best way to reduce populaton growth?
  Promoting birth control has a very low impact on the number of children born. The once exception is China when forced sterilization and other heavy handed techniques were used.
  Education has a bigger impact. Economic growth has an even bigger impact. Employment outside of the home for women has an even bigger impact still.
6. Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! by swb · 2013-12-19 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is the PR that bad for a voluntary, non-governmental and non-coercive system that offers the service for free and provides an incentive like cash or college payment? AFAIK Planned Parenthood-type organizations will often provide free birth control to low-income people and no one screams eugenics.
  I think the biggest problems with most birth control systems has been they are not incentive systems but coercive systems or forced on undesirable elements in society.
  I kind of wonder what the reaction would be to a system that says "Unplanned pregnancy will ruin your life, make you poor and burden your children with poverty. We can prevent that! Free, implantable birth control with a cash payment of $5,000 to boot!"
  Assuredly Christian-types would scream about this and many leftists would claim it was an anti-minority conspiracy but I have a feeling it would be HUGELY successful and even Bill Gates would have trouble coming up with enough money to keep the system funded.
Not a charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Check the "Silicon Valley Community Foundation" web page, and you'll see it's not a charity --- it's a big-money investment firm that manages accounts for other big-money charities. This is part of the move to make "charity" a highly profitable enterprise for big business; ways to shuffle around tax-sheltered billions invested in scummy megacorporations.
1. Re:Not a charity by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Look around, there's a middle-man in almost all organizations these days. I guess things evolved that way for a reason, maybe it's a good thing in ways, and a bad thing in other ways. But to criticize it simply for being a middle-man... come on. Surely some good will become of it (this "giving" by Zuckerberg) , even if it's just 1 person that gets fed in the end. Otherwise this whole article is troll.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
2. Re:Not a charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The insertion of middlemen (carrying out the will of billionaires) is common, but that doesn't make it good or charitable to be a self-serving corporatist middleman, wielding dollars for the glorification and enrichment of billionaires. I'm sure there's at least one person getting "fed" at the end of this process: Zuckerberg. Probably several cronies and nephews of cronies handed out six-figure-salary part-time jobs high in the organization, too. Giving money to yourself to further your own interests: not charity, even if you insinuate yourself as a middleman for other nominally charitable institutions (using their funds to further the interests of your own stock portfolio). Making the world a safer, friendlier place for the Zuckerbergs to control every aspect of society is not a net win for humanity.
3. Re:Not a charity by radarskiy · 2013-12-19 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  How many charities could actually deal with nearly a billion dollars being left on their doorstep on their own?
4. Re:Not a charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Probably most of them that already deal with similar amounts of money. They'd at least know how to hand it to a bank or investment firm. I would not consider said bank or investment firm to themselves be a charity for managing the billion dollars. SVCF is an investment firm for clients who happen to be charities --- which allows them to wield billions of borrowed dollars to invest in things that will also benefit their billionaire "benefactors." Think "hedge fund with massive tax breaks and corporate PR/money-laundering capabilities."
5. Re:Not a charity by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  I understand your point, but how do you, a person that probably has no ties with any charitable organization (hell, maybe I'm wrong), know that any established charity is actually a charity? We could take that same logical argument and insert it anywhere; we don't have to stop at charity, we could go to the US political scheme itself. How do you know anything that you're told is true, unless you go out and participate in the actions themselves. Because if we're just going by the end result, as seen by our own everyday lives, then no one in any political party in Washington D.C. is even doing anything at all, except for funneling money to themselves and their nephews.
  
  If this is truly your way of thinking, and I'm certainly not totally disagreeing with you, what are you doing about it? Because if you're saying that you're not a rich nephew of someone, then you're getting screwed. If I found out that a large organization that was supposed to be devoted to providing a better, more acceptable way of life for some that cannot do it themselves, was actually just bullshitting the tax system, and all of the fat-cats were simply passing money to each other, smoking cigars, and ashing on the world... wow I'd be a different person. However I'm so busy trying to work to pay my bills (I'm not a rich nephew) that I can't go out and dig around to find the answer to "whether or not you're correct". So the question is, do you have any proof of what you're saying, or did you lose your tin-foil hat today? (I know man, I hate the tin-foil hat bit just as much as you do, but when you say things that seem to make no sense, regardless what you score on slashdot, anddon't cite any reason, people with sense tend to get sarcastic).
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
6. Re:Not a charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think a bit of tin foil is quite well warranted when multibillionaire oligarchs like Gates and Zuckerberg are behind the scenes. These are folks whose one proven accomplishment is the ability to ruthlessly subvert, lie, cheat, steal immense amounts of money, to enrich themselves regardless of consequences to everyone else. I don't give them an equal benefit of the doubt when they come out smiling and promising benevolence for the good of the little orphan children, in return for letting them manage billions of charity dollars invested in ways that might impact their personal holdings.
  I don't have an inside line to know perfectly whether a particular charity is doing scummy things behind the scenes; there are only second-hand indicators like publicly required disclosures of how much "charity" money goes to administrative fees (and fat executive salaries). However, with the likes of Gates and Zuckerberg pulling the strings, it's shockingly naive to not be extremely skeptical of what mischief they are attempting.
7. Re:Not a charity by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I know. But even be it as it is - that billionaires are going to make billions regardless of what normal people think it right or wrong (don't forget that these people are billionaires because of both their desire to be so, as well as the general population's desire to buy into whatever they're selling - don't think that there aren't millions of idiots out there just waiting to use facebook to look like they have a life worth living) there can still be good that becomes of it. Had there not been a facebook, there would have been no gathering of billions of advertizing dollars to then shift a very small amount to a charity.
  
  I don't know man, I'm just trying to stay positive. My own life sucks to a certain extent, but there are others who have it waay worse than I. I'm not able to pitch in any money to help them, but I'm glad to see that some, even if they're lying asshole shitheads, are. No matter how small it is to Zuckerberg, it's a lot to those in need.
  
  I'm from Alabama. After hurricane Katrina, there was an organization that helped a lot. They're world-wide and basically do the same thing that Silicon Valley Community Foundation does. I know for a fact that they're helping, because I was a part of it. It's simply not fair to the charities to say that they're not helping. It's pointless to argue whether or not 100% of the money that's donated goes to the people in need. Currently, humans aren't as nice to each other as they could be, and that manifests in all areas of life. Do you not feel that your employer could pay you and all other employees more?
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
8. Re:Not a charity by femtobyte · 2013-12-19 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that letting self-serving billionaire corporatists run the charity world can lead to increasingly destroying the actual charity aspects. Charity organizations that do the best job of serving the needy will be pushed out by "charity" organizations that do the best job of serving the rich, while posing for just enough PR photo shoots to fill the media with news of good deeds. If you like charity, you don't want it to become corporatized and absorbed into the same financial-industrial complex that works to impoverish the world.
  In the particular case mentioned for Zuckerburg, you can see from Silicon Valley Community Foundation's own webpage that they're not actually a charity --- despite all the stock photos of smiling children, SVCF is just an investment fund working to consolidate control over the monetary holdings and policy of other charities. Zuckerburg isn't spending money to help anyone in need; he's spending money to control how other real charities spend their money.
  So, it's not a question of how much of "100% of the money goes to people in need" --- it's a question of whether, in the long term, the net amount going to people in need is even positive --- rather than negative, with the excess looted looted to serve megacorporate wealth consolidation (including pushing policies on poorer countries that will profitably cripple their development). Since Bill Gates started donating to "charity," his own personal net worth has increased: his "charity" work has, overall, resulted in more wealth being taken away from humankind and put in Gate's pockets. This is not a helpful or sustainable way to progress towards a more kind and generous humanity; instead, it shows the continued ascent of the provably most anti-charitable under the guise of charity.
That wasn't his pocket change by ackthpt · 2013-12-19 05:04 · Score: 1

It was his pocket lint. His pocket change is much more.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:That wasn't his pocket change by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-12-19 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  This donation is 5% of his net worth. That's a lot more than pocket change. I'll bet you have never donated 5% of your net worth.
  Can we please just let people do good things without being cynical assholes about it?
2. Re:That wasn't his pocket change by Jason+Levine · 2013-12-19 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  I'm too busy using 5% of my net worth to pay for things like food, clothing, my mortgage, gas, insurance, etc. Along with the other 95% of my net worth.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:That wasn't his pocket change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, but I'll bet every single reader here has donated every dollar they have above $19b, just like he did. Let's stop pretending that giving up 5% for a billionaire and 5% for someone struggling to make ends meet is in any way equivalent. Disabusing ourselves of that notion will help fix our tax code as well.
4. Re:That wasn't his pocket change by dosilegecko · 2013-12-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  This times 1000. Cynicism on the internet is at an all-time high lately. I wish I had enough left over each month to donate 5% but with student loans and other bills and saving for a house, its pretty hard.
5. Re:That wasn't his pocket change by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-12-19 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine. But how about not shitting on the people who are donating a ton of money to good causes.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 05:05 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that Bill Gates' legitimate philanthropic efforts vastly dwarfs yours but, hey, feel free to describe his as a joke.
Left pocket to right pocket by grumpyman · 2013-12-19 05:07 · Score: 2

Similar to other $B folks it goes to their own foundation so they can still control that money to drive whatever cause they wish. In this case it sounds like they just print more share for it..? Or FB as a whole provide that share... i.e. all FB shareholders chip it for Mr. Zuckerberg to play?
Shares? by zifn4b · 2013-12-19 05:08 · Score: 1

Why not just cash out some shares and donate the money to various charities? Is there some advantage for charities to actually hold the shares of Facebook?

--
We'll make great pets
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-12-19 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Usually the complain is that they give away MS software licenses. The conspiracy there being that they'll be hooked and once they move beyond soul crushing poverty they'll pay for the software. And that's disgusting when he should be giving out free IBM and RedHat contracts so that those vendors will be contractors when the children stop having to eat dirt to keep the hunger pangs away. The other big complaint I've seen is that they've invested in a refinery or something. As we all know, oil companies are evil and the last thing Africa needs is more local industry.

Basically, the problem is that he's Bill Gates, and that's a bad thing. Every dollar M$ made is tainted blood money. They made Dell pay a site license for Windows installation! Have you forgotten the burned villages of the Browser Wars? Remember that time they sent anthrax to that Linux User's Group? We are all victims. No amount of malaria vaccinations and AIDS research and all that other shit could ever atone for such depraved crimes.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Russ1642 · 2013-12-19 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet they vastly dwarf most people even if you adjust it for their net worth or earnings or what have you. He's done some incredible charitable work. He got a tax benefit just like everyone else who donates.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by lochnessie · 2013-12-19 05:17 · Score: 2

http://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/bill-gates-loses-worlds-richest-title-after-giving-28-billion-to-charity-1324573/
28 > 1.
And that was 2011.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by lochnessie · 2013-12-19 05:23 · Score: 1

Hopefully they keep trying to outdo each other; they've got plenty more money to give away.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by globaljustin · 2013-12-19 05:32 · Score: 2

His charity also does a ton of good stuff in areas like public health and sanitation.
and other commenters have pointed out similar things...
first, i'll grant you that my comment did not mention some of the work they do for the neediest globally, it is an oversight that should matter in evaluating "tech billionaires" and how effective/self-serving their charity work proves to be.
I'm mostly frustrated that so much of what made M$ so bad is going into **how** they do the work in the developing world, on a macro scale, but this is off topic.
second, to my main criticism of "tech billionaires" and how they do charity is how self-serving and low-return *most* of it is.
I imagine the parts of the Gates Foundation that are the most effective correlate very closely with the parts where Gates & minions have the *least* input into decision making.
Delivering water to communities in Africa is more a problem you throw money at to the right people, because there are obviously already people trying to accomplish the task, the best option just doesn't have the resources.
That's still **good** but we can do much, much better. That's my point.
Why not start right in the Bay Area? Why not just start paying off family mortgages and boosting school budgets?
990 Million Dollars of that...seriously...i'm not an isolationist but have you ever heard of how in a commercial airliner emergency, the mother should put *her own air mask* on first b/c she needs to be coherent to help the baby?
Nation building begins at home!

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Hope they sell them fast by damn_registrars · 2013-12-19 05:36 · Score: 1

The likelihood of the facebook stocks not tanking soon is pretty well near zero. They still don't have a meaningful long-term business plan that leads to profit and a product with long-term potential. The marketing potential of peoples' wall updates is limited.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You mean, Zuck gets up to an 85% tax break? Cool. by VortexCortex · 2013-12-19 05:43 · Score: 1

I once considered setting up a 501(c)3 so my distributed gamedev platform project could accept donations, but I decided against it (the world's governments are not ready for citizens to have a communal OS, yet). If you're a charity you can allocate most of the donations as administration fees and a small fraction for the actual charity work. "Nonprofit" is the biggest misnomer I've ever seen, 501(c)3's are some of the most profitable business models I've encountered, apart from artificial information scarcity rackets in the patent and copyright futures market -- charities are far more stable than these.
I've done work with a fun-run for teens nil-profit, and they actually don't take admin fees, don't pay the doctors, judges, nutritionists, etc. speakers that come to educate kids about the real world after running out their rambunction, and use all their donations to buy tee-shirts and banners, fliers, news-ads, web hosting, and stuff they give to the kids. So, it's not impossible to run a charity that gives 100% of the donations to the charity, but it's also not impossible to run a charity that's basically a huge tax write off where you re-absorb most of the money in admin fees.
MZ is Worth, whatever he says he is worth. by wisnoskij · 2013-12-19 05:46 · Score: 1

So if $1 billion is worth 3%, than that means:
Facebook is apparently worth $34 Billion.
$20 Billion of that being Enron's, I mean Mark's, personal fortune.
Convince one rube, you might make $50 bucks.
Convince a thousand, you might make a living.
Convince everyone, and you can make whatever you say that you do.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Is it charity if it's a deduction? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-12-19 05:49 · Score: 1

I'd like to see how the donation is reported. I guess it's good that these guys donate so much to charity, but the tax code makes it a no-brainer; financially and for PR.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Is it charity if it's a deduction? by Shados · 2013-12-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  And thats the point. By making it a no brainer you make sure it happens.
  Yes, it means the guy has absolutely no moral high ground, because the benefit of mankind was NOT his first reason for doing this...
  but at the same time, it still happened and it will help some people.
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Drethon · 2013-12-19 05:50 · Score: 1

Well when you hit that level, I suspect simply accounting for cost of living rather than net worth is more accurate.
Open Source OS/2 Foundation by martiniturbide · 2013-12-19 06:01 · Score: 1

...Mark, I'm also accepting money for my charity organization !!!
Better here than political by tomhath · 2013-12-19 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.
I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.
1. Re:Better here than political by BringsApples · 2013-12-19 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had mod points for you. Although this may not be a lot of money for the Mark Zuckerberg, in the end it'll do more good for those in need, than they'd have gotten had he done nothing.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
2. Re:Better here than political by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-12-19 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.
  I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.
  The difference is that Ted Turner made his donation from his personal assets. Zuckerberg is having Facebook issue the stock from it's shares on hand. So, in reality, it is Facebook that is making the donation, not Zuckerberg and the donation is being made to Zuckerberg's charity.
No, he didnt by nurb432 · 2013-12-19 06:05 · Score: 1

He gave shares, not money. There is a difference.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:No, he didnt by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-12-19 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  Mostly in the tax treatment of the donation. Donating the $990 million in shares avoids having to sell the shares and getting the cap gains tax, then donating the remaining money.
  The charity sells the shares instead and gets the full value instead of the reduced value, and Zuck gets to deduct the market value of the stocks instead of the value reduced by the cap gains tax.
  Really it's a win for the charity to get the shares rather than the cash. For Zuck the end result is pretty much the same.
  Average working stiffs can do pretty much the same thing by setting up a Donor Advised Fund and donating shares to them. This has the added benefit of bunching the funds into one year for tax purposes. You can then distribute the money to charities over time.
That's great but... by GameboyRMH · 2013-12-19 06:31 · Score: 1

...I don't think the death of privacy and commercialization of human relationships was worth it.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:damn right they'll sell them by mythosaz · 2013-12-19 07:48 · Score: 1

So you're saying you have 100% of your liquid income invested in shorting Facebook stock, right?
I mean, it's a sure thing....
Re:OK Bill, Your Move by dosilegecko · 2013-12-19 08:01 · Score: 1

Yea I thought the trend of hating on Bill Gates was over... it just reminds of young kids who hate stuff because its the cool thing to hate at the time. Truth be told Gates' company changed computing forever, and he made a fortune. He is giving tons of that away to try to better humanity. You can continue your pissing contests of "hes doing it for PR blah blah blah he sucks omgez" but at the end of the day the money he is donating is helping people, regardless. What % of your paychecks do you donate?
Wanting attention by spiritplumber · 2013-12-19 08:12 · Score: 1

I spent my adult life trying to make people's life better through technology -- I have saved lives when it wasn't my job to. I got people off destructive drugs and taught them a skill. I did security at planned parenthood and soup kitchen, and helped people stay in school. And yes, I did all this to feed my hero complex. Now someone who is roughly my age gives away less % of his wealth than I have, and it's front page news. Where's my goddamn slashdot article? www.f3.to

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Re:Assumptions by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-12-19 09:04 · Score: 1

Zuckerberg signed "The Giving Pledge" organized by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. He promised to give at least half of his wealth to charity, either during his life or in his will. So he has no intention of spending that $40B.
http://mashable.com/2010/12/09/mark-zuckerberg/
...what? by Wootery · 2013-12-19 09:15 · Score: 2

This sounds vaguely like a 'capitalist economics is an inescapable force of nature' argument, but conveyed needlessly cryptically.
What exactly are you trying to say?
1. Re:...what? by Evtim · 2013-12-19 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  "What exactly are you trying to say?"
  Exactly what you speculated - that the "rules" of the economic game are as immutable as the laws of nature. I have heard this sentiment form the majority of "economists" I've interviewed and I swear next time I hear that obscenity I'd scream...
  In other words - our way or the highway! F^ck them...
2. Re:...what? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-12-19 11:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and laid them out, end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion?
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Technically he's not donating anything by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-12-19 09:42 · Score: 1

Not correct. There is both a secondary offering from Facebook and a sale by Zuck and some of the other Facebook officers.
http://allthingsd.com/20131219/facebook-and-mark-zuckerberg-sell-and-so-does-wall-street/
> I wonder what the other shareholders in FB feel about the issue of 18 million shares of stock without renumeration as it will water down their EPS and stock value
Facebook stock is down 4% today. However on the year it has more than doubled. Most investors would be happy I think. Short term traders (who are not investors) not so much.
Do the financial arithmentic, please.... by sgt_doom · 2013-12-19 11:21 · Score: 1

Quite a few intelligent and informative commenters here today, while the post itself is either completely moronic or dishonest.

Zucker-dood isn't giving anything away, doucheys.

They claimed the very same thing about the Rockefellers, Mellons, du Ponts, Harrimans (Mortimers), Morgans, et al., and they simply shifted their wealth and ownership over to foundations and trusts to hide it, and better control it, and avoid taxation.

A short item from the 1968 Congressional Report on Foundations and Trusts, by Rep. Wright Patman, the greatest populist out of Texas, and perhaps America's absolutely greatest populist of all time, a real man of the people!

Congressman Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, proved in 1967 Hearings that 14 Rockefeller foundations held assets of more than $1 billion in Standard Oil stock. Not only did they pay no tax on this stock, but it gave them permanent control over the family owned firm. Rival financiers could not buy control of Standard Oil because its stock was insulated by foundation ownership. As Patman pointed out, the fact that the Rockefellers escaped paying huge sums in taxes gave them an unsurpassed market advantage over other firms which had to pay normal rates of taxation. The agitation for increased "corporate taxation" adds to Rockefeller's advantage. Patman said, "The Foundations are the best investments the Rockefeller family could have made."

The poster's homework assignment is to read the following:

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030304lberg/030304toc.html
Laugh by koan · 2013-12-19 12:31 · Score: 1

Hey watch me sell a bunch of my stock then give away some money to charity to avoid the tax.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Charity by manu0601 · 2013-12-19 15:06 · Score: 1

What we have in a non egalitarian world, where some persons like Mark Zuckenbeg or Bill Gates accumulate mountain of cash by piggy backing on the rest of society, and especially their own employees that do the real world for them.
Of course making super-riches means making poors, and the system can have trouble to sustain itself. Enter charity, which is kind of band-aid so that the poor can live, while praising the donator, and maintaining the idea that the poors are responsible for their fate.
.
I would prefer income gaps between the Zuckenberg and Mr Everybody to be smaller. There is no reason why someone should earn hundreds of times the pay of a regular worker. A nice way of doing that would be to enforce a 20 fold ratio between the higher and the lower income in a given business. That way, if the big boss want a raise, he needs to grant one to the person that cleans the toilets.