Slashdot Mirror


Mark Zuckerberg Gives $990 Million To Charity

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."

23 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. so he gave by dale.furno · · Score: 5, Informative

    to his own charity?

    1. Re:so he gave by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · 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 alexander_686 · · 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.

    3. Re:so he gave by Sarten-X · · 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.
  2. Not a charity by femtobyte · · 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 femtobyte · · 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:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Re:OK Bill, Your Move by Pseudonym+Authority · · 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.

  5. Re:oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates gained a soul when he got married. Finally getting laid mellows you out.

  6. Re:oh boy... by pepty · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Re:oh boy... by Sarten-X · · 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.
  10. Re:oh boy... by Jason+Levine · · 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.
  11. Re:oh boy... by s.petry · · 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.

  12. Better here than political by tomhath · · 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.

  13. Re: oh boy... by um...+Lucas · · 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)

  14. Re:oh boy... by Derec01 · · 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?

  15. Re:oh boy... by Radtastic · · 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...
  16. Re:oh boy... by blackbeak · · 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.
  17. Re:oh boy... by Smauler · · 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.

  18. Re:...what? by Nefarious+Wheel · · 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
  19. Re:oh boy... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    From what I read, his father (an IBM lawyer!) shamed him into it.