Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Answers Critics of His Move To Give Away His Facebook Stock (facebook.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Mark Zuckerberg's announcement that he and his wife are giving away $45 billion worth of Facebook stock garnered a lot of praise and a fair bit of criticism. The Facebook CEO answered some of the apprehension in a post that reads in part: "By using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively. Just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC."
Nothing any corporation does is altruistic.
#DeleteChrome
It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
its his money its his right to do what he wants with it.
if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right. I dont get why people care what others do with their own money
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Altruism is a bs word we came up with because we didn't like to admit that we're only nice to others because it feels good.
Nothing any corporation does is altruistic.
No shit! That doesnt seem to stop all the whiners and complainers vocally pretending to be surprised about it.
From this Dec 3, NY Times article How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself:
(Why an L.L.C.?)
An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law.
(Why not a charitable foundation?)
... a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg L.L.C. won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.
(Tax implications)
... if the L.L.C. sold stock, Mr. Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. If the L.L.C. donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the L.L.C. probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the L.L.C. donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.
All legal. Don't hate the player, hate the game... (or so I'm told)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
And you didn't know that feeling good is a real benefit?
We (only) pay 15% capital gains tax- thanks, W!
he's not giving away anything.
we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC
He says that like its a good thing. Honestly I would argue anyone not doing everything they can within the law to optimize their tax situation is doing HARM. The government is only going to use the revenue to kill people on the other side of the world we don't need to be involved with, needlessly spy on us, our friends, and neighbors, and general interfere with the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
Failing to to minimize your lawful tax burden does not make you some kind of patriot in my book, it makes you part of the problem.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nothing any corporation does is altruistic.
No shit! That doesnt seem to stop all the whiners and complainers vocally pretending to be surprised about it.
Why do people whine and complain about people whining and complaining?
what a HUGE pile of spammy crap, i tred it for a few weeks because many friends use it, i can not stand facebook, it is a terrible website, twitter is better, i told my friends if they want to send me a message to call or text or use twitter, fuck facebook that place is awful!!! facebook is fucking awful!!!
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So you're saying that when Microsoft releases open source code it is ENTIRELY altruistic? Right...
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Don't hate the player, hate the game...
The first excuse of the scoundrel.
It's a PR show.
It's like a broken record with you retards. We get it, you are cynical of literally everything because it's an easy way to seem smart.
Not that there isn't plenty in the world to be cynical about, but Zuckerberg is not going to make money off this and will be donating most of his wealth to charity. Shrug.
He doesn't sell his shares; he uses them as collateral against loans for which the interest rate is less than the tax rate.
So if the LLC donates, say, $100M in Facebook stock to a charity, Zuckerberg gives up an asset worth $100M, the charity gets an asset worth $100M, and Zuckerberg writes off $100M because he gave away an asset worth $100M. I'm missing the Crime Against Humanity here.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Funny how in a "haters gonna hate" comment, it has a sideswipe at "SJWs" for no apparent reason.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
He transfers the stock to a company he owns. As far as adherence to the truth goes, it's all downhill from there.
All legal. Don't hate the player, hate the game... (or so I'm told)
Fuck that--I'll sure as hell hate the player for playing the damn game.
is that this is all very likely a smokescreen for his political and lobbying activities. That's why he doesn't just run it as a real charity. Real charities aren't allowed to do the kinds of things Zuckerberg (probably) wants to do. He's going to use this as a very big stick to get things he wants. He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
The only times I can think of when a Baron genuinely turned to charity are at the end of their lives when a few of them got the fear of God (and more importantly hell) in 'em.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> All legal. Don't hate the player, hate the game... (or so I'm told)
That's only valid advice when the players don't get to write the rules of the game. While most of those rules were there before Zuckerberg showed up, it would be naive to believe he's not heavily invested in opposing any changes to those rules which is morally no different from writing the rules in the first place.
I'm missing the Crime Against Humanity here.
I'm not saying there is one... However, by using an LLC, he gets full control over the stock, w/o any charity rules and/or transparency requirements, until the last moment it's disposed of. On the other hand, the line between shrewd and crime can be narrow and gray - ask any Wall Street banker.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I just cant believe he is a nice guy with the way Facebook is run.
Zuckerberg for GOP nominee?
The LLC categorization permits the Zuckerberg Foundation to lobby as much as they want for legislation change, unlike a regular foundation (501c3). In light of Zuckerberg's FWD.US political action committee spending a fortune lying about the "need" for H1B labor, I don't trust this at all. Look, Zuckerberg STOLE the idea for FB; then he LIED to his customers about maintaining privacy; Now his PAC lies about immigration policy. I don't trust Zuckerberg for a SECOND. "Unfriend" this manipulator!!!
TIL Mark Zuckerberg is a "Corporation"
What? Being nice to others is not only emotionally positive but it also makes logical sense.
The golden rule logically allows for a world where you're less likely to run into someone who is bigger and badder and decides to eat you for lunch.
Why go through an LLC? Can't he just sell the stock under his own name when necessary and use the cash for whatever he wants, like a political contribution?
His daughter can speak already?
Have gnu, will travel.
He is donating 99% of his stock over the course of his lifetime. He is only in his 30s right now, and with his wealth we can safely expect him to live at least into his 80s. That is at least 5 decades of donating his stock (to his new company, no less).
One other thing we can count on is that by the year 2065, his stock will be worth a lot less. Facebook is so absurdly overvalued that even pretending his stocks to be worth $45B today is laughable. Eventually the bottom will fall out, just as it did with MySpace, just as it did with AOL, just as it did with CompuServe. He does have plenty of smart financial types around him to protect him as well as possible but eventually it is going to fall like a stone.
If you don't believe it is going to fall, go ask some shareholders how facebook makes money, and how much money they think it makes. I will bet the overwhelming majority of them don't have a clue, they just know that "everyone" uses it and they assume it must be worth money as a result.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So you're saying that when Microsoft releases open source code it is ENTIRELY altruistic?
No. He is saying it isn't entirely selfish. Altruism works best when it is win-win, and everyone benefits. If Microsoft opens up source code in a way that benefits others, that is good. If they also benefit themselves, that is even better. I don't understand why some people need to criticize those doing good deeds, just because they aren't doing perfect deeds.
Dear God, no. That idiot would run this country into the ground.
Short of some disinterested party having control, it's nothing more than a tax dodge in need of elimination.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So you're saying that when Microsoft releases open source code it is ENTIRELY altruistic?
No. He is saying it isn't entirely selfish. Altruism works best when it is win-win, and everyone benefits. If Microsoft opens up source code in a way that benefits others, that is good. If they also benefit themselves, that is even better. I don't understand why some people need to criticize those doing good deeds, just because they aren't doing perfect deeds.
Amen - it definitely seems more like false equivalence by holding up everyone to an asymptotic ideal (nobody's perfect, therefore everybody and all deeds are flawed).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's not charity, plain and simple. It's one big tax cheat that needs to DIAF.
The reason why it matters to the Rest of Us, is their outsize influence in government policy - such as anti-citizen immigration policy and social justice initiatives.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
All questionable.
[redacted phrase] (or so I'm told)
Sometimes you need to make an example of someone, why not start with arrogant tax cheats? Take both the player and the game out to the woodshed, everyone wins!
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Similar reason that Google introduce Alphabet. It is more convenient to start many projects in a company solely designed to do these things than doing under Facebook's name. No need to worry about other share holders' and broad members' disapproval. The new LLC is just a property management company to fulfill Mark and Chan's dreams. And they call the dreams "charity". Maybe It will do real charity, maybe not. I believe one policy that the LLC will lobby heavily on is increasing H1B cap. For Mark, it is charity. For others, it's not.
Cheating on taxes like Zuckerberg or Traitor Saverin does not make you some kind of patriot in my book, it makes you part of the problem.
FTFY
The more exotic accounting that is required, the less legitimate the tax arrangement.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If you have to use exotic accounting to deal with taxes, chances are you're not up to any good.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That's what you're saying, not what AC was saying.
Also, you're right, criticism is bad, no one should ever be critical of anyone else.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Yes in the sense that there is no (actual) tax advantage or legal need for moving the shares from his personal account to the LLC.
No in the sense that without the LLC and PR hoopla selling a large amount of stock by the Founder/CEO/Majority share holder would shake investor confidence wipe out the valuation of FB stock pretty quickly. Since Zuck already did is 'one-time-huge-sale' at the IPO where he sold $1b of stock he has more than enough personal cash for anything he could reasonably claim as the reason for selling a large percentage of his remaining shares.
With the intermediary vehicle in place there is a blanket reason for divestiture and he can have a standing sell order of $10-100M worth of shares sold on a monthly basis. Then when the LLC sells the stock (however quickly) it is understood that the LLC needs $$ for operating and investments not as a lack of confidence in his own company.
I'm missing the Crime Against Humanity here
It's ~9 billion that Mark controls instead of Barack.
So you're saying that when Microsoft releases open source code it is ENTIRELY altruistic? Right...
No what i am saying is that it is not altruistic at all and that you are a naive idiot if you think that anything a for-profit company does is ever entirely altruistic. Criticizing any of these on the basis that one part of it may have a benefit to them is retarded.
Zuckerberg establishes the LLC to donate stocks to charity. He or a good friend create a second charitable organization and he donates the appreciated shares to them untaxed. And, in the meantime he can still funnel money into political SuperPACs to manipulate congress to do what he wants all while getting tax breaks for doing charitable deeds. In addition, he's probably going to make his 1 year old daughter chairman of the fund and give her and himself a "small" salary that is taxed at bare minimum. Really this whole thing is to protect his fortune from taxes, any actual charity that happens is a happy side effect. Most billionaires do this to hide their money, though they go the foundation route instead of LLC.
Also, this means when he dies the government can't take the money from him. Everyone has to pay a death tax and he'll be able to dodge most of it because of this charitable organization.
In other words, he has effectively turned himself into a corporation.
Typical. I don't understand the derogatory use of the term. By definition, social justice is something all people should strive for.
Ultimately, though, the question is how is he going to end up with *more* money than when he started. Let's say his good friend's charity gets the full $45B in shares. Then what? There are rules about what a charity can do with that cash, and giving it back to Mark Zuckerberg and his family isn't really on the list. Likewise with SuperPACs. He's lost direct access to the 45B and will only be able to get his hands on a small percentage of it under weird circumstances, but now he has political influence to... do what exactly? Somehow earn another $45B to make it worth the investment?
The problem with all of these stories is that they lack actual numbers to illustrate how the perpetual motion machine is supposed to work. Yes, the tax code has a lot of holes in it, but I'm very skeptical of a lot of these just-so stories.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Citizens United proved that people are corporations too!
Nor many charities. Most of them are there to make profit for the directors.
Typical. I don't understand the derogatory use of the term. By definition, social justice is something all people should strive for.
While I agree using SJW as derogatory is silly, using definitions of terms in an acronym or group names out of context is even worse.
You disagree with libertarians? Why do you hate liberty?
You disagree with socialism? Why are you anti-social?
You didn't like the NAZI (National-socialist German Workers) Party? Why do you hate the working man?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
It's his initiative! What's wrong with him having complete control over it?
TIL Mark Zuckerberg is a "Corporation"
The LLC Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is a corporation with billions that is totally in control of Mark Zuckerberg w/o any board of directors or stock holders to answer to. Is that corporation enough for you?
Good luck getting anyone to buy in to the whole "I'm really a good guy" BS.
What the AC said was a bit overblown, but, then again, so was your response... as was your snarky (and not at all clever) retort to ShanghaiBill.
The AC's point wasn't that something like MS releasing source code is entirely altruistic; their point was that, if there's any hint of self-interest, assholes looking to assert their own moral high-ground by pointing out flaws in others will jump all over that self-interest. ShanghaiBill's point was that, yeah, self-interest may exist, but that doesn't mean that the act itself lacks any altruism, or that it can't still be beneficial to everyone, overall.
ShanghaiBill also wasn't saying that people shouldn't criticize anything, or even that people shouldn't criticize good deeds -- I don't even know how you came to that conclusion (unless you just like to set up painfully obvious strawmen). Pretty clearly, he was saying that there is such a thing as constructive criticism, and criticism that doesn't benefit anyone (aside from, maybe, the critic). Those that choose the latter, as you have, are generally just looking to stir shit in an effort to see how high on the douchebag scale they can ascend.
By the way, the AC was correct about those attempting to prove themselves holier-than-thou: they're always on the lookout for any misstep by anyone. Such criticism is easy (and lazy) since nobody is perfect, and, if you buy into that type of criticism, ultimately cannibalistic. There will, after all, always be someone waiting to catch you in such a misstep, and someone waiting to catch them, and so-on.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Th PChanZuck-I LLC can invest in PP replacement tech.
That way Zuck the Smuck CAN grow a penis. And get a TAX DEDUCTION if his new penis is under 15 inches. Because it is a money LLLOZER,
And all the other failed investments of PChanZuck-I LLC will be tax deductible LOSES.
Recruiter: "What's your name son?"
Looser: "LLLOZER."
Recruiter: "Where you from son?"
Looser: "LLLOZER."
Recruiter: "You pass son. Walk on."
Ha ha
While I'm in no way a fan of Facebook, I do applaud Zuckerman's step.
As for the people "complaining" and looking for excuses, I would wager a bet that almost all of them haven't even considered giving 1% of their income for any public cause (I'm talking about unforced giving, not taxes). They are just trying to find an excuse for their OWN failure to help out others. ... seeing what the government spends the majority of its money on (hint: it's not spent for those that really need it ...).
And even IF Zuckerman didn't pay any additional taxes - if what he is planing to do is done like that, and benefits in the way he hopes it does, I would also bet the money not paid as taxes would help at least twice as much as it would have by being taxed
I love how you morons paint criticism as "shutting down discussion", when you blatantly and obviously try to shut down any rational discussion by using terms like "SJW" and "douchebag scale" and trying to make a bullshit political point out of every situation.
But then again, projection is a mistake often committed by those who lack self-awareness. So I'm thinking it's time to respond in kind.
Your interpretation of ShanghaiBill's comment just isn't true; where did he say "constructive criticism"??
Anyway, the way I see it, Zuckerberg's actions are mostly for selfish reasons (as anyone with any knowledge about how charities and philanthropic organizations work would instantly be able to see) but I don't hate him for it. I have no feelings towards that guy. But it's definitely fair game to criticize Zuckerberg for what is obviously a PR move. If you can't handle it, tough.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Ironically, the only moronic post I read in this thread was yours. The others appeared to be well thought-out opinions.
That's one of the first things you do when you acquire some wealth. What, you didn't actually think I was going to let you take my money when I died, did you? Heh... That's funny. Seriously, that's funny. No, I'll decide where my dollars go after I'm gone, thanks. Don't worry, they'll go to good things and last for a very long time. I'd rather they go there than bombing little brown people and giving tax breaks to corporations.
Seriously, I chuckled. Like, out loud. No, I'm not Zuckerberg wealthy but I sure as hell am not giving your government my money when I die. Err... I don't think anyone actually does? Well, not at any significant volume. Seriously, you don't think people pay the "Death Tax" do you? I have land trusts, educational trusts, a LLC, etc... You'll get your pound of flesh but it's a fairly small definition of pound.
Really, thanks for the chuckle. No... I don't have anywhere near his money and even *I* know better than that. Of course you have a LLC (or several). You probably have an S-Corp too. I don't know what you make for an income but you might want to contact a lawyer and an accountant. Err... I better post this as AC too. Nope, it's not me. It's some other guy.
And reductionism is a BS word we came up with because systems with more than one aspect are too complex for "smart" people to actually comprehend.
"They actually trust me, the stupid fucks." -- Mark Zuckerberg
Those fools hate everything and everybody.
Bill Gates did it.
>Sometimes you need to make an example of someone, why not start with arrogant tax cheats? Take both the player and the game out to the woodshed, everyone wins!
You don't even know what you're implying. Terminology is important here. Explain how he's a "tax cheat" when everything he's done is legal. Punishing him for doing something that is legal after you change the law is explicitly against Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution "No ex-post facto law shall be passed." What you suggest is throwing out the entire rule of law to punish some guy for utilizing a tax structure you don't like. You're more dangerous than he is.
Then it's still his money. We'll call it charity when it's spent on charity.
If Zuks were to 'sell' how would that 'effect' the market? 'Giving Away' makes it so any crash 'could not be seen'.
The FED is in a corner and FANGS (Facebook Amazon Netflix Google) cannot squeeze anything from what suckers are left.
It is a sign post if you are paying attention - no?
Yes in the sense that there is no (actual) tax advantage or legal need for moving the shares from his personal account to the LLC.
At this point, it is less about the money (tax benefits) and more about the power and control for Zuckermann.
.
The LLC gives him far more power and control than a non-profit would.
When he gives the money to a non-profit, he loses control of the money, he cannot do anything with it that he wants. Hence he loses power.
When he gives the money to his LLC, he retains full control over it, retaining his power status.
First he was giving the stock away. Now he's selling it? Which is it?
It's his money and he can. However, when it comes to things like tax dodges (something this type of setup is often used for, e.g. estate taxes) etc then it affects more than just him. Also, if somebody is going to do something like this and air the "philanthropic" goals for PR, then calling bullshit is fair game.
you are wrong, it has a stock holders and a board of directors that it needs to answer to. the articles of incorporation for the llc specify these. all of those people just happen to be Mark Zuckerberg.
Zuckerburg is transferring shares into the LLC., where he can donate shares directly to a charity or sell shares to raise cash to buy businesses.
I doubt Zuckerburg can do a better job than George W.
Well thought-out opinions by anonymous cowards...
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Short of some disinterested party having control, it's nothing more than a tax dodge in need of elimination.
Modbombing me with -Infinity, Disagree won't change it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Exotic accounting is still being a tax cheat, no matter how you want to call it.
It's not ex post facto if they're punished for continuing action of a certain type. In addition, the rule of law remains since it would penalize the action, not the actor.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Zuck is devolving faster than Devo!
Zuck, "Crack That Whip. Give the Past as Slip. Step On A Crack. Break Your Mama's Back."
Zuck, "When a problem cums along. You Must Whip It. Before The Cream Sets Out Too Long. You Must Whip It. When Someth'n Going Wrong. You Must Whip It!"
Zuck, "Now Whip It. Into Shape. Shape It Up. Get Straight. Go Forward. Move Ahead. Try To Detect It. Its Not Too Lake. To Whip It. Whip It Good!"
Ha ha
The PChanZucker-i Masturbation LLC.
Ha ha