Fennis
Footballguy
Checking around for some more. Ford Foundation has no family involvement with the Fords.
The Rockefeller foundation does have one Rockefeller on the board, but the Rockefellers draw no money from the foundation.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Mark Zuckerberg Giving Away 99% of His Facebook Stock (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dinsy Ejotuz
- Start date
The Rockefeller foundation does have one Rockefeller on the board, but the Rockefellers draw no money from the foundation.
Then he is not giving it away, is he?He never said he was going to do that.He didn't? He certainly could do exactly that with a foundation. All the wealth does not go to his future generations, but the control does. I would be shocked if Zuck spent his foundation down to zero in his lifetime.Except that's not at all what he did.
3C's
Footballguy
Then he is not giving it away, is he?He never said he was going to do that.He didn't? He certainly could do exactly that with a foundation. All the wealth does not go to his future generations, but the control does. I would be shocked if Zuck spent his foundation down to zero in his lifetime.Except that's not at all what he did.
When did he say he's giving away all his money? He signed the pledge to give away at least half his wealth. For now, his statement is that he is giving away 99% of his stock. He's placing it in an LLC he started and controls.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
3C's
Footballguy
Sounds like poor tax planning.You know, if you gave more to charity, you could significantly lower that 30% rate
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
HE DOESN'T HAVE A PRIVATE FOUNDATIONHe didn't? He certainly could do exactly that with a foundation. All the wealth does not go to his future generations, but the control does. I would be shocked if Zuck spent his foundation down to zero in his lifetime.Except that's not at all what he did.
He set up a taxable LLC as a vehicle to donate the stock to other non-profit organizations whose missions he believes in.
I did. About 20 percent.You know, if you gave more to charity, you could significantly lower that 30% rate
Fennis
Footballguy
Jon I have provided three examples of Foundations that do not allow their heirs access to money. Can you provide one example where they do?
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
you need a new tax guy if you are paying a 30% effective tax rate while you are donating 20% of your income to charity.I did. About 20 percent.You know, if you gave more to charity, you could significantly lower that 30% rate
Frostillicus
Footballguy
An error occurredYou have reached your quota of positive votes for the day
The General
Footballguy
Republucans are now worried about people paying taxes "fairly"?
W t f bizarro world did I wake up in?
W t f bizarro world did I wake up in?
I probably won't make it through the rest of this thread, but as long as I'm here on page 2, I wanted to offer what I consider to be some pretty strong counterarguments to that statement.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/2012-10-01/problems-with-%E2%80%9Coverhead-costs%E2%80%9D-as-a-metric
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/2013-01-24/book-review-it-ain%E2%80%99t-what-you-give-it%E2%80%99s-the-way-you-give-it
http://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a-charity/
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Had to Google, still don't know who that is.
The idiom is from the partner I worked for at PriceWaterhouseCoopers. He is now the Chief Tax Officer at Rock Ventures (Dan Gilbert - Quicken Loans, Cavs owner, buyer of Detroit.)
Hang 10
Footballguy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3343771/The-tax-avoiding-Facebook-mogul-act-charity-reeks-hypocrisy.html
The tax-avoiding Facebook mogul and an act of charity that reeks of hypocrisy
By IAN BIRRELL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 20:18 EST, 2 December 2015
Once, it was enough to put a notice in the newspaper when your child was born. But Mark Zuckerberg, the multi-billionaire founder of Facebook, likes to do things differently.
So he welcomed his newborn daughter, Max, into the world with an open letter on his social media site, in which he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, pledged to donate almost all their £30 billion fortune to charity during their lives.
The happy couple talked rather smugly about how their first child gave them cause to reflect on the future, saying they were inspired by their desire to build a better world and because they have a ‘moral responsibility to all children in the next generation’.
Mark Zuckerberg welcomed his newborn daughter, Max, into the world with an open letter on his social media site, in which he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, pledged to donate almost all their £30 billion fortune to charity during their lives
Within hours, more than one million Facebook devotees demonstrated their ‘like’ of this noble gesture, among them the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Melinda Gates, wife of fellow mega-rich philanthropist Bill Gates.
There was, of course, an outpouring of praise — particularly online — for this latest plutocrat declaring his intention to hand over great wealth.
Zuckerberg, 31, is the most recent in a growing line of digital billionaires turning to charity, and their giveaways are almost always a public, rather than a private, event played out on social media.
He and his wife deserve credit, of course, for pledging to use their huge mountain of cash to help wider humanity rather than frittering it away on a life of fun.
Yet there is a dark side to this trend. For behind it lies the sanctimonious hypocrisy of billionaires who build vast fortunes with firms that avoid the taxes paid by the rest of society, then arrogantly think they are best placed to solve the planet’s problems.
Zuckerberg talked in his letter of creating stronger communities. Yet Facebook, like too many technology behemoths, is a serial tax avoider undermining government through its stubborn refusal to pay its fair share to society.
Last year, this all-conquering social media firm handed over just £4,327 in corporation tax in this country: less than the annual sum paid in tax by the average worker.
Yet its staff in Britain took home an average £210,000 each in pay and bonuses, safe in the security of a society that relies on public servants to protect them from terror, provide health care in hospitals and repair the roads on which they travel to work.
The Facebook founder has hailed Bill Gates as his hero — the world’s richest man, who has been revered as something close to a secular saint after promising to give away the bulk of his £57 billion fortune.
The happy couple talked rather smugly about how their first child gave them cause to reflect on the future
But Gates became rich from a company that was even used as a case study for a U.S. Senate inquiry into tax avoidance.
Microsoft was accused of avoiding paying £3 billion annually in tax by shifting earnings around between low-tax nations. In Britain alone, it reported £1.7 billion revenues in one year for online sales of software, on which it paid no corporation tax. Zilch.
Gates even has the gall to tour the world telling governments to take more and more money from taxpayers for his beloved foreign aid programmes, once even branding those who oppose such policies as ‘evil’.
However noble the intentions of Zuckerberg and Gates, it is pure hypocrisy to claim moral leadership while raking in immense wealth from companies engaged in such base tactics.
In one radio interview, Gates spoke of how philanthropists of the past such as the oil giant John D. Rockefeller offered a model for him and his generation of billionaires.
It was an interesting comparison, since Rockefeller, a ruthless monopolist, became the world’s richest man by using controversial practices such as collusion with railroad companies to crush his oil industry rivals — and then gave away $500 million to good causes.
He and other robber barons such as Andrew Carnegie, who built the U.S. steel industry in the 19th century, are among the most notorious examples of cut-throat capitalists who stop at nothing to build their fortunes, then seek in later life to improve their public image with good deeds.
Today, we see a new wave wearing chinos and T-shirts, building fortunes on grotesque foundations of grubby tax avoidance. Just like their predecessors in the 19th century, they then use their wealth to win public approval as philanthropists.
Larry Ellison, chairman of Californian technology giant Oracle, is the world’s ninth richest person. He has also promised to give away much of his money — yet his firm was among those attacked for ‘industrial scale’ tax avoidance by Parliament.
The harsh truth is that the likes of Zuckerberg (pictured) and Gates may be philanthropists, but they built those fortunes off the back of companies engaged in massive tax avoidance
Google has a company motto proclaiming: ‘Don’t Be Evil.’ Yet far from being a paragon of virtue, a new tax designed by Chancellor George Osborne to discourage multi-national giants from diverting profits to avoid tax was named after the firm.
Needless to say, its billionaire chairman Eric Schmidt claims the company always aspires ‘to do the right thing’. And, of course, he has a family foundation devoted to solving ‘some of this century’s greatest challenges across the globe’.
It is laudable to see the super-rich devote themselves to good works and give away big sums for the betterment of others.
Many of these people are technological visionaries, creating fortunes though their energetic entrepreneurship.
Yet too many of them seem to think it is acceptable for their companies to avoid paying taxes, in part because they see themselves as wonderful benefactors engaged in personal crusades to solve the world’s problems.
In effect, they are saying the super-rich have the right to ‘self-tax’ themselves by giving away money to pet causes, rather than the companies with which they made their fortunes paying their fair share of tax to governments, like the rest of us.
However much good they achieve, this is not just breathtakingly arrogant, but profoundly undemocratic. And for all their skills and smartness, they are often no better than governments at tackling problems in public services.
Zuckerberg went on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show five years ago to proclaim a $100 million gift to turn schools in the New Jersey town of Newark ‘into a symbol of educational excellence for the whole nation’.
The donation was doubled with matching funds from others. Yet his controversial scheme failed to meet its goals after blowing $20 million on consultants, and running into opposition from parents, teachers and community leaders.
But American multi-millionaire financier Foster Friess actually praised this arrogance of the super-rich when defending the idea of ‘self-tax’ in an interview.
‘It’s that top 1 per cent which probably contributes more to making the world a better place than the 99 per cent.’
He even argued that governments should pay digital gurus for their contributions to society, rather than taxing them personally. ‘I’ve never seen any poor people do what Bill Gates has done,’ he added.
The harsh truth is that the likes of Zuckerberg and Gates may be philanthropists, but they built those fortunes off the back of companies engaged in massive tax avoidance.
Such corporate strategy weakens society while placing heavier burdens on the rest of us.
It is all too easy in our globalised age for corporate giants to exploit tax loopholes and outwit inadequate politicians by paying the best advisers to shuffle paper profits around the planet.
So by all means praise a plutocrat such as Mr Zuckerberg for promising to give away extraordinary wealth. We must hope the money is put to good use to transform lives.
But at the same time, do not be deluded by the self- proclaimed altruism promoted so publicly by these titans of the technology revolution.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3343771/The-tax-avoiding-Facebook-mogul-act-charity-reeks-hypocrisy.html#ixzz3tGw4woKX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The tax-avoiding Facebook mogul and an act of charity that reeks of hypocrisy
By IAN BIRRELL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 20:18 EST, 2 December 2015
Once, it was enough to put a notice in the newspaper when your child was born. But Mark Zuckerberg, the multi-billionaire founder of Facebook, likes to do things differently.
So he welcomed his newborn daughter, Max, into the world with an open letter on his social media site, in which he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, pledged to donate almost all their £30 billion fortune to charity during their lives.
The happy couple talked rather smugly about how their first child gave them cause to reflect on the future, saying they were inspired by their desire to build a better world and because they have a ‘moral responsibility to all children in the next generation’.
Mark Zuckerberg welcomed his newborn daughter, Max, into the world with an open letter on his social media site, in which he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, pledged to donate almost all their £30 billion fortune to charity during their lives
Within hours, more than one million Facebook devotees demonstrated their ‘like’ of this noble gesture, among them the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Melinda Gates, wife of fellow mega-rich philanthropist Bill Gates.
There was, of course, an outpouring of praise — particularly online — for this latest plutocrat declaring his intention to hand over great wealth.
Zuckerberg, 31, is the most recent in a growing line of digital billionaires turning to charity, and their giveaways are almost always a public, rather than a private, event played out on social media.
He and his wife deserve credit, of course, for pledging to use their huge mountain of cash to help wider humanity rather than frittering it away on a life of fun.
Yet there is a dark side to this trend. For behind it lies the sanctimonious hypocrisy of billionaires who build vast fortunes with firms that avoid the taxes paid by the rest of society, then arrogantly think they are best placed to solve the planet’s problems.
Zuckerberg talked in his letter of creating stronger communities. Yet Facebook, like too many technology behemoths, is a serial tax avoider undermining government through its stubborn refusal to pay its fair share to society.
Last year, this all-conquering social media firm handed over just £4,327 in corporation tax in this country: less than the annual sum paid in tax by the average worker.
Yet its staff in Britain took home an average £210,000 each in pay and bonuses, safe in the security of a society that relies on public servants to protect them from terror, provide health care in hospitals and repair the roads on which they travel to work.
The Facebook founder has hailed Bill Gates as his hero — the world’s richest man, who has been revered as something close to a secular saint after promising to give away the bulk of his £57 billion fortune.
The happy couple talked rather smugly about how their first child gave them cause to reflect on the future
But Gates became rich from a company that was even used as a case study for a U.S. Senate inquiry into tax avoidance.
Microsoft was accused of avoiding paying £3 billion annually in tax by shifting earnings around between low-tax nations. In Britain alone, it reported £1.7 billion revenues in one year for online sales of software, on which it paid no corporation tax. Zilch.
Gates even has the gall to tour the world telling governments to take more and more money from taxpayers for his beloved foreign aid programmes, once even branding those who oppose such policies as ‘evil’.
However noble the intentions of Zuckerberg and Gates, it is pure hypocrisy to claim moral leadership while raking in immense wealth from companies engaged in such base tactics.
In one radio interview, Gates spoke of how philanthropists of the past such as the oil giant John D. Rockefeller offered a model for him and his generation of billionaires.
It was an interesting comparison, since Rockefeller, a ruthless monopolist, became the world’s richest man by using controversial practices such as collusion with railroad companies to crush his oil industry rivals — and then gave away $500 million to good causes.
He and other robber barons such as Andrew Carnegie, who built the U.S. steel industry in the 19th century, are among the most notorious examples of cut-throat capitalists who stop at nothing to build their fortunes, then seek in later life to improve their public image with good deeds.
Today, we see a new wave wearing chinos and T-shirts, building fortunes on grotesque foundations of grubby tax avoidance. Just like their predecessors in the 19th century, they then use their wealth to win public approval as philanthropists.
Larry Ellison, chairman of Californian technology giant Oracle, is the world’s ninth richest person. He has also promised to give away much of his money — yet his firm was among those attacked for ‘industrial scale’ tax avoidance by Parliament.
The harsh truth is that the likes of Zuckerberg (pictured) and Gates may be philanthropists, but they built those fortunes off the back of companies engaged in massive tax avoidance
Google has a company motto proclaiming: ‘Don’t Be Evil.’ Yet far from being a paragon of virtue, a new tax designed by Chancellor George Osborne to discourage multi-national giants from diverting profits to avoid tax was named after the firm.
Needless to say, its billionaire chairman Eric Schmidt claims the company always aspires ‘to do the right thing’. And, of course, he has a family foundation devoted to solving ‘some of this century’s greatest challenges across the globe’.
It is laudable to see the super-rich devote themselves to good works and give away big sums for the betterment of others.
Many of these people are technological visionaries, creating fortunes though their energetic entrepreneurship.
Yet too many of them seem to think it is acceptable for their companies to avoid paying taxes, in part because they see themselves as wonderful benefactors engaged in personal crusades to solve the world’s problems.
In effect, they are saying the super-rich have the right to ‘self-tax’ themselves by giving away money to pet causes, rather than the companies with which they made their fortunes paying their fair share of tax to governments, like the rest of us.
However much good they achieve, this is not just breathtakingly arrogant, but profoundly undemocratic. And for all their skills and smartness, they are often no better than governments at tackling problems in public services.
Zuckerberg went on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show five years ago to proclaim a $100 million gift to turn schools in the New Jersey town of Newark ‘into a symbol of educational excellence for the whole nation’.
The donation was doubled with matching funds from others. Yet his controversial scheme failed to meet its goals after blowing $20 million on consultants, and running into opposition from parents, teachers and community leaders.
But American multi-millionaire financier Foster Friess actually praised this arrogance of the super-rich when defending the idea of ‘self-tax’ in an interview.
‘It’s that top 1 per cent which probably contributes more to making the world a better place than the 99 per cent.’
He even argued that governments should pay digital gurus for their contributions to society, rather than taxing them personally. ‘I’ve never seen any poor people do what Bill Gates has done,’ he added.
The harsh truth is that the likes of Zuckerberg and Gates may be philanthropists, but they built those fortunes off the back of companies engaged in massive tax avoidance.
Such corporate strategy weakens society while placing heavier burdens on the rest of us.
It is all too easy in our globalised age for corporate giants to exploit tax loopholes and outwit inadequate politicians by paying the best advisers to shuffle paper profits around the planet.
So by all means praise a plutocrat such as Mr Zuckerberg for promising to give away extraordinary wealth. We must hope the money is put to good use to transform lives.
But at the same time, do not be deluded by the self- proclaimed altruism promoted so publicly by these titans of the technology revolution.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3343771/The-tax-avoiding-Facebook-mogul-act-charity-reeks-hypocrisy.html#ixzz3tGw4woKX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
sbonomo
Footballguy
do you pay tax every year on your wealth or when you realize the wealth? Have an ira or 401k? Own a stock or a home? Not sure anyone pays tax real time. I do agree with the foundation but you are missing partnof this equation.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Overhead Ratios are Essential for Informed Giving
GuideStar, Charity Navigator and BBB Wise Giving Alliance have started a campaign called "The Overhead Myth" which asserts that focusing on the percentage of a charity's budget spent on administrative and fundraising expenses—or overhead ratios—"can do more damage than good." Overhead costs comprise all of a charity's expenses which are not charitable program expenses. The Overhead Myth condemns the use of charities' spending ratios as a measurement to evaluate nonprofit performance. CharityWatch urges you not to be persuaded to ignore this essential metric for understanding how charitable dollars are spent.Unfortunately, rather than debunk a purported "myth" related to the usefulness of charity spending ratios, The Overhead Myth actually spreads a myth by claiming that the money charities spend on training, planning and evaluations must be classified as overhead. In fact, much of the spending in these areas can legitimately be classified as charitable program expenses. For example, when a relief charity pays for training its staff to administer first aid, the training cost is a program expense. When a charity plans how it will relieve suffering in response to a disaster and later evaluates the effectiveness of its response, the expenses related to this planning and evaluation are also charitable program expenses, not overhead.
Common sense tells you that if you want to support a charity that makes grants to fund medical research, you would prefer to donate to a charity that spends 70% of its budget on research grants and 30% on overhead costs, rather than donate to a charity that only spends 20% on research grants and 80% on overhead costs. It's important to pay attention to how charities spend donated dollars.
We also believe that outcomes and program quality are important factors by which to judge a charity, but evaluations of these factors are particularly expensive and time-intensive to conduct. It can be extremely difficult for donors to obtain unbiased information since many program evaluations are conducted by the charities themselves. Charities, not unlike businesses, are prone to cherry-pick their most flattering attributes when measuring and promoting themselves, even if these qualities are not the ones most significant to consumers or donors. A company boasting that its ice cream bars are superior because they are low in fat will probably not promote the fact that its bars are also loaded with high fructose corn syrup.
Comparing different charities with similar causes on the basis of outcomes can also give donors the wrong impression about which charity is more effective. For example, one drug counseling charity may boast that it has a high rate of positive client rehabilitation outcomes, but may fail to mention that it only accepts those with minor drug problems into its programs. Another drug counseling charity may have lower rehabilitation outcomes by comparison because a higher percentage of its clients struggle with more serious addiction. Comparing the effectiveness of charities based on their number of positive outcomes is simplistic and can mislead donors if the charities' programs or populations served are not substantially similar.
Don't be fooled by sources of charity information that claim to rate the program quality or outcomes of thousands of charities. An adequate evaluation of the multiple, diverse charitable programs of this number of charities would require expertise, manpower, and financial resources far beyond those of any existing charity monitoring organization. What these rating services actually do, or plan to do, is question a charity about whether or not it evaluates its own programs, then provide a "rating" of the charity's program quality based on its responses. Charities, not unlike people, are prone to inflate their worth and accomplishments and downplay their failures. Objective and comparable information about the quality of a charity's programs is unlikely to be obtained by essentially asking charities to evaluate themselves.
Fundraising companies, charity consultants, and marketers love to divert donors' attention to cherry-picked program outcomes while encouraging them to ignore the amount of money charities pay to their businesses. But don't buy their argument that it's okay for charities to spend unlimited amounts of money on fundraising on the basis that doing so will eventually bring in more dollars for charities to spend on their programs. The fallacy of this argument is that total annual giving in the U.S. has remained steady for many years at about 2% of personal disposable assets. Charitable dollars are limited. So if donors ignore fundraising ratios and charities greatly ramp up their fundraising expenditures, billions of dollars could be shifted out of charitable programs and spent on fundraising instead. This would be great for fundraising businesses and consultants, but not so great for donors, charities, and the populations they serve.
CharityWatch agrees that overly-simplistic overhead ratios or computer-automated ratings absent of critical analysis are of extremely limited value to donors. However, we strongly believe that the carefully considered and analytical ratios produced by CharityWatch are useful giving tools for donors who want to feel confident that their charitable contributions are well spent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tucker is a CPA who does a lot of continuing education videos. I remember him saying lines like that in the videos.
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
This conveniently ignores the fact that the staff is paying UK tax on the £210,000 that contributes toward the cost of public servants, hospitals and roads.
Hang 10
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I get where you are coming from. I am as cynical as they come and have a similar reaction to big charities and foundations.
I don't get your beef with the Gates Foundation, and we have yet to see how MZ's foundation will be run. Wouldn't a well run foundation that is doing the best to get money out there have #s just like you posted? I mean, what is the point of blowing through a huge wad of cash in 2 years? I guess then we could say that Gates gave $40B instead of $28, but I think it is far more impressive they have run it well enough to give out $28B and still have the initial $ in there to keep churning out the money over time. Who cares why it was set up or if generations of his seed will benefit as well? Isn't this so much better than them just keeping it to themselves?
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Would it be better if he kept all his money?
Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
In 2015, Facebook rapidly grew its user base, pulling further away from rivals to remain, by far, the largest social media network in the world.
With it, Facebook’s revenue also increased significantly.
FB Revenue has grown at a compounded annual rate of 52.2% over the last three years, and by 55.5% over the last five years.
In 2016, Facebook is expected to continue increasing its market share with mobile advertising. To raise its stocks even higher, Facebook plans to launch several new products and services like “Facebook at Work,” “Facebook Professional Services,” “Oculus Rift,” and “Live.”
Facebook is just starting to find a way to leverage its other products, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and its own Messenger.
These assets are predicted to help the company’s stock prices, only when Facebook monetizes them.
And trust me guys if these goes according to plan we are bullish on FB Stock
With it, Facebook’s revenue also increased significantly.
FB Revenue has grown at a compounded annual rate of 52.2% over the last three years, and by 55.5% over the last five years.
In 2016, Facebook is expected to continue increasing its market share with mobile advertising. To raise its stocks even higher, Facebook plans to launch several new products and services like “Facebook at Work,” “Facebook Professional Services,” “Oculus Rift,” and “Live.”
Facebook is just starting to find a way to leverage its other products, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and its own Messenger.
These assets are predicted to help the company’s stock prices, only when Facebook monetizes them.
And trust me guys if these goes according to plan we are bullish on FB Stock
Similar threads
