Zuckerbergs give away
Discussion
fblm said:
FFS. You keep bleating about this point. He only has any tax liability if he ever sells his shares, in the US the maximum tax would be 20%. Regardless of the corporate structure he uses, (you keep saying it will be an LLC but I have no idea how you know this, IMO it will be a trust like BMGF), if the gift is to be treated as a charitable donation and not incur CGT it will have to be with a registered charity. All arms length, all regulated. It's no longer his money, he can't go buy a private jet with it. Your attitude that government knows best is utterly and demonstrably absurd. The likes of BMGF and Zukerburgs charity will do more for mankind than countless tens of thousands of little idiots like you carping from the sidelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gat...
Perhaps it's time to pull your head out your arse and recognise this for what it is; one of the most extraordinary acts of philanthropy in history.
And here come the personal attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gat...
Perhaps it's time to pull your head out your arse and recognise this for what it is; one of the most extraordinary acts of philanthropy in history.
"Mark Zuckerberg wird sein Geld in die "Chan Zuckerberg Initiative" fließen lassen. Das ist keine unabhängige Organisation wie beispielsweise Ärzte ohne Grenzen, sondern vielmehr eine private Stiftung. Zuckerberg hat sie gemeinsam mit seiner Frau Priscilla Chan als sogenannte Limited Liability Company (LLC) gegründet."
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/facebook-gru...
Stick it in Google translate if you can't read it. You are easily led IMO, and rather boring.
scherzkeks said:
And here come the personal attacks.
...
You are easily led IMO, and rather boring.
Doh!...
You are easily led IMO, and rather boring.
Interesting so it will be an LLC. So what are the implications? The usual charitable foundation or trust would be more tax efficient but it has caveats; they have to give away at least 5% a year to qualify so does not lend it's self to lasting very long on a single massive donor, LLC can lobby governments for policy change charity can't, LLC can retain a profit charity can't. Furthermore he retains control of facebook, he's remarkably young to get involved in this kind of thing, it's usually a retirement trade so again it makes sense.
The simple fact is he could just sell his facebook shares today retire and collect islands, yachts, jets and no one would care. Endeavour to do some good and he gets a load of grief. Maybe get back to us when you've spent your first billion on medical research eh?
fblm said:
Burwood said:
He gave away 350M over 100 years ago, worth 100B now.
You sure? 100bn would imply long term US inflation at about 6% but its closer to 3.5, which would make it paltry, down the back of the sofa, 11bn. scherzkeks said:
This far in and you've lost the plot?
Someone has, but it ain't me.fblm said:
scherzkeks said:
As we both know, the government generally attempts to spend tax money in ways that will benefit society. This doesn't mean it always makes wise decisions or is free of corruption. But I think we can all agree this is generally successful.
Let thank sink in for a second before you spout any more s
te about legal entities, unfair taxes or government knowing best. Burwood said:
you know what these websites are like. Your calls are correct but it is also true that inflation is more a consumer price index not a real asset based one. Put it another way, Carnegie was the wealthiest man in the World give or take
Very true, probably ever. To be honest I double checked my maths because 11bn seemed too little considering the unimaginable wealth 350m must have been back at the turn of last century.fblm said:
Burwood said:
you know what these websites are like. Your calls are correct but it is also true that inflation is more a consumer price index not a real asset based one. Put it another way, Carnegie was the wealthiest man in the World give or take
Very true, probably ever. To be honest I double checked my maths because 11bn seemed too little considering the unimaginable wealth 350m must have been back at the turn of last century.
And true story, when my parents renovated their house which cost 200k in 1983 they found old newspapers dating back to 1890. Skrim walls. Anyway it showed local plots being sold for 5 quid. To be fair there was nothing there at the time but it shows you what property has done. Renovated but not extended it's 20 x what they paid in 83 which us t that long ago. Added the place didn't go up in vale for years, maybe negative equity in late 80s
Puggit said:
ikarl said:
If Gates, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Musk, Ellison, Icahn, Buffet, Blakely, Allen, Potanin, Bhargava, Motsepe, Branson, Premji etc.. got together, combined their wealth, and targetted what they wanted to 'fix' is there really anything they couldn't influence/fix?
Mrs Puggit's snoring?Wacky Racer said:
Puggit said:
ikarl said:
If Gates, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Musk, Ellison, Icahn, Buffet, Blakely, Allen, Potanin, Bhargava, Motsepe, Branson, Premji etc.. got together, combined their wealth, and targetted what they wanted to 'fix' is there really anything they couldn't influence/fix?
Mrs Puggit's snoring?exitwound said:
bananaman1 said:
fblm said:
I use facebook, I love it. Its a great way to keep in touch with friends and acquantences scattered all over the globe. Why am I an idiot? 
Snap :-).......did we get an explanation? These days I find that 90% of Car shows, meets, drive-outs, evening get togethers, events, and suchlike are now organised through FB and the photos shared on there afterwards.
It's also a very popular way for businesses to share photos and other bits and pieces to people who want to see them.
I find it handy for photo sharing with friends.
But according to the old men of PH, using Facebook isn't cool
I would rather see money spent on good works being managed by someone with a track record of good business sense than a bunch of people with no idea why spending more than you earn is a bad idea and have a track record of throwing money away because they can always ask for demand more.
Good on him I say.
Good on him I say.
Can't stand Zuckerberg or his stupid bloody "social network".
I don't use it and I'll never use it. If any company or organisation choose to ONLY promote somethin on Facebook...then I won't know about it and I won;t have missed much either.
Nor am I interested in the fact that Zuckerberg has apparently managed to successfully pork someone - big deal! Facebook aside, I do grow tired of new parents suddenly deciding their beautiful bloody screaming shrieking baby has "changed their lives" and "made them a better person" like this. It's just an excuse to show off how fertile they are, like anyone cares.
Bah!
I don't use it and I'll never use it. If any company or organisation choose to ONLY promote somethin on Facebook...then I won't know about it and I won;t have missed much either.
Nor am I interested in the fact that Zuckerberg has apparently managed to successfully pork someone - big deal! Facebook aside, I do grow tired of new parents suddenly deciding their beautiful bloody screaming shrieking baby has "changed their lives" and "made them a better person" like this. It's just an excuse to show off how fertile they are, like anyone cares.
Bah!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff