SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jesse Eisinger writes in the NYT that if you heard that Mark Zuckerberg donated $45 billion to charity, you are wrong. Here's what really happened: Zuckerberg did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. Instead Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle called a limited liability company (LLC) that can invest in for-profit companies, make political donations, and lobby for changes in the law. What's more an LLC can donate appreciated shares to charity, which will generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax. "He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money," writes Eisinger. "That's what America is all about. But as a society, we don't generally call these types of activities "charity.""
A charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won't be subject to those rules and won't have any transparency requirements. According to Eisinger what this means is that Zuckerberg has amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. "Instead of lavishing praise on Mr. Zuckerberg for having issued a news release with a promise, this should be an occasion to mull what kind of society we want to live in," concludes Eisinger. "The point is that we are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords."
Previously: Mark Zuckerberg to Donate $45 Billion Facebook Fortune to Charity
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2015, @06:02PM
How incredibly stubborn and stupid would you have to be to create a disposal plan for $45Billion worth of capital without having the end result benefit you and your progeny? He's surrounded by people constantly advising him, unless he's allowed people who do not have his interests foremost into his inner circle (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to allow), they're all going to be presenting ideas that benefit him. If he doesn't listen to all of this valuable advice and goes off on a whim, that would be amazingly stubborn / capricious.
I'm impressed that he didn't choose one of the many available tax dodge routes. I'm sure he's still tax-advantaged in some ways, but calling it philanthropy without taking the NPC tax break is a pretty stand-up way to be rich, in my book.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:15PM
Wow. You have a world-view that presumes that anything less than over-arching greed and self-interest is "stubborn and stupid." Starting from that premise pretty much guarantees a completely bonkers analysis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @11:59PM
No, he has a realistic world view and realizes that it is highly unlikely for someone to become a billionaire without being a greedy self-serving fuck. It's amazing how easily you're fooled by these "altruistic" antics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @12:27AM
> No, he has a realistic world view
Labeling actions that don't conform to that cynicism as "stupid" isn't just being realistic, it is endorsing that self-interest as morally correct.