# Mark Zuckerberg and Philanthropy



## imp (Dec 15, 2015)

I guess the guy founded Facebook, became a multi-billionaire, and will donate most of it's value to charitable cause, something like $45 Billion? Historically, almost the largest philanthropy amount ever, some railroad magnate topped that.

Anyone else aware of how this is being done? When ya start talking about giving away BILLIONS, zillions show up claiming to deserve a piece of coin. 

Wherever such huge amount of asset is stored, banks, securities, precious metals, real estate, etc., it's intrinsic value increases in step with the "time-value of money", aside from from changes due to "trading  value". 

So, as this $45 Billion sits and awaits disbursement, how is it's value handled for future purpose? Is it taxed for income tax purposes, since it has not yet been "given away"?

What's going on with this? Is it acceptable?    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 15, 2015)

He isn't giving it all away immediately. The pledge is "over his lifetime".

http://recode.net/2015/12/14/how-ca...y-stock-and-while-still-controlling-facebook/


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 15, 2015)

And here's where the money will be going. Sorta.

http://recode.net/2015/12/03/mark-zuckerberg-responds-to-critics-explains-where-his-money-is-going/


----------



## AprilT (Dec 15, 2015)

Saw this story on the news a week or so ago, and wouldn't you know it, people were coming out of the woodwork, looking for a negative angle to put on it.  Some people can do good in the world and people will still want to find reason to complain about their efforts.  So many millionaires/billionaires sit on their money even if they'll never be able to spend it all, at least there are some who will look for ways to put much of their gains to good use, how they do it, I'm I for one am not concerned how they choose to spend their money long as it's not to hurt others, but it nice to know not all people are me, me, me types.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 15, 2015)

Agreed April. It is just that the initial reporting may have been misleading.
There must be set templates that lazy reporters use for their stories and not every story fits the template.


----------



## BeachLover1952 (Dec 15, 2015)

What this young couple have done is indeed heroic. If all our youths these days include a goal that would also  improve the lives of others (of course, aiming to better their own lives is given), then the next generation will surely benefit greatly from it. Very admirable.


----------



## imp (Dec 15, 2015)

*A Pall is Indeed Cast Over This*

If it's legible, check this out. This Eiseneger person writes Zuckerberg will likely never pay any income taxes on this deal. If so, how much heavier a tax burden is placed upon the multitude of "working stiffs"? The govvy gets its dough, one way or the other, don't it? given that a sizable list exists of billionaires, who presumably pay much less than they ought to, there's a lot of tax money un-collected. Try it yourself, assuming you owe a couple thousand, refuse to pay, see what happens. Hard to convince me that the money of the super-rich does not buy super-privilege.     imp


----------



## imp (Dec 15, 2015)

BeachLover1952 said:


> What this young couple have done is indeed heroic.* If all our youths these days include a goal that would also  improve the lives of others *(of course, aiming to better their own lives is given), then the next generation will surely benefit greatly from it. Very admirable.



Indeed! The "Information Revolution" has in a very few decades produced a number of young folks who managed to amass enormous fortunes, in much shorter time than happened historically in  the past. The article uses the term "fleeting" in referring to Facebook. That may or may not be true. Recent past has seen quite a number of developments in the info industry which were ignored by a number of the "big guys", with the result that their own stubbornness removed them from "super-rich" status. Facebook? I dunno.

My wife corresponds with a spinoff of FB which involves only a limited number of folks, dedicated to our local area. There are contributors, though, from around the world. I suspect similar "spin-offs" may exist in large numbers, maybe in the thousands.     imp


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 15, 2015)

I don't think this is a tax dodge.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 15, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> I don't think this is a tax dodge.



These types of reports came out as soon as the announcement of their intent to donate, to be expected as the people who circulate such negativity.  Similar reports followed people like Bill Gates and his foundations.  Seems there will always be people to envy these types, so they have to find some fault with them no matter for no other reason than they just can't accept there might be good in someone who has everything they'll never have.  Sad really, but those reporters have a job to do to make a living so, guess I shouldn't fault them too much in this economy.


----------



## imp (Dec 15, 2015)

*Charitable Foundations vs. Charitable Companies*



AprilT said:


> These types of reports came out as soon as the announcement of their intent to donate, to be expected as the people who circulate such negativity.  Similar reports followed people like Bill Gates and his foundations.  Seems there will always be people to envy these types, so they have to find some fault with them no matter for no other reason than they just can't accept there might be good in someone who has everything they'll never have.  Sad really, but those reporters have a job to do to make a living so, guess I shouldn't fault them too much in this economy.



*All good points. I am aware that much of these philanthropic efforts are essentially beyond my level of understanding, that is why I'm asking around. My usual skepticism always enters into the equation.      imp
*
Numbers from the Annual Report to Shareholders, 2014, below.   (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/fb/financials).  They show a preliminary return of about 28%, pretty stupendous, I think, if I view the report correctly. Tax-wise, FB owed about $ 2.1 Billion, but DEFERRED PAYMENT of $ 250 Million. That I don't understand. 12% of the tax due, was not paid. Corporate Federal Income Tax ranges from 15% to 39%:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States. According to those percentages, FB overpaid the tax by about double. That is hard to understand, or believe.

Net Income After Extraordinaries

$ 2.93 Billion (Extraordinaries = 0)

Gross Income
$ 10.28 Billion

Income Tax - Current Domestic
$ 2.13 Billion
Income Tax - Current Foreign
$ 96 Million


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 15, 2015)

I think America is one of the few countries in the world that penalizes you for being successful.


----------



## imp (Dec 15, 2015)

*FB Donation: Cartoon Praising or Ridiculing?*

This cartoon accompanied the article above. I asked my wife how she interpreted it. She would not comment. Just wondering if anyone sees this as I do?    imp


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 15, 2015)

Well, I interpret it as a "thumbs up" sign, which is what it is.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 15, 2015)

That's the Facebook 'Like' button.


----------



## Karen99 (Dec 16, 2015)

Hey, good on Zuckerberg and all the good he can do in the world with his fortune.


----------



## fureverywhere (Dec 16, 2015)

I think it's lovely...you think of so many corporations that exist that only top executives are living off the labor of underlings. Refreshing to see someone uber-rich considering others besides themselves.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 16, 2015)

I think he's doing a good thing as well.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 16, 2015)

I also feel he's doing a good thing and being VERY generous.  if he kept it all to himself (which he would certainly be entitled to do), he'd be called selfish.

When people look for something to pick apart and find fault with, they will find it.


----------



## imp (Dec 16, 2015)

*Did This Photo Inspire the Cartoonist?*



Butterfly said:


> Well, I interpret it as a "thumbs up" sign, which is what it is.



Look at the unusually long, straight thumb, and the shape, size, and button, on the cuff:


----------



## AprilT (Dec 16, 2015)

I don't know, when I look at it, for some reason, I think of Tom Thumb, or some Mother Goose song, or maybe sit on this.  Not sure what it has to do with MZ except for some loons out there reaching for some connection.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 16, 2015)

You people are _strange!_

It's a thumbs-up "I approve", "I like your post", "I agree" symbol - that's _all _it is. 

And no, they don't use that exact size on FB - it's a little bit smaller.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 16, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> You people are _strange!_
> 
> It's a thumbs-up "I approve", "I like your post", "I agree" symbol - that's _all _it is.
> 
> And no, they don't use that exact size on FB - it's a little bit smaller.




Really   All this time who wudda thunk it.


----------



## imp (Dec 16, 2015)

If I could determine who that guy with the little girl is.......

imp


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 16, 2015)

Looks like Stalin, no?


----------



## AprilT (Dec 16, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> Looks like Stalin, no?



Yes, it's Stalin with his daughter.  I gather there's a point somewhere in the post, reaching, ya know.  LOL!


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 16, 2015)

AprilT said:


> Yes, it's Stalin with his daughter.  I gather there's a point somewhere in the post, reaching, ya know.  LOL!



Maybe he was the first one to ever give a thumbs-up? Nah.

Maybe he had a medical condition that gave him blue thumbs? Could be ... layful:


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 16, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> Maybe he was the first one to ever give a thumbs-up? Nah.
> 
> Maybe he had a medical condition that gave him blue thumbs? Could be ... layful:



I think the ancient Romans did the thumbs up/thumbs down thing, no?

I don't understand why this symbol should be considered anything than what it is -- am I missing something here?


----------



## imp (Dec 16, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I think the ancient Romans did the thumbs up/thumbs down thing, no?
> 
> I don't understand why this symbol should be considered anything than what it is -- am I missing something here?



It is my belief the cartoonist was being sarcastic, comparing "big money" to subversion under a tyrant. I guess pessimists like me would see that before considering the more realistic thought.  Sorry!   imp


----------



## Ken N Tx (Dec 17, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> I think it's lovely...you think of so many corporations that exist that only top executives are living off the labor of underlings. Refreshing to see someone uber-rich considering others besides themselves.





SifuPhil said:


> I think he's doing a good thing as well.


 
Many rich individuals do things behind the scenes to help people..


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 17, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> Agreed April. It is just that the initial reporting may have been misleading.
> There must be set templates that lazy reporters use for their stories and not every story fits the template.



This is about where I'm at.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-not-donating-fortune-to-charity-2015-12

Instead of getting paid by facebook Zuckerberg and others could theoretically get paid by one of these third parties or even benefit from their "investment in". The IPO of facebook was a pump so there will always be those suspicious of Zuckerberg and the financial types in on it.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11543996/1/the-big-lie-of-the-facebook-ipo-opinion.html


----------

