×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mark Zuckerberg Gives $990 Million To Charity

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the pocket-change-we-can-believe-in dept.

Facebook 230

mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from Business Insider: "This morning, Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to give 18 million Facebook shares to charity by the end of the month. Facebook is currently trading at $55 per share, so Zuckerberg's gift is worth just under $1 billion. The money will go toward Zuckerberg's foundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and The Breakthrough Prize In Life Science, a [Nobel] Prize-like award. Zuckereberg is giving his shares away as part of a secondary stock offering from Facebook. Reuters says Zuckerberg will sell 41.4 million shares, reducing his voting power in the company from 58.8% to 56.1%. Other insiders selling include board member Marc Andreessen, who will sell 1.65 million shares. Facebook is selling 27 million."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

230 comments

so he gave (5, Informative)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 4 months ago | (#45737235)

to his own charity?

Re:so he gave (4, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#45737249)

So did Bill Gates. And Bill Clinton. Those two at least do some good work.

oh boy... (2, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#45737331)

TFA Headline was misleading...saying it like this:

"X gives [huge sum of money] to charity."

X being an often criticized figure and "charity" being the incongruent thing that supposedly makes the headline interesting.

But it buries the lead...the story isn't some tech/dork/genius/villain giving a huge sum of money away to needy people...it's about him transferring it to his own charity.

Huge difference.

Jerry Sandusky used the Second Mile Charity to find victims. Clinton uses his charity to maintain his personal/family brand and...I admit...do good things. Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

IMHO, Gates and Zuck are bad models for tech chartiy. I would rather him take that money and pay off every home mortgage in the poor communities in his area....Oakland. The also need to stop all attempts to use his charity to get student data via "donating" some student info system and calling it some innovative name.

Re:oh boy... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737437)

IMHO, Gates and Zuck are bad models for tech chartiy. I would rather him take that money and pay off every home mortgage in the poor communities in his area....Oakland. The also need to stop all attempts to use his charity to get student data via "donating" some student info system and calling it some innovative name.

I would rather have a more egalitarian world, where money does not accumulate obscenely like that.

Re:oh boy... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737439)

As I remember it Gates didn't give a damn about charities until the Microsoft anti-trust trial was underway. It was a PR move.

I could be wrong though, feel free to jump in if you have citations otherwise.

--
Hey, ACs need sigs too!

Re:oh boy... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737553)

Gates gained a soul when he got married. Finally getting laid mellows you out.

Re:oh boy... (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#45737905)

That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.

Having a spouse means you're forced to consider another perspective, which in turn makes it easier to understand and empathize with others you're not related to. Life isn't just about pursuing your own goals any more, but suddenly there's a concern for helping everyone. Perhaps not all the way to meeting their goals, but at least living long and well enough to have a chance.

Re:oh boy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738245)

That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.

Your post makes you out to be a much more condescending shitbag than I think you intended.

Re:oh boy... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737797)

Citations in response to a non-cited and subjective post?

PR people are a lot cheaper than billion dollar foundations. And PR for what? A retired guy? Who cares? If this was a PR move why keep it going?

In the end he is giving. There isn't a timetable for this and he isn't required to do it at all.

Re: oh boy... (3, Informative)

um... Lucas (13147) | about 4 months ago | (#45738217)

It's not like he did a sham transfer to a strawman. He transferred them to his foundation, irrevocably. Just because the foundation has his name doesn't mean he gets anything from it. Aside from getting to vote the shares the way he and the rest of the board agree, the shares are gone to him - any appreciation, all dividends, they all are for the bill and Melinda gates foundations benefit, and that organization publicly discloses their tax return so you can verify that.

Creating and funding that foundation did nothing with regards to microsofts antitrust case, except make bill a lot less rich (but still in the top 3)

Re:oh boy... (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 4 months ago | (#45737471)

So when you donate shares to a foundation you control do you still get to vote the shares? Seems like an awesome loophole: you still get to use the voting power of the shares to further your own best interests, not necessarily those of the foundation.

Re:oh boy... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737473)

He's giving the stock, not money. When he monetizes the stock is when he'd get killed in taxes. The Foundation can then sell the stock for cash tax-free but is under a lot of regulation as to what can be done with the money. Taxes in America make this the only reasonable way for the wealthy to "give." You can't do things like pay off other people's mortgages without a massive tax burden both ways. (Having your mortgage paid off by someone else is income.) Blame the IRS for these goofy constructs, not those giving millions and billions.

Re:oh boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737709)

Simplify the tax code. A simple tiered tax system, regardless of where you got the income from, with NO deductions or rebates.

Re:oh boy... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737953)

Taxes in America make this the only reasonable way for the wealthy to "give."

Yes, because only the poor should have to pay taxes. Thank you for supporting the perpetuation of one very large and key component of the US national debt's continual increase.

Re:oh boy... (4, Interesting)

pepty (1976012) | about 4 months ago | (#45737561)

Gates is an awesome model for billionaire charity: Warren Buffet likes it so much he is going to donate 85% of his wealth to it. Most of the money goes to biomedical (TB, AIDS, sanitation, fresh water, vaccines, orphan diseases) issues that can't really improve the market for M$ other than through brand management ... and healthier customers.

Re:oh boy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737729)

Most of the money goes to biomedical (TB, AIDS, sanitation, fresh water, vaccines, orphan diseases) issues

With all the attached under-the-table negotiation strings to assure his own investments continue to grow. For example, "giving away millions of dollars in life-saving medicines" on conditions that poor countries adopt intellectual property laws forbidding them from manufacturing the same drugs themselves for pennies on the dollar. Bill Gate's personal wealth, after giving away billions to "charity" has gotten bigger than before "giving away" the money: because he's heavily invested in non-Microsoft megacorporporations, too, like Big Pharma and private education vultures.

Re:oh boy... (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#45738099)

Really? Gates demanding that people and governments sign long term contracts with US Agriculture and Medical corporations and not produce or grow locally as a condition of receiving his "Free" medicine is a benefit to society? Who's society are you referring to, the starving people in Ethiopia that can't grow local food any more because they received "Free vaccines"?

Good grief man, use your head just a little. If Mr. Gates was really just "helping everyone with his money" why has his wealth continued to grow while the people he is supposedly helping go further down in poverty? Some of the vaccines being pushed overseas are illegal in numerous Western Countries after being proven harmful to recipients.

Your view of an "awesome model" seems to be very low and abstract.

More on topic, look for Facebook to report some major loss in value causing the stocks to drop. Zuckerberg is not the only one donating lots of stock. These people are not idiots, and didn't get to be as wealthy as they are because they are altruistic.

Re:oh boy... (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 4 months ago | (#45737575)

Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

His charity also does a ton of good stuff in areas like public health and sanitation. He's not a saint, he may be doing it primarily as a PR move, but that's definitely doing more good for the world than having it just sitting in some trust fund for his 3 kids or something. And yes, he could have also given it to a bunch of organizations rather than creating a foundation of his own, but my impression from those who have done work in the area where his foundation operates is that they have a fairly good reputation as far as non-profits go.

I don't like Bill Gates' business tactics. I do like what he's chosen to do with a lot of his time and money.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#45737799)

His charity also does a ton of good stuff in areas like public health and sanitation.

and other commenters have pointed out similar things...

first, i'll grant you that my comment did not mention some of the work they do for the neediest globally, it is an oversight that should matter in evaluating "tech billionaires" and how effective/self-serving their charity work proves to be.

I'm mostly frustrated that so much of what made M$ so bad is going into **how** they do the work in the developing world, on a macro scale, but this is off topic.

second, to my main criticism of "tech billionaires" and how they do charity is how self-serving and low-return *most* of it is.

I imagine the parts of the Gates Foundation that are the most effective correlate very closely with the parts where Gates & minions have the *least* input into decision making.

Delivering water to communities in Africa is more a problem you throw money at to the right people, because there are obviously already people trying to accomplish the task, the best option just doesn't have the resources.

That's still **good** but we can do much, much better. That's my point.

Why not start right in the Bay Area? Why not just start paying off family mortgages and boosting school budgets?

990 Million Dollars of that...seriously...i'm not an isolationist but have you ever heard of how in a commercial airliner emergency, the mother should put *her own air mask* on first b/c she needs to be coherent to help the baby?

Nation building begins at home!

Re:The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737987)

Paying off mortgages will only micro bubble inflation in the area and dumping more money into US schools is like taking a crap on it and setting it on fire.

How about preventing millions from catching malaria, oh wait, thats what the gates fundation has spent an assload doing.

Re:oh boy... (2, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#45737893)

It's also worth considering how he got the money in the first place. You have to weigh the harm of his prior actions against the benefits of his current actions.

Re:oh boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738333)

So, tell me, do these zillionaires who made 'their' fortunes off the labor of others and engaging in shitty bidness practices get a teeny tiny tax break on these altruistic actions?
Poor people who cant afford it give more to charity as a percentage of income, now THAT is impressive... I bet they dont take the tax writeoffs either...
Eat the rich!!!

Re:oh boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737593)

From what I know, Gates's charity attempts to do extremely helpful and relevant work, especially in developing nations, far disconnected from any microsoft products. They're running challenges and enacting moves to actually help healthcare, hygiene, and numerous critical problems that are far from necessarily enabling common people with technology at all.

Re:oh boy... (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 months ago | (#45737627)

and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

So you're saying there shouldn't be any standards for whether a teacher does their job? They should just be able to show up and get paid? Where do I sign up?

Also, while Bill does push his Microsoft bent, his charity does provide tons of money for vaccinations and education in poor countries.

Re:oh boy... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737861)

The thing is with teachers, especially in under-achieving schools, the community and students don't show up.

My wife taught in Detroit for a while. Half her class missed half their classroom time over the course of a school year. Is it her fault that all those kids have low test scores (if they even show up on testing day)? It's the same at many of the under-achieving schools around the US. The kids and parents don't show up.

Perhaps if you tried looking into the problem rather than rattling off overly generalized bullet points that align with what you've heard on the blue glow box in the corner of the couch room you'd have a clue.

Re:oh boy... (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#45737967)

No, but the current model for "evaluating teacher performance" is giving kids a lot of standardized tests (designed by Pearson and other big companies and not evaluated by any third party). Teachers whose students do poorly on the tests are claimed to have done a bad job - regardless if said students are English Second Language students or have special needs that might interfere with test taking. Furthermore, since teachers' jobs are tied to the results of these tests, they wind up teaching to the test. Any time spent covering items that won't appear on the test is time spent risking your job.

Of course, the whole testing system is designed to punish public school teachers and push business-owned, for-profit, publicly financed charter schools (which all too often don't require a background in education to teach), but that's a different rant.

(I have two kids in elementary school dealing with the whole Common Core/EngageNY/high stakes testing nonsense so I know first-hand what this is doing to our kids and teachers.)

Re:oh boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738079)

Measuring teacher performance is an extremely difficult thing to do. Grades on standardized tests do not express the ability of a teacher. Even the edge cases are difficult to judge.

Mortgage payoff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737669)

Yes, pay off the mortgage of poor people. The ones that are living paycheck to paycheck. The ones who would start shopping at the Gap and buying iPads if they just had the mortgage paid off. The ones who would lease a new car if they had no mortgage payment. The ones who wouldn't put a single penny into their retirement savings, kids college fund or other investment if they had no mortgage.

The solution to poverty doesn't lie in giving someone money, it lies in education. Teach these poor communities how to manage basic finances, how to not stretch their budgets, how to avoid having kids before entering the work force or finishing school, and you will solve many of the problems. You'll never solve all of them, but it will take care of the majority.

Re:oh boy... (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 4 months ago | (#45737725)

Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

And you know, curing polio, fighting AIDS, TB and malaria, etc.

Lets not leave out the the stuff that saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

Re:oh boy... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#45737771)

Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

Uhm, no. He has done some tinkering with that in the US, and has been slammed for it here--rightly, in my opinion. But his real focus has been fighting disease in the 3rd world--childhood vaccinations and anti-malaria efforts, and those are hugely worthy efforts.

Re:oh boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737791)

Bill Gates, I think somewhere in his brain he wants to be altruistic for some philosophical reason, but his charity really just pumps M$ products and tries to make teachers be paid by performance.

Yes, absolutely no good has come from the money spent and work done by the Gates Foundation. He's just giving all those kids with malaria Windows Surface tablets to get them hooked on his platform.

I'd rather we deal with problems in Oakland by figuring out how such problems came to be and fix the root cause. I suppose you're probably right though, it's better to just treat each symptom and not the systemic issues.

Re:so he gave (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#45737457)

Private charities come in two variants.

The first are a thin veil for a tax dodge. Set up a charity, pay yourself fat fees, transfer wealth capital gains free while retaining voting rights, give cash to the local opera and get sweet exclusive access, make sure the back 40 acres of your house remains undeveloped to protect your view and not pay property taxes. It can be useful for social climbing.

The second is that you have a concern and you want to remain hands on. I will point to Bill Gates and Carnegie. Both had very specific view on education and how the charities should be managed.

Both try to sneak in a little good PR. Carnegie has been dead for a long time yet his charities still spread good things about their name. Or Harvard who had one of the better deals in history – donating a few hundred dollars and we still remember his name.

Re:so he gave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737673)

I don't buy calling it a "tax dodge." If he was money greedy the tax is far cheaper than the stock he is parting with. (Tho all the $ figures here are not real until the stock is sold) These Foundations are pretty transparent - more transparent than the companies and individuals that start them. It isn't ideal but a lot of the idiotic transactions you see are a result of messed up IRS regs and not necessarily some evil plan to limit taxes. Such Foundations are under requirements to spend a lot of their wealth on the goals they have set up. It isn't a great system but a necessary one under the tax structure of the United States. The IRS makes it impossible to monetize wealth for the purpose of charity without doing this without sending a large sum of money to DC. If DC cared they would make giving far easier and cheaper, but they are far more concerned with collecting taxes than what is given to charity.

Re:so he gave (5, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#45738137)

I used to work in finance, managing accounts for those "tax dodge" charities. It's pretty clear you don't actually know how they work.

You're right on the surface, of course... as long as you control your own foundation, you have control over those voting rights and the development of that lot. The devil's in the details, though. You don't have control as you, but as an agent of the foundation. That means that the donated assets are not a part of your own estate, and you personally don't own them any more. You can't transfer money back to yourself (as those "fat fees" run afoul of the charity's tax-free status), you can't build a vineyard on those 40 acres, and you can't pass on the charity to your heirs.

Those foundations are their own entities, and they must be managed separately. It's actually pretty hard to use them for your own financial gain. You can, however, use them to improve your standing in the community, but you don't really need money for that [wikipedia.org].

Re:so he gave (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 4 months ago | (#45738317)

Those two at least do some good work.

If you're into crushing competition through litigation and signing trade agreements that screw up your entire economy, sure.

Re:so he gave (2)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 4 months ago | (#45737257)

best way to avoid tax

Re:so he gave (2, Interesting)

Pope (17780) | about 4 months ago | (#45737381)

Correct. Gates has one of the biggest tax dodges in history.

Re:so he gave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737703)

How is giving stock avoiding taxes? Giving away a billion dollars in stock is far more wealth than if he sold the stock and paid the taxes on it. I hate to break this to people but the super rich are not nearly as worried about taxes as you think they are.

Re:so he gave (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#45738043)

How is giving stock avoiding taxes? Giving away a billion dollars in stock is far more wealth than if he sold the stock and paid the taxes on it. I hate to break this to people but the super rich are not nearly as worried about taxes as you think they are.

Giving stock is avoiding taxes because you avoid the capital gains, and the loss/transfer can be counted against REAL wealth.

You see, stock is actually pretty much worthless when it comes to conversion to every day uses. Its value has no stability, and you can rarely use it to directly purchase things you actually need/want. At the end of the day, stock is just the ability to have a certain percentage of say in how a corporation is run. People speculate on these voting shares, with some people willing to purchase this voting capital in a company not because they're interested in the direction of the company, but because they anticipate someone else might be willing to buy it off of them for a higher price. The last price people are willing to pay to trade these shares is what we usually refer to as "stock value".

If you give all these shares to another entity, you get tax benefits as if all of the shares are worth that value. HOWEVER, if you sold those same shares on the open market, you'd not get that value for every share. As you dumped the shares, the first few would go for around the current valuation, but the more you dump on to the open market, the less demand there is for new shares, and the overall stock value drops. This is how pump and dump stock scams work: you take a stock with a low value, get people speculating on it, pump up the value, and then dump your cheap stock at the high value until it deflates back to the original purchase price. Rinse, repeat.

As a result, you get someone like Zuckerberg transferring almost $1billion of his stock to his charity, sheltering it from taxation while at the same time giving him a HUGE tax break similar to if he had donated his personal wealth to the charity -- and that stock would be worth nowhere near that much if he had instead sold it on the open market and donated the money to the same charity.

This is one of the reasons that the super rich aren't worried about taxes -- they have enough of these sorts of tax dodges to work with that they have no need to worry.

Re:so he gave (5, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#45737509)

Horrible way to avoid paying taxes.

If MZ sold his stock he would keep 72%. Assuming his cost basis was $0 and a tax rate of 28%

By giving his stock away he keeps 0%. I mean, yes, you do stick it to the man by not paying taxes but you would have the same effect if you burned large piles of money.

MZ probably has other motives for giving his money away then avoiding paying taxes.

Re:so he gave (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#45737749)

You're not operating under the assumption that all rich people are evil and incapable of doing anything without personal gain. Most of the people in this thread are.

Assumptions (0)

bagofbeans (567926) | about 4 months ago | (#45737973)

Actually most of the people were presuming MZ is evil and incapable of doing anything without personal gain, rather than most rich people.

Yes, that's unfair. However, since MZ controls FB with his >50% holding, he is personally responsible for the continual bait-and-switch privacy behaviors at FB which no-one can claim is nice. Note also that most of this pattern occurred before FB had a 'fiscal duty to its shareholders'.

So it's not unreasonable to ask for a higher level of evidence before believing that BG or MZ are behaving altruistically.

Re:so he gave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737297)

Yes. As charitable deductions change radically in next years tax laws. He is basically protecting his wealth by putting it somewhere he thinks he might use it for in the future...

Re:so he gave (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#45737615)

I am still thinking of Creating the MFM foundation. (Money for Me) It is a good cause, I will use your money to give myself a better life and such improvements will help my local economy.

I'm glad to see your private info put to good use. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737243)

Aren't you?

STOP DROPPING ME IN BETA AT RANDOM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737305)

Stop dropping me in beta at random

Re:STOP DROPPING ME IN BETA AT RANDOM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737403)

this, a million times this. beta is DISGUSTING

OK Bill, Your Move (-1, Troll)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#45737327)

Let's see if Gates can outdo this. So far Bill's "philanthropy" has been a joke.

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737373)

Let's see if Gates can outdo this. So far Bill's "philanthropy" has been a joke.

Oh? Do tell..

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (4, Funny)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 4 months ago | (#45737547)

Usually the complain is that they give away MS software licenses. The conspiracy there being that they'll be hooked and once they move beyond soul crushing poverty they'll pay for the software. And that's disgusting when he should be giving out free IBM and RedHat contracts so that those vendors will be contractors when the children stop having to eat dirt to keep the hunger pangs away. The other big complaint I've seen is that they've invested in a refinery or something. As we all know, oil companies are evil and the last thing Africa needs is more local industry.

Basically, the problem is that he's Bill Gates, and that's a bad thing. Every dollar M$ made is tainted blood money. They made Dell pay a site license for Windows installation! Have you forgotten the burned villages of the Browser Wars? Remember that time they sent anthrax to that Linux User's Group? We are all victims. No amount of malaria vaccinations and AIDS research and all that other shit could ever atone for such depraved crimes.

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737991)

We are all victims. No amount of malaria vaccinations and AIDS research and all that other shit could ever atone for such depraved crimes.

Given the sarcastic tone of your post, I take it you were confounded when you read about Nazi scientists being tried for crimes against humanity...

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737499)

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that Bill Gates' legitimate philanthropic efforts vastly dwarfs yours but, hey, feel free to describe his as a joke.

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#45737571)

I'm willing to bet they vastly dwarf most people even if you adjust it for their net worth or earnings or what have you. He's done some incredible charitable work. He got a tax benefit just like everyone else who donates.

Re:OK Bill, Your Move (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 4 months ago | (#45737989)

Well when you hit that level, I suspect simply accounting for cost of living rather than net worth is more accurate.

stocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737361)

in a bubble-soon-to-burst web site?

at least the poor can crumple up the stock certificates and burn them for heat this winter. gee, thanks, mark.

Re:stocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737375)

Beats having to wipe my ass with the three seashells, that's for sure.

Charity (2, Insightful)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45737377)

Hell, say what you will about Shumckaberg, but it looks like this was a good move. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation does good work as far as I can tell. It's not like he's investing back into technology or anything else that will do him any direct good - again, as far as I can tell.

Re:Charity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737545)

Shumckaberg

What emotion did you experience after coming up with that gem?
Pride?

Re:Charity (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45738145)

I [rolls blinking eyes] call him that affectionately. He's taken his great human insight and directed it toward creating an interface that enables real people do become virtual people, by taking advantage of a basic human trait - as you call it, "pride". It's with this pride that people are disconnecting themselves from the real world, in order to appear to others - again, in a virtual way - to be social and complete. With Smuckaberg's ambition and insight, he could have done a lot of good for humanity, but instead he takes advantage of people using his site and selling their data to the corporate demons (for his own benefit), and in the end that data is used against all of humanity in ways that most people cannot ...connect the dots. Some may say that he's done humanity a favor, but I can't see how, maybe you know.

I didn't come up with the name (maybe the spelling), I just think it fits along with my definition of "shmuck". I generally base my pride on things that I do in the real world, and not because of things I type into Slashdot's interface.

I suppose that you post as AC because... pride?

Re:Charity (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about 4 months ago | (#45738019)

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation does good work as far as I can tell.

What, pray tell? They're not directly a charity, but an investment firm with charities as clients. In other words, someone else gives the money; someone else does the actual charity work. They just sit in the middle, getting to wield billions of dollars of dollars of other people's money for investments that bolster billionaires' agendas (while claiming the credit for other people's charity).

Damn Greedy One-Percenters! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737383)

That's what I hate about those greedy rich people. Always giving their money away to charity, endowing the arts and building sports facilities for all to enjoy. Who the hell do they think they are?

Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738077)

You probably think you're clever but if you took the time to crack open even one history book, you would see that the common theme amongst those with an inordinate amount of wealth and/or power is that their "altruistic" actions are later shown to be heavily calculated to appear altruistic whilst in reality being entirely self-serving.

Class warrior alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738155)

If a wealthy individual gives away $1 million to a charity, what do their motives matter?

Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 months ago | (#45738247)

There was a great op-ed piece in the paper the other day about how self-serving these tax-deductible "charitable" donations end up being.

A lot of them end up being donations to private schools that principally benefit their own children (easing "legacy" admissions to private colleges) or the other children of other plutocrats.

There's even criticism of donations to arts groups. While on the surface, I like the idea of keeping the performing arts groups going, it doesn't really benefit anyone who isn't buying $100 tickets to the Opera or Ballet. Museum donations are less vulnerable to this kind of criticism because the admission is low (ie, there's a low barrier to enjoying the value of the institution). But overall you can say these kinds of donations really are about enhancing the plutocracy's cultural cachet and social standing. They don't really improve social welfare for poor people.

And I don't remember the plutocracy building any free sports stadiums. There's a near universal habit of extorting local governments into paying for professional sports stadiums outright or covering all the costs that "seat licenses" and "naming rights" don't cover.

When the plutocracy starts building housing, providing direct subsidies for medical care, free food and direct cash donations to urban school districts it'll be a lot easier to see them as being driven by actual altruism.

Re:Damn Greedy One-Percenters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45738287)

The problem isn't the 1%ers who do things like this. The problem is all the rest of the 1%ers and 5%ers and 10%ers and such who have no intention of doing something like this. I hear echoes of trickle-down in your sentiment.

Trickle-down is a fanciful idea. Some wealthy individuals who even choose to remain anonymous are sending kids to college here who attend the local schools.

However, wouldn't it be better if the parents of those children were able to send their kids to college themselves instead of relying on handouts?

Or if the kids could send themselves to college just by working a job, no loans, no debt.

Which world do you want? Do you want the one where we're dependent on handouts from anonymous multi-millionaires because that's somehow better than being dependent on government handouts? Do you want the other one where any kid can make enough money to support himself and get through college without incurring massive debts while working?

Let's not even think about post-scarcity fantasies. This is our choice here and now.

Silicon Valley Community Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737401)

That this exists is easily more hilarious than anything he's ever said about FWD.us or Code.org. What community exists in Silicon Valley?

Not a charity (5, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about 4 months ago | (#45737411)

Check the "Silicon Valley Community Foundation" web page, and you'll see it's not a charity --- it's a big-money investment firm that manages accounts for other big-money charities. This is part of the move to make "charity" a highly profitable enterprise for big business; ways to shuffle around tax-sheltered billions invested in scummy megacorporations.

Re:Not a charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737581)

Nothing to see here, just Billionaires shuffling money around. Giving their family members a guaranteed job in the dynasty.

Re:Not a charity (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45738199)

Look around, there's a middle-man in almost all organizations these days. I guess things evolved that way for a reason, maybe it's a good thing in ways, and a bad thing in other ways. But to criticize it simply for being a middle-man... come on. Surely some good will become of it (this "giving" by Zuckerberg) , even if it's just 1 person that gets fed in the end. Otherwise this whole article is troll.

Re:Not a charity (3, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about 4 months ago | (#45738349)

The insertion of middlemen (carrying out the will of billionaires) is common, but that doesn't make it good or charitable to be a self-serving corporatist middleman, wielding dollars for the glorification and enrichment of billionaires. I'm sure there's at least one person getting "fed" at the end of this process: Zuckerberg. Probably several cronies and nephews of cronies handed out six-figure-salary part-time jobs high in the organization, too. Giving money to yourself to further your own interests: not charity, even if you insinuate yourself as a middleman for other nominally charitable institutions (using their funds to further the interests of your own stock portfolio). Making the world a safer, friendlier place for the Zuckerbergs to control every aspect of society is not a net win for humanity.

Pay less taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737487)

then compete with the public school teaching system

That wasn't his pocket change (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45737489)

It was his pocket lint. His pocket change is much more.

Re:That wasn't his pocket change (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#45737803)

This donation is 5% of his net worth. That's a lot more than pocket change. I'll bet you have never donated 5% of your net worth.

Can we please just let people do good things without being cynical assholes about it?

Re:That wasn't his pocket change (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#45738001)

I'm too busy using 5% of my net worth to pay for things like food, clothing, my mortgage, gas, insurance, etc. Along with the other 95% of my net worth.

CryptoLocker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737495)

I was somehow expecting a link to an article about CryptoLocker here...

Shark landing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737503)

Is this cashing out of Facebook an indication of endtimes for Facebook?

Uhm no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737661)

Seeing as he cashed out only 2.7% of his earnings, my best guess is no.

All BS.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737521)

If he wants to donate to a charity, make it real\good ones, NOT his own. Plenty of charities that have been around for years and are known to be valid.

Left pocket to right pocket (2)

grumpyman (849537) | about 4 months ago | (#45737525)

Similar to other $B folks it goes to their own foundation so they can still control that money to drive whatever cause they wish. In this case it sounds like they just print more share for it..? Or FB as a whole provide that share... i.e. all FB shareholders chip it for Mr. Zuckerberg to play?

Shares? (1)

zifn4b (1040588) | about 4 months ago | (#45737527)

Why not just cash out some shares and donate the money to various charities? Is there some advantage for charities to actually hold the shares of Facebook?

Re:Shares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737715)

Why not just cash out some shares and donate the money to various charities? Is there some advantage for charities to actually hold the shares of Facebook?

As noted elsewhere... he is donating the shares to his own charities. Presumably, this means he will remain in full control of the voting rights that way. Also, I assume selling the shares would have created some kind of taxable event.

Re: Shares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737717)

Taxes: the nonprofit organization can cash them out tax free, where he would have to pay taxes and (presumably) donate less.

Ah, like IKEA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737563)

Next he'll incorporate in the Netherlands and start a "charity" dedicated to "preserving social networks" or whatever and funnel everything through that?

damn right they'll sell them (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#45737579)

What a crap gift, lol. Facebook stocks have a 100% chance of going down the toilet in the next 5 years. I'm not surprised it said they'll sell them off immediately...although telling people that will drop the price ahead of time.

It doesn't change the fact... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45737695)

...that zuckerberg is a scummy shitbag who heads a project designed to fuck you over. Zuckerberg makes gates in his prime look like a saint.

Hope they sell them fast (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45737849)

The likelihood of the facebook stocks not tanking soon is pretty well near zero. They still don't have a meaningful long-term business plan that leads to profit and a product with long-term potential. The marketing potential of peoples' wall updates is limited.

You mean, Zuck gets up to an 85% tax break? Cool. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#45737911)

I once considered setting up a 501(c)3 so my distributed gamedev platform project could accept donations, but I decided against it (the world's governments are not ready for citizens to have a communal OS, yet). If you're a charity you can allocate most of the donations as administration fees and a small fraction for the actual charity work. "Nonprofit" is the biggest misnomer I've ever seen, 501(c)3's are some of the most profitable business models I've encountered, apart from artificial information scarcity rackets in the patent and copyright futures market -- charities are far more stable than these.

I've done work with a fun-run for teens nil-profit, and they actually don't take admin fees, don't pay the doctors, judges, nutritionists, etc. speakers that come to educate kids about the real world after running out their rambunction, and use all their donations to buy tee-shirts and banners, fliers, news-ads, web hosting, and stuff they give to the kids. So, it's not impossible to run a charity that gives 100% of the donations to the charity, but it's also not impossible to run a charity that's basically a huge tax write off where you re-absorb most of the money in admin fees.

MZ is Worth, whatever he says he is worth. (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#45737949)

So if $1 billion is worth 3%, than that means:
Facebook is apparently worth $34 Billion.
$20 Billion of that being Enron's, I mean Mark's, personal fortune.

Convince one rube, you might make $50 bucks.
Convince a thousand, you might make a living.
Convince everyone, and you can make whatever you say that you do.

Is it charity if it's a deduction? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 4 months ago | (#45737979)

I'd like to see how the donation is reported. I guess it's good that these guys donate so much to charity, but the tax code makes it a no-brainer; financially and for PR.

Better here than political (3, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#45738129)

There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller [rockefelle...dation.org], Ford [fordfoundation.org], now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner [borgenproject.org] donating $1B to the UN.

I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations [opensecrets.org] like George Soros.

Re:Better here than political (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45738235)

I wish I had mod points for you. Although this may not be a lot of money for the Mark Zuckerberg, in the end it'll do more good for those in need, than they'd have gotten had he done nothing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...