Posted on 12/04/2015 7:37:06 AM PST by rktman
Two days after announcing plans to donate $45 billion over time to his family foundation, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded to criticism about his philanthropic ambitions.
In a Facebook post on Thursday, he pushed back against accusations that he had structured his foundation, not so much as a charity, but as a vehicle for evading taxes and making financially motivated investments under the guise of doing good.
Zuckerberg created the foundation as a limited liability corporation instead of a traditional foundation. He said that he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, would fund it with 99% of his wealth, made from a huge stake in the social network he co-founded.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
What’s the adage? “Follow the money”.
Where’s his “generosity” going?
I see clever politics as his motive...along with profit.
I believe their “mission statement” says something about a “wide range of goals and initiatives”. Pretty definitive huh. Probably some will go to glow-bull climate research, some more to nannie bloomers little band of anti-gun momunists. You know, important stuff like that.
Ah, the old family foundation angle. He gets to shelter his wealth tax free and channel the donations in a way that keeps it in his pocket. And in a way that makes him look like a great philanthropist.
Not sure about Suckerberg but Ted Turner pulled a smoke and mirrors philanthropic giveaway decades ago.
The media was Ted Turner 24X7 with his announcement to gift $1 Billion to the UN. He was actually socking some cash away with the expectations of a billion dollar return on the principle.
Phonies, all of them.
If an individual somehow manages to beat the system enough to amass and control a 45 billion dollar fortune, the men with a legal monopoly on the use of force will always find some way to take it from him. Charitable contributions - however misspent - at least allow the individual some control over how his fortune will be disposed of.
The government should not use the tax code to reward people for doing whatever makes them feel good with their capital instead of investing it.
“Taxes are killing me!”
“Well, start a foundation!”
“Giveaway” implies giving something away.
Could be his association with the absurdly named ‘Americans for a Conservative Direction’ which pushed illegal alien amnesty a couple of years back.
That’s baloney......Zuckerberg is a tax dodger .....so rather than contribute his share he likes to glory in the charitable donations he hands out to...which btw are often are funneled thru corporations he’s invested in or owns. It’s a triple hitter for Zuckerberg.
Hey, it’s his money, if he wants to waste it, who am I to stop him? I’ll try to stop him only if he wastes MY money.
There is a LOOOOOOOONG list of things one can criticize Mark Zuckerberg for. This does not look like one of them.
“That’s baloney......Zuckerberg is a tax dodger .....so rather than contribute his share he likes to glory in the charitable donations he hands out to...which btw are often are funneled thru corporations he’s invested in or owns. It’s a triple hitter for Zuckerberg.”
1. LEGAL
2. HIS MONEY
3. THERE ISN’T “his share” of taxes.
4. CONSERVATIVE
I support his right to legally structure his affairs in whatever way he pleases
Again....dodging tax’s is well known and practiced among the top levels of income......I do not support the tax evasion loopholes.
So he's taking money out of his left pocket and putting it into his right pocket. Some "giveaway." Same greasy hypocrite.
Structuring your affairs to legally pay the smallest amount is supported at the Supreme Court level and is not “dodging”.
Do you pay more than you are legally required to pay?
That is liberal talk.
#4 Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)
#5 Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion
John Rockefeller was a prime example of how philanthropy could be used to commit the most heinous atrocities against society. Where do you think all the money came from to destroy medical colleges for blacks and women? To spread Eugenics? To destroy American education? This hideous legacy continues with the billions donated to cultural destruction by Soros, Gates, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.