The tax-avoiding Facebook mogul and an act of charity that reeks of hypocrisy

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 12/2/2015 | Ian Birrell

[rktman]

Once, it was enough to put a notice in the newspaper when your child was born. But Mark Zuckerberg, the multi-billionaire founder of Facebook, likes to do things differently.

So he welcomed his newborn daughter, Max, into the world with an open letter on his social media site, in which he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, pledged to donate almost all their £30 billion fortune to charity during their lives.

The happy couple talked rather smugly about how their first child gave them cause to reflect on the future, saying they were inspired by their desire to build a better world and because they have a ‘moral responsibility to all children in the next generation’.

[rktman]

LOL! Must be those nifty tax law loopholes that a lot of the uber rich use to their advantage. How come the lib occupiers ain't bitchin' about these types of assclowns? But hey, at least their 'foundation' has a "wide range of goals". DailyMail, you nailed this one.

[skeeter]

Until Zuckerberg personally suffers financially as a result of his charity - perhaps has to move into a track home, or is forced to go camping instead of traveling the Europe first class, or eat TV dinners - I’ll consider him the noxious, sanctimonious slug he is.

[4rcane]

The Uber rich create a charity in which THEY CONTROL and by law they only need to give out 10% from the charity per year. Which means their tax rate is basically 10%. They’re like a mini government deciding how to spend this 10% to buy favors

[QBFimi]

“Fair share”, huh? Sounds familiar.

Rockefeller a scumbag? Oh, really?

[Timpanagos1]

No much of a tax dodge when one gives away 99.5% of their stock holdings. If he were to sell 99.5% if his FB stock, he would only pay the Capital Gains tax abs that would be far under 99.5%.

[rktman]

LOL! I have no doubt that he and chan will do just fine. Kinda like the clinton crime, er, glow-bull initiative provides them with beacoup $$$$$$ to go about their meager daily activities. Oh, and scupper lip too. As an aside, how come Americas favorite granny hasn’t posed with the grandkid yet?

[4rcane]

would love to see a law passed where any charity giving must not be given to anyone related to yourself, a worker, or be controlled by anyone in your family. Watch them all revolt

[rktman]

Warren buffet? LOL!

[jpl]

Yep. Clintonian “charity”.

[Timpanagos1]

“The Uber rich create a charity in which THEY CONTROL”

It’s their money, why do you have a problem with their controlling it?

[kingu]

Aww, the whambalance being dispatched from the UK about a US company not paying enough UK taxes, pointing out that Facebook (UK) paid less tax than the average worker, while pointing out that their UK workers were highly paid (and thus each paid more in taxes than Facebook did.)

Then a rant about individuals not giving all their taxed income to the government and yet daring to give it away privately.

Then more rants about companies not giving even more money to the government.

Brought a smile to my face, love it when liberals eat their own.

[4rcane]

Who controls the charity? Since charities don’t pay taxes, he’s essentially giving it to himself in which he control. Its like moving it from left pocket (taxes) to the right pocket (no taxes)

[rktman]

Kinda weird how so many libs whine about taxes but, there’s nothing out there that says they can’t attach an extra million or two to the IRS with a note saying “To help pay down our national debt”. Pony up guys and gals. Or don’t you actually care.

[4rcane]

I don’t have a problem with it. I just have a problem with hypocrisy. Liberal railing about how ppl need to pay their fair share while those who earn the most avoid paying their fair share. The loudest mouth is the biggest hypocrite

[Timpanagos1]

“would love to see a law passed where any charity giving must not be given to anyone related to yourself, a worker, or be controlled by anyone in your family.”

Why do you want the federal government to pass laws that dictate how citizens can use their money for donations?

Are there any other dictatorial financial edicts you would like to see forced on the upper class?

[Timpanagos1]

“I don’t have a problem with it.”

You have no problem with it, except a disire to pass more federal laws?

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Gates, Zuckerberg and the King of the Billionaire Hypocrites, Warren Buffett. They all minimize their taxes. Many of the tactics they use are legal, some are shady like transferring profit to low tax jurisdictions. Minimizing taxes is fine with me. But they disgust me when they then turn around and moan about how the government needs to spend more, or let more illegals in to live off of Welfare paid for by the US taxpayer, or moan about how taxes should be increased.

And this BS about giving away his fortune over his lifetime is complete BS. He is going to live the life of a billionaire. His kids are going to live the life of a billionaire’s kids. None of them are going to suffer one bit over this promise.

[smokingfrog]

All too often, the rich will use their wealth to set up a non-profit they can use for political purposes and not for true charity. They will claim to be non-partisan and just trying to focus on public policy issues, but it’s just a ruse.

[Buckeye McFrog]

translation: How DARE you give your money away to the needy! It’s our job here at Government House to TAKE your money away from you, determine WHO the needy are, and give it to THEM!

Don’t ever try and short-circuit us out of the process again!

[rktman]

LOL! Yeah, but you and me? We need to adjust our thermostats to help save the erf. Them, not so much. Still searching for the thermostat on the wood stove.