Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Facebook The Almighty Buck

Zuckerberg Answers Critics of His Move To Give Away His Facebook Stock (facebook.com) 174

An anonymous reader writes: Mark Zuckerberg's announcement that he and his wife are giving away $45 billion worth of Facebook stock garnered a lot of praise and a fair bit of criticism. The Facebook CEO answered some of the apprehension in a post that reads in part: "By using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively. Just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Answers Critics of His Move To Give Away His Facebook Stock

Comments Filter:
  • It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.

    • by slew ( 2918 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @01:29AM (#51071137)

      It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.

      It is not *onerous* to run a legal non-profit (e.g., "real" charity). The provisions in the law Mr. Z. probably doesn't like about legal charities is that they aren't allowed to *hoard* money and must spend most of their annual income on charitable pursuits every year (a $1B will throw off a bunch of imputed income at a minimum that will need to be distributed). If you want to *hoard* your money or not spend all of it on charitable pursuits, you might consider the legal provisions *onerous* and want an LLC.

      In contrast, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an actual legal charity. What Mr. Z is doing is similar to a trust (e.g., the kind of legal structure that directs how your inheritance is distributed after you die). There's no requirement that a trust spend the money charitably (you may have heard of trials and tribulations of many trustfund babies) and there is no requirement to disclose how it is distributed.

      I'll give Mr. Z the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't want a non-profit because he has no idea what charitable cause to spend his money on yet (he had so much luck with NJ schools donation) and doesn't want to be forced to spend the money right away until his has time to figure it out. On the other hand he could have just said that, so maybe he has an ulterior motive.

      FWIW, as I recall being forced to distribute the imputed income annually was an issue with Warren Buffet donating his money to the B&M Gates foundation. He conditioned his donation on Mr Gates stepping down from MSFT and operating his foundation full time rather than leave it to foundation employees (and likely be pissed away).

    • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @11:56AM (#51073095)

      It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.

      Money that cares about accomplishing something can bloody well pay its taxes for it, whether someone thinks its cause is just or not. The whole concept of tax exemption is just asking for tax evasion, which in turn will of course result in regulation. The same goes for religious exemptions.

      • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        The same goes for religious exemptions.

        Except the "religious exemptions" is there as part of the separation of church and state. If the state can tax the church then there is no longer any separation.

        • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          Except the "religious exemptions" is there as part of the separation of church and state. If the state can tax the church then there is no longer any separation.

          Were that the case, the religious exemption would be a LOT easier to apply for and get. Also, amusingly, the religious tax exemption probably falls afoul of Jesus' own directive to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (not to say that ONLY christian organizations benefit here, but they're arguably the biggest beneficiaries in the US).

  • who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @06:19PM (#51069267) Homepage
    its his money its his right to do what he wants with it.

    if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right. I dont get why people care what others do with their own money
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Seriously? He announced he was giving this money away in a clear attempt to generate good will for himself and/or Facebook.

      He wants people to care otherwise he wouldn't announce it. If he wants to announce it though he must accept it being scrutinized.

      Of course it doesn't matter if he's trying to dodge taxes, no one that uses Facebook is giving it up any time soon. He could be selling aids tainted blood and he'd still be in business.

      • Seriously? He announced he was giving this money away in a clear attempt to generate good will for himself and/or Facebook.

        Why are you so upset about that? Who cares.

        • Re: who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Why are you so upset about that? Who cares.

          Zuck tried to make a fool of everyone. And, judging by your response, he at least in part succeeded.

        • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @06:56PM (#51069463)
          Some people still think dishonesty is a bad thing. I know a lot of people think if it's legal it should be allowed, but I personally don't like to see anyone being dishonest.
      • If he did it and didn't announce it I bet you would be one of the first ones making statements like "Why didn't he announce it? What is he trying to hide? What is he really going to use the money for?" There is a difference between scrutiny and conspiracy theory.

    • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @06:40PM (#51069413)

      its his money its his right to do what he wants with it.

        if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right. I dont get why people care what others do with their own money

      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. 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. We don't generally call these types of activities 'charity.'

      Contrary to what Zuckerberg claims, the creation of his LLC means he will probably pay no taxes on his $45 Billion.

      He can do what he wants. No argument there. The problem is, he's being dishonest about what he's doing and why he's doing it.

      • We don't generally call these types of activities 'charity.'

        I think he should spend his fortune on coke and hookers.

        Then he could claim that he was supporting farmers in Bolivia and self-employed women.

      • He can do what he wants. No argument there. The problem is, he's being dishonest about what he's doing and why he's doing it.

        And what do you think his true motives are?

        • Put on your imagination cap for about 5 seconds and you can probably come up with the answer.

          I hate when people go into a conversation and feign lack of insight and intuition.
          • Put on your imagination cap for about 5 seconds and you can probably come up with the answer.

            I hate when people go into a conversation and feign lack of insight and intuition.

            Ok, lets play and look at potential motives.

            He's gonna pull the money out at some point or otherwise use it for his own personal gain?

            Well no, that would just be a stupid idea since he'd look absolutely terrible backtracking on his donation idea.

            He's trying to set up some easy job for his daughter in running the foundation?

            Surely there's easier ways to set his daughter up with an easy job.

            He's trying to fund projects or politics for his own personal gain?

            There's no gain he could expect that will outweigh $4

      • i guess id prefer him to come out and say

        taxes are too high so im going out of my way to pay the least i legally have to pay, as should everyone"
        • Yep. Nobody is surprised that he is dodging taxes, that is not what this is about. People are upset that he is dodging taxes, that is part of what this is about. The rest is the lying about it, which is also not surprising, but still offensive.

      • by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

        "Contrary to what Zuckerberg claims, the creation of his LLC means he will probably pay no taxes on his $45 Billion."

        Good for him. The government has already taxed him billions of dollars on the money he has earned. If he can keep it out of the government's hands and direct it to where he things it will have the most effect then more power to him. That's his right. It's his money.

        You and people like you are just jealous. Grow up, earn your own billions and do what you want with them.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I have come to think of the libertarian as the agonisingly keen but dull kid who runs sneaks of a remedial class into regular lessons, and almost fits in. Then he spoils it all by opening his mouth, coming out with the crudest first approximation to a useful response that misunderstands both the general situation and the specific context.

      I blame No Child Left Behind for its refusal to recognise that some people are slower than others and not everyone can be congratulated for equal achievement.

      In your case,

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      the reason people care is that we see an endless sucking-away of OUR cash (that should be used to better ALL our lives, not just a few .1%-ers) without any use for society.

      lets not forget, without society and US, he would never have gotton where he is. he owes us, as does every fucking rich asshole out there who thinks that 'his' money is 100% his and he owes nothing back to the society that enabled him.

      the US infrastructure is in shambles. we have no taxes collected from rich folks or rich companies anym

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by ganjadude ( 952775 )
        he owes us?

        please tell me what he owes us. I may not be fond of the man but how does a man who gives people a service for free owe us anything???
        • " but how does a man who gives people a service for free owe us anything"

          Wait. We were talking about Zuckerberg, and all of a sudden you start talking about someone else? (Hint: Facebook is not a free service given to the people, so you cannot possibly be talking about Schmuckerberg in that sentence)

      • because the republicans continue to allow rich folks to skirt the tax laws.

        I think you have a typo there. It should read because the "politicians" continue to allow "their donors" to skirt the tax laws.

        Strange keyboard layout that would permit that typo...

      • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KGIII ( 973947 ) <uninvolved@outlook.com> on Monday December 07, 2015 @05:31AM (#51071695) Journal

        You know, it's comments like yours that make me think about no longer donating and no longer do the right thing. I do the right thing, no because I have to but because it is the right thing to do. I don't owe you anything - except taxes, which I pay in full, to slightly more than is dictated as dictated by law and I pay someone pretty good money to ensure that every single tax is paid.

        Yet, rough guess, I probably donated between 15 and 40 times your yearly income last year and wrote very little of it off because I'm kind of lazy like that and I prefer to make anonymous donations so that I'm not plagued by folks looking to have me support their various causes by intruding on my tranquility.

        I don't owe you shit. Every single penny I have was earned legally and without any ethical concerns. I've paid every single obligation, ever. I owe nothing to anyone even if you facilitated my accumulation of wealth. You have no right to it. If you didn't want to then you shouldn't have helped. We've set up society to act like this. My obligation, what I owe, is in the form of taxation and that is paid in full, on time, and rounded to the highest dollar value (for State and Federal taxes).

        I give because I want to. I give because I think I'm obligated to do so. I give because I can. I don't *have* to. I just feel like I have to. I don't owe you a damned thing. I don't have nearly as much accumulated wealth as this person but they don't owe you a damned thing beyond their mandated taxes. And before you chirp about taxes, tax avoidance is legal - some might even say ethical. The contract is clear - it is taxes. I pay every single obligated cent. I owe nothing beyond that in any sense of the word. I feel like I do but I am not.

        Just because you lack the means to help others does not mean that someone else is obligated to do it in your stead. You do not have a right to my property. You do not have a right to dictate what I spent my money on other than taxes and, err, illegal goods and maybe a few things that I'm skipping. But no, you don't have a right to my money just as I don't have a right to yours. You are far more wealthy than the a very sizable number of others. Start by giving away your wealth but don't think you've got a right to mine. I share because I want to, not because I'm forced to. Pray I don't alter the deal any further.

    • It's not charity, plain and simple. It's one big tax cheat that needs to DIAF.

      The reason why it matters to the Rest of Us, is their outsize influence in government policy - such as anti-citizen immigration policy and social justice initiatives.

    • I dont get why people care what others do with their own money

      Because it's a threat. The pattern of behaviours, relationships, and values - in short the system - known as capitalism is ultimately just one option amongst many. A highly visible and succesful capitalist - a role model for peons to look up to and dream of being - doing anything that could be interpreted as going against its values risks reminding people of that fact. And that, in turn, risks another wave of disobedience and rebellion, just lik

    • It's his money and he can. However, when it comes to things like tax dodges (something this type of setup is often used for, e.g. estate taxes) etc then it affects more than just him. Also, if somebody is going to do something like this and air the "philanthropic" goals for PR, then calling bullshit is fair game.

    • if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right.

      Actually, I think it's technically illegal to destroy money.

      I dont get why people care what others do with their own money

      Well first, money itself is a societal thing. Like, if you live all by yourself on an island, not interacting with the rest of the world, there's not really any such thing as "money". Those little slips of paper are worthless, except maybe as paper. But really, that's just one of the many ways in which "money" belongs to and is part of a society, and not an individual in isolation.

      There's no way to spend billions of dollars that will not have a

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @06:34PM (#51069379)

    From this Dec 3, NY Times article How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself [nytimes.com]:

    (Why an L.L.C.?)
    An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law.

    (Why not a charitable foundation?)
    ... a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg L.L.C. won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

    (Tax implications)
    ... if the L.L.C. sold stock, Mr. Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. If the L.L.C. donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the L.L.C. probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the L.L.C. donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

    All legal. Don't hate the player, hate the game... (or so I'm told)

    • by Copid ( 137416 )
      So if the LLC donates, say, $100M in Facebook stock to a charity, Zuckerberg gives up an asset worth $100M, the charity gets an asset worth $100M, and Zuckerberg writes off $100M because he gave away an asset worth $100M. I'm missing the Crime Against Humanity here.
      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @07:37PM (#51069683)
        is that this is all very likely a smokescreen for his political and lobbying activities. That's why he doesn't just run it as a real charity. Real charities aren't allowed to do the kinds of things Zuckerberg (probably) wants to do. He's going to use this as a very big stick to get things he wants. He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

        The only times I can think of when a Baron genuinely turned to charity are at the end of their lives when a few of them got the fear of God (and more importantly hell) in 'em.
        • is that this is all very likely a smokescreen for his political and lobbying activities. That's why he doesn't just run it as a real charity. Real charities aren't allowed to do the kinds of things Zuckerberg (probably) wants to do. He's going to use this as a very big stick to get things he wants. He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

          The only times I can think of when a Baron genuinely turned to charity are at the end of their lives when a few of them got the fear of God (and more importantly hell) in 'em.

          I find the idea he's doing this primarily for tax purposes to be dumb, you don't give away $45 billion out of greed.

          As for the claim "He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart" that's also completely unsubstantiated, and is contradicted by the pledge of giving away $45 billion.

          Far more likely he is doing this out of genuine altruism. But he doesn't want to do a charity because charities, in exchange for tax exemptions, are subject to intense oversight. But with $45 billion Zuckerberg is more conc

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Remember, this is a cash in on stock, it's not real money yet. He's not losing anything by getting rid of it. Just numbers in a database.

            It allows him to divest of the stock without bringing the price down too quickly. If he put up 45B in stock for sale, there'd be a panic as people would ask "Why doesn't he believe in his own company?" FB would die in the arse in weeks.

            Also announced it in the middle of all these other people declaring they'd pop a few million in the climate change fund, which is a classic

            • Remember, this is a cash in on stock, it's not real money yet. He's not losing anything by getting rid of it. Just numbers in a database.

              Numbers worth billions of dollars.

              It allows him to divest of the stock without bringing the price down too quickly.

              Most people divest stock to use the money for their direct benefit, he plans to give it away. I think that's a pretty important difference.

              • Most people divest stock to use the money for their direct benefit, he plans to give it away. I think that's a pretty important difference.

                He plans on swinging the money around in ways that get him what he wants politically.

                And if you look into things like the H1B controversy, it isn't things that a lot of us want, politically.

                • Most people divest stock to use the money for their direct benefit, he plans to give it away. I think that's a pretty important difference.

                  He plans on swinging the money around in ways that get him what he wants politically.

                  And if you look into things like the H1B controversy, it isn't things that a lot of us want, politically.

                  So your theory is he's giving away 99% of his stock so the remaining 1% has a slight increase in value?

                  Not exactly a "diabolical genius" calibre plan if you ask me.

          • you don't give away $45 billion out of greed.

            You do if you're giving it to yourself, which is a reasonable approximation of what's happening here.

        • by Copid ( 137416 )
          I'm looking for the way it's self serving on the net. Right now he has about $45B in Facebook stock. At ordinary income rates, he could walk away with $25B easily. At capital gains rates, he'd walk away with substantially more than that. So now he moves the stock into a place where he can't enjoy the money directly. He uses it to do some sort of self-serving lobbying. Then whatever is left gets donated to charity or used for child murder or whatever.

          OK, maybe he can move some of that money around a
          • by sribe ( 304414 )

            But at the end of the day, it seems like no matter what he does he's going to have a shitton less money than he would have had if he'd just sold the stock and paid the taxes. How does Zuckerberg end up ahead on this deal?

            Ah, see, your mistake is that you're letting math get in the way of prejudice...

      • I'm missing the Crime Against Humanity here.

        I'm not saying there is one... However, by using an LLC, he gets full control over the stock, w/o any charity rules and/or transparency requirements, until the last moment it's disposed of. On the other hand, the line between shrewd and crime can be narrow and gray - ask any Wall Street banker.

    • by MikeKD ( 549924 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @07:36PM (#51069679) Homepage

      All legal. Don't hate the player, hate the game... (or so I'm told)

      Fuck that--I'll sure as hell hate the player for playing the damn game.

    • All questionable.
        [redacted phrase] (or so I'm told)

      Sometimes you need to make an example of someone, why not start with arrogant tax cheats? Take both the player and the game out to the woodshed, everyone wins!

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @06:48PM (#51069433) Journal

    we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC

    He says that like its a good thing. Honestly I would argue anyone not doing everything they can within the law to optimize their tax situation is doing HARM. The government is only going to use the revenue to kill people on the other side of the world we don't need to be involved with, needlessly spy on us, our friends, and neighbors, and general interfere with the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

    Failing to to minimize your lawful tax burden does not make you some kind of patriot in my book, it makes you part of the problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "I want to pay more taxes because the government can spend the money better than I can"... said no one ever.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DarkTempes ( 822722 )

        Any time you (or an ancestor or a representative you maybe voted for) vote for a tax you are saying that. And it's true.

        There are things as an individual citizen that you can't spend your money to do.
        There are things that government can do that charitable organizations and corporations can't do.
        Thus, for some things, the government can spend the money better than you can.

        That doesn't mean you should want to give the government all of your money but saying that "everything the government does is negative and

        • Thus the "more" qualifier... at the current tax rates, everything is running reasonably well. Unless there's some sort of good faith effort by the government to cut unnecessary spending (especially unnecessary federal spending), why should we keep cutting them blank checks? A good example of this tactic actually working is Amtrak - by giving them less subsidy than they asked for, they were able to find better funding sources and cut some fat. Eliminating the subsidy would have killed it outright.

          All th

      • If you have to use exotic accounting to deal with taxes, chances are you're not up to any good.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I'd say that. If we could get the kind of quality of life they have in Nordic countries by paying some more tax then I'd be happy with that. Of course, everyone has to pay more, not just me, and we have to have a sane government.

    • Cheating on taxes like Zuckerberg or Traitor Saverin does not make you some kind of patriot in my book, it makes you part of the problem.

      FTFY

      The more exotic accounting that is required, the less legitimate the tax arrangement.

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        The more exotic accounting that is required, the less legitimate the tax arrangement.

        I have that feeling every time I fill out a 1040EZ. Too much accounting!

        • It doesn't take an accounting major to write out the answers to a 1040EZ.

          On the other hand, it does take one to construct the exotic tax arrangements that have no good worth to exist.

  • what a HUGE pile of spammy crap, i tred it for a few weeks because many friends use it, i can not stand facebook, it is a terrible website, twitter is better, i told my friends if they want to send me a message to call or text or use twitter, fuck facebook that place is awful!!! facebook is fucking awful!!!
    • by gnupun ( 752725 )

      Why go through an LLC? Can't he just sell the stock under his own name when necessary and use the cash for whatever he wants, like a political contribution?

      • Similar reason that Google introduce Alphabet. It is more convenient to start many projects in a company solely designed to do these things than doing under Facebook's name. No need to worry about other share holders' and broad members' disapproval. The new LLC is just a property management company to fulfill Mark and Chan's dreams. And they call the dreams "charity". Maybe It will do real charity, maybe not. I believe one policy that the LLC will lobby heavily on is increasing H1B cap. For Mark, it is cha
      • by vovin ( 12759 )

        Yes in the sense that there is no (actual) tax advantage or legal need for moving the shares from his personal account to the LLC.
        No in the sense that without the LLC and PR hoopla selling a large amount of stock by the Founder/CEO/Majority share holder would shake investor confidence wipe out the valuation of FB stock pretty quickly. Since Zuck already did is 'one-time-huge-sale' at the IPO where he sold $1b of stock he has more than enough personal cash for anything he could reasonably claim as the reason

        • Yes in the sense that there is no (actual) tax advantage or legal need for moving the shares from his personal account to the LLC.

          At this point, it is less about the money (tax benefits) and more about the power and control for Zuckermann.

          .
          The LLC gives him far more power and control than a non-profit would.

          When he gives the money to a non-profit, he loses control of the money, he cannot do anything with it that he wants. Hence he loses power.

          When he gives the money to his LLC, he retains full control over it, retaining his power status.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's like a broken record with you retards. We get it, you are cynical of literally everything because it's an easy way to seem smart.

    Not that there isn't plenty in the world to be cynical about, but Zuckerberg is not going to make money off this and will be donating most of his wealth to charity. Shrug.

    • Then it's simple. Zuckerberg should donate his money to charity.

      This time of year there's a Salvation Army kettle in front of every store. Or there are many other ways he can donate to charity.

      This little game he's playing instead is far from charity.

      Don't fucking try to shame us for pointing it out.

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        This little game he's playing instead is far from charity.

        When you have quite a bit of money, the rules of the game changes considerably. What Zuckerberg is doing by using an LLC as a charitable entity is quite smart.

    • It's like a broken record with you retards.

      Way to make your point, dude.

  • His daughter can speak already?

  • He is donating 99% of his stock over the course of his lifetime. He is only in his 30s right now, and with his wealth we can safely expect him to live at least into his 80s. That is at least 5 decades of donating his stock (to his new company, no less).

    One other thing we can count on is that by the year 2065, his stock will be worth a lot less. Facebook is so absurdly overvalued that even pretending his stocks to be worth $45B today is laughable. Eventually the bottom will fall out, just as it did with MySpace, just as it did with AOL, just as it did with CompuServe. He does have plenty of smart financial types around him to protect him as well as possible but eventually it is going to fall like a stone.

    If you don't believe it is going to fall, go ask some shareholders how facebook makes money, and how much money they think it makes. I will bet the overwhelming majority of them don't have a clue, they just know that "everyone" uses it and they assume it must be worth money as a result.
  • Short of some disinterested party having control, it's nothing more than a tax dodge in need of elimination.

  • While I'm in no way a fan of Facebook, I do applaud Zuckerman's step.

    As for the people "complaining" and looking for excuses, I would wager a bet that almost all of them haven't even considered giving 1% of their income for any public cause (I'm talking about unforced giving, not taxes). They are just trying to find an excuse for their OWN failure to help out others.
    And even IF Zuckerman didn't pay any additional taxes - if what he is planing to do is done like that, and benefits in the way he hopes it does

    • by mishehu ( 712452 )
      Even if Zuck truly only kept 1% of this $45,000,000,000 sum, that leaves him still with $450,000,000. The average /. in the USA probably would only have to give away about $800 to $2,500 per year to be counted as giving away 1% of their annual income. How long would it take for that donation to even equal the 1% that Zuck is keeping for himself? And is Zuck really sacrificing anything by only keeping $450,000,000? It's not like he's going to have to give up steak for hot dogs here. And let's not forget
  • Short of some disinterested party having control, it's nothing more than a tax dodge in need of elimination.

    Modbombing me with -Infinity, Disagree won't change it.

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language

Working...