Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to give away 99% of shares

asim18 · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:13

.SJ said:
Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474

How about just paying some tax instead?

Paying TAX is not what Facebook/CIA money is for though, it's for changing the world and the people in it, they cant just give taxes which pay for things like education anyway because that's not going to achieve the ultimate goal, in fact it's going to defer it. Notice how they're suddenly interested in "providing education" but right now it's only for "underprivileged Californians" and "undocumented migrant college education" as well as undocumented teaching software. Guess the information gathered by the Minerva initiative is finally mature enough to begin further operations.

Tom0 · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:14

dowie said:
you know he doesn't get paid for being facebook CEO... whether he stays as CEO or whether someone equally competent takes over doesn't make any difference to his wealth

That is regardless surely. He is going to continue making a butt-load from it.

I didn't mention a wage?

Nismo · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:18

darkgen said:
I hope he follows suit with a few other technology CEOs and burns it on technologies to support wider space exploration.

I thought this, seems to be the in-thing with both Musk and Bezos investing significantly into it.

dowie · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:23

Tom0 said:
That is regardless surely. He is going to continue making a butt-load from it.

I didn't mention a wage?

you quoted the fact that he remained CEO and commented on him making a 'butt load more' money - that has nothing to do with whether he stays as CEO or not

also he makes money from the % equity he has in the firm, if he has a much smaller stake in it due to giving away 99% then he'll makemuch much less going forwards

Elixir · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:27

Tom0 said:
I meant the money to him personally, I meant the fact he's going to make a butt-ton more. Fair enough, who wouldn't? He also has 1% left of that 99%, he's not going to be skint, he is not that affected.

As for the money he has given away I would rather he himself did he own work with the money to help the world as he clearly has a great outlook, rather than giving it away for others to spend. Never the less it will make some difference which is great.

Wow, you really have something against Facebook/Zuckerberg/rich people don't you? He's not going to be skint no, but the fact he's doing this is still something to be commended. A lot of people wouldn't, and don't.

I imagine he's giving the money to people who have more idea what they're doing in the world of charity than he does, why do you have an issue with the fact he isn't doing the day-to-day work?

Prophet · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:28

Tom0 said:
I meant the money to him personally, I meant the fact he's going to make a butt-ton more. Fair enough, who wouldn't? He also has 1% left of that 99%, he's not going to be skint, he is not that affected.

As for the money he has given away I would rather he himself did he own work with the money to help the world as he clearly has a great outlook, rather than giving it away for others to spend. Never the less it will make some difference which is great.

You mean like this..

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253362

Setting up a partnership with other billionaires to fund research into new clean technology.

Avenged7Fold · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:39

Tom0 isn't happy unless Zuckerberg is suffering it seems because giving to charity/funding good causes is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is whether his lifestyle remains...

No one in this thread has said he is a saint, just that other billionaires should follow his example

Tom0 · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:44

Prophet said:
You mean like this..

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253362

Setting up a partnership with other billionaires to fund research into new clean technology.

Yeah like that, more of that instead of giving it away. As I said, he is one of the people of history with great vision.

Ultimately it's his choice so who cares really.

I mean apart from you lot, clearly.

Tom0 · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:46

Avenged7Fold said:
Tom0 isn't happy unless Zuckerberg is suffering it seems because giving to charity/funding good causes is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is whether his lifestyle remains...

Hahaha.

That's going to tickle me for a few days. Thanks.

platypus · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:54

I wish he'd chuck that money at Fusion.

And make Facebook pay proper taxes.

Tom0 · 2 Dec 2015 at 11:57

Elixir said:
Wow, you really have something against Facebook/Zuckerberg/rich people don't you? He's not going to be skint no, but the fact he's doing this is still something to be commended. A lot of people wouldn't, and don't.

I imagine he's giving the money to people who have more idea what they're doing in the world of charity than he does, why do you have an issue with the fact he isn't doing the day-to-day work?

I have nothing against anyone. The free market is a wonderful thing and someone makes a lots of wonga and actually gives it back is even better. It's something that doesn't often happen.

Solely giving the money to people with more idea what they are doing is ideal but nonsense. You work with them and within your own interests;

Prophet said:
You mean like this..

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253362

Setting up a partnership with other billionaires to fund research into new clean technology.

For example, is fantastic. To just give it away encourages a whole other world of problems. Think along the lines of Kids Co. or the vast salaries of CEOs of other charities around the world that are taking home.

His charity is admirable, but until I see where it's been spent I can't comment on if his money was used in the right way. So for me, I will reserve this air of "hero" for now.

malachi · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:00

Good for him, not that I care.

NickK · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:01

.SJ said:
Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474

How about just paying some tax instead?

Paying charity directly probably has less beaucratic gravy train associated with it..

However ideologically I agree..

If I was a multi-billionaire.. I'd be interested in providing at least some level of service such as CAT scanners - the key bit here is that people cannot be diagnosed.. unless you know something is wrong.. then the rest of the healthcare system is basically mopping up the fallout.

FortuitousFluke · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:02

Wasn't he a signatory to the giving pledge anyway? He'd pledged to give away 50% of his wealth either over the course of his life or when he died, he's just setting the bar a bit higher for the remaining signatories.

NickK · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:11

darkgen said:
I hope he follows suit with a few other technology CEOs and burns it on technologies to support wider space exploration.

The reality is that regardless of money, you're still on the same planet subject to the same environmental and physical constraints..

Thing is it costs billions for space.. so unless there's a government that will fork out for products/services developed that gets an ROI then it's a small amount in the larger scheme of things.. without the ROI it's a fast way to poverty.

Look at Musk - the electrical aspect is actually a business plan it's not simply to help the world..

Look at SpaceX - it's to supply the US as a space contractor.. and make a return. It's not just throwing money away.

Look at Google balloons - it's not a way to simply provide free wifi, it's a way to cheapen costs for Google's ecosystem without having to deal with all the operator to gain radio access.

No multi-billionaire is going to simply put money into something unless there's a real ROI.

I suspect the local hospital helped in the fertility aspects.. and it means that if the local hospital is really good.. then FB employees are likely to work better..

In amongst this there are the donations to charities.. small change to a billionaire.. a real donation to charity would be a portion of their time to help drive he charity and promote it. The network of access to patrons he has is far more valuable to a charity than perhaps a few hundred thousand.

Tefal · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:18

Moses said:
To his own charity, so he can use it to do good stuff. What else is he meant to do with it? It's not as though he can meaningfully spend it on himself, and 1% of what he has now would be more than enough to set him and successive generations up for life. Obviously it's a great thing to do, and he should be applauded for it, but it's not as though it'll really affect him really! I'd like to think it's what I'd do if I had more money than God. Spending a lifetime making the World a significantly better place must be more rewarding than anything else he could do with the rest of his time.

to be fair 1% wouldn't even be enough to buy and operate a superyacht for a couple of years.

doofer · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:18

If Zuckerberg really wanted to make the World a better place he could just shut down Facebook.

Tefal · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:20

NickK said:
The reality is that regardless of money, you're still on the same planet subject to the same environmental and physical constraints..

Thing is it costs billions for space.. so unless there's a government that will fork out for products/services developed that gets an ROI then it's a small amount in the larger scheme of things.. without the ROI it's a fast way to poverty.

Look at Musk - the electrical aspect is actually a business plan it's not simply to help the world..

Look at SpaceX - it's to supply the US as a space contractor.. and make a return. It's not just throwing money away.

Look at Google balloons - it's not a way to simply provide free wifi, it's a way to cheapen costs for Google's ecosystem without having to deal with all the operator to gain radio access.

No multi-billionaire is going to simply put money into something unless there's a real ROI.

I suspect the local hospital helped in the fertility aspects.. and it means that if the local hospital is really good.. then FB employees are likely to work better..

In amongst this there are the donations to charities.. small change to a billionaire.. a real donation to charity would be a portion of their time to help drive he charity and promote it. The network of access to patrons he has is far more valuable to a charity than perhaps a few hundred thousand.

ummm bill gates?

whats the ROI on dumping billions into malaria research?

anything I don't mind · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:20

Just posturing, nothing more.

Why tell people you are going to do that? just do it and say you have done it.

These rich people annoy me when they waste all their money on these charities that do nothing, when instead they could invest it and create 10k jobs and build new industries. All the ultra rich are eugenicists (anti progress), which is why they don't want to invest and build industry.

Avenged7Fold · 2 Dec 2015 at 12:20

Tom0 said:
For example, is fantastic. To just give it away encourages a whole other world of problems. Think along the lines of Kids Co. or the vast salaries of CEOs of other charities around the world that are taking home.

His charity is admirable, but until I see where it's been spent I can't comment on if his money was used in the right way. So for me, I will reserve this air of "hero" for now.

Now i see where you are coming from. I agree that the money is better spent in developing something game changing rather than being used to plug the holes in society.

Charities often waste a fair bit of money and even some 'non profits' often have only fractions of the initially donated amount end up directly funding the cause.