It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What No One Is Telling You About Mark Zuckerberg Donating 99% Of His Fortune To "Charity"

page: 1
63
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+43 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
What No One Is Telling You About Mark Zuckerberg Donating 99% Of His Fortune To "Charity"
(says.com)

Zuckerberg is donating 99% of his Facebook fortune to 'charity,' with all the accolades and praises coming from the media and the gullible, but what exactly is he donating this fortune to?


By now you must have heard that Mark Zuckerberg along with his wife Priscilla Chan has pledged to give away 99% of his estimated USD45 billion in Facebook stock to charity. Basically, Mark is giving away enough money to fund one of the world's biggest charities for the next 45 years. Instead, he is funding his own. Here's how:

The vehicle for his beneficence will be the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative LLC, a family-run foundation that he controls and through which he will maintain control of Facebook for "the foreseeable future."

Which basically means:

Mark Zuckerberg will transfer ownership of his Facebook stock without paying capital gains taxes. He will also benefit from the possibility that his foundation will live beyond him, with his heirs and their heirs at the helm, untouched by estate taxes.

Which means that unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including private, profit-generating investment.


Some insightful comments:


twitter.com...
DuPree Crow
‏@sweet____spot

The "Donation is an LLC NOT a Non- Profit. He can lobby and invest with it. What he's done is create his own Superpac. #Zuckerberg
4:37 AM - 2 Dec 2015



+23 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Always look behind every good deed. Most of the time there are ulterior , self-serving , motives
Thanks for the info.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Wow!! I knew it had to be something more, just couldn't figure out the angle, gotta give to the super wealthy they do know how to work the system while getting all the districts to applaud them..well Played Mark well played, we are hungery for the games.


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
This article is a little more succinct:

Why Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Charity’ is a Scheme to Dodge Billions in Taxes


Facebook pays almost nothing in taxes. And now its founder won’t either.

On the surface, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that he’s donating 99 percent — roughly $45 billion — of his Facebook stock to philanthropy seems genuine. Other notable billionaires, like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, have made similar pledges to donate a large bulk of their net worth to charitable causes. However, this is actually just a clever ruse that allows these billionaires to get out of paying taxes on their enormous sums of wealth. As facts come out about Zuckerberg’s new organization, the Initiative seems less like charity and more like a tax ploy.

Unlike the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the newly-created Chan Zuckerberg Initative (named after both the Facebook mogul and his wife, Priscilla Chan) is an LLC. This frees up the Initative to do everything from invest its endowment in private corporations as well as fund charitable efforts and participate in politics.


+27 more 
posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And why exactly do we allow this BS to continue?

40+ billion could feed, clothe, and house a lot of homeless for quite some time I'm sure, or accomplish countless other charitable acts.

Wish I could say I was shocked to find that some rich beyond belief prick is doing this to benefit only himself all the while getting credit and praise for his seemingly good deed.

Despicable piece of filth!



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Facebook nutritional facts should read:

99% BS

Like any publicly traded company would ever do this.
edit on 3-12-2015 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
To be fair, I don't think the letter stated that the initiative was wholly 'charitable' and that they would use the money to lobby for policy changes. I'm not saying it's not some kind of tax evasion strategy, but they weren't secretive about their plans for the money, as in they didn't state they were creating a non profit charity.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
"What No One Is Telling You About Mark Zuckerberg Donating..."

I am sorry, but even the german msm were reporting all that yesterday morning.
The whole world is talking about what nobody told us...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Also don't feel too bad for him and his heirs. He will still have around 500 million dollars for his retirement.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I knew this even before Mark Zuckerberg knew it.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShadowLink
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And why exactly do we allow this BS to continue?

40+ billion could feed, clothe, and house a lot of homeless for quite some time I'm sure, or accomplish countless other charitable acts.

Wish I could say I was shocked to find that some rich beyond belief prick is doing this to benefit only himself all the while getting credit and praise for his seemingly good deed.

Despicable piece of filth!





Come on now we all know it is the poor on government benefits that are dragging us all down


The rich like this do gooder in the OP are upstanding citizens and contribute way more than us plebs who are the problem



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

This.....

does not.....

surprise me.

Knew there was something weird about that. Even if he did, he'd be worth a good 450 million.

Good find!



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
It's his money to do with as he wishes. Is it Zuckerberg's fault we aren't all billionaires? Do you realize that if everyone pitched in a couple dollars, we could solve a lot of problems? No, it's only the rich who have any social responsibility to everyone else, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Ive been blabbing my head off on other sites trying to open people's eyes to this but no one listens. It gets buried among the drawl of "everything they've done in the past thats wrong, its forgiven for them finally stepping up!"

You got to be kidding me?? Im not one to toss the 'Sheep' moniker around, but holy hell people are god damned sheep these days. Bill Gates started the altruistic fund, the foundation scam.

You dump all your net worth into the foundation, then you can take the entire net worth, and invest into stocks and bonds, and you don't pay capital gains.

Here's an article on it.

Not sure if its the same as the OP:


Whether or not the charitable donation is a scam in whole or in part depends on the answer to that old question: qui bono? Aka, who benefits? That’s where the real scam takes place.

And there’s no legal requirement that a charity must spend its wealth. In fact, IRS rules require only that charities spend about 5 percent of their investment assets annually, and all or part of this amount can be spent on salaries and “expenses,” rather than devoted to the charitable purpose the charity purports to be serving. So, what happens with a charitable trust, set up by a billionaire, and controlled by one of the billionaire’s children? The child gets a job and a salary for life. Maybe a mansion to live in and entertain in as a fringe benefit. This is a great gig for the heir.

What about the taxes due? No income tax is due on the money the parent donated to set up the charity—even though the parent may have made the charitable donation so as not to pay any tax on an appreciated asset.


You can check the financials on the Gates foundation, one year they made ~4 billion in stock earnings. No capital gains. Yes they have to pay some into a cause here and there, and they get the positive PR, and then pay themselves and travel and write off any other expenses.

The thing I don't get is how the hell are people so blind to this? Everyone thinks the billionaires are giving their fortunes away. In reality its like going back in time to pre 1800s where the church ran all the schools, rich people ran charities and foundations that handled all social services.

Welfare, homeless housing, military veterans care, education, etc Each rich entity chose what they wanted to pay for, and shape society as they saw fit. Of course the churches would indoctrinate the kids in their schools. And of course businesses would seek labour from their homeless shelters, etc

There was always an edge somewhere.

So the future is a new aristocracy? That pays no death taxes, that funds only the initiatives they want to fund? Its actually a scary thought. Just think what the Koch brothers et al would spend their money on.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ShadowLink



40+ billion could feed, clothe, and house a lot of homeless for quite some time I'm sure, or accomplish countless other charitable acts.


Thats part of the shell game though. He isn't worth 40 billion. Facebook isn't worth 40 billion. The gates foundation isn't worth the 30-40 billion it claims either.

What they do is take the magical 40 billion, and they invest it into other companies, and they earn returns on it. I think gates earned ~4 billion in 2012.

Now, if they had to sell their companies, to get that initial investment as a liquid financial instrument (e.g. money), it would be worth far, far less. Imagine either of them selling off 99% of their shares in the company? It would tank. By the end of the day each share would be pennies on the dollar.

Whatever the valuations on any company are, its only worth as much as you'd get in bankruptcy. And that isn't much.

So the real ruse is being able to spend the book value, the net value of their assets and treat it like liquid capital, invest that and earn every year without having to pay capital gains. Sure there's a small amount they have to put into 'charitable' activities, but this can be a plethora of expenses, paying themselves and other family members, trips (private jets), mansions, office buildings, staff, etc, etc, etc

Just imagine all the things you could write off with a bottomless check book.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
"What No One Is Telling You About Mark Zuckerberg Donating..."

I am sorry, but even the german msm were reporting all that yesterday morning.
The whole world is talking about what nobody told us...


Try Western news sources, and try talking about it on Western news aggregators or popular forums, etc. I brought it up a few times and was slammed by people staunchly defending these charitable, nobel actions...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho




The thing I don't get is how the hell are people so blind to this? Everyone thinks the billionaires are giving their fortunes away. In reality its like going back in time to pre 1800s where the church ran all the schools, rich people ran charities and foundations that handled all social services.

Because it takes trouble makers and malcontents like you ,Blackmarketeer and others to actually look behind curtain #4 and tell the rest of us clods what's really going on.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I understood that to set up a Chairty (in the UK) you and especially family members could not have any 'benefits' otherwise it contravened the issue of what a charity actually is. Surely this applies to this particular tax dodge?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I understood that to set up a Chairty (in the UK) you and especially family members could not have any 'benefits' otherwise it contravened the issue of what a charity actually is. Surely this applies to this particular tax dodge?


That only applies to serfs. I didnt need this story. I new 10 secs into the news story this is exactly what he was doing. I was calling it the zuckerburg foundation, NONE of the stories I saw named the "charity".



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
And...again this leaves more of a tax burden for us working schlubs to bear.




top topics



 
63
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join