[Closed] Zuckerbergs to give away 99% of their shares worth an estimated $45 Billion

Bet it's all done by not paying any tax etc.
Scamming bar stewards
PR stunt
Insider trading - shares about to crash?

Anyway well done to him for doing something good.

Depends on who and what got the shares

all the little children and baby robins

I am willing to give away all my wealth over $450 million too - go me

The only thing in that story that makes me less than optimistic that it's as good as the headline promises is this quote:

[i]"Its initial areas of focus will be [u]personalised learning[/u], curing disease, [u]connecting people[/u] and [u]building strong communities[/u]."[/i]

Looking at that 3 out of 4 of those look like things straight out of a facebook mission statement.

Which got me thinking what would be the most beneficial way to spend the money, drought prevention, renewable energy research or?

Also (cynically) if Facebook profits from tax optimisation and 99% of the profits go to charity does that mean proper taxation hurts charities.

And as above I pledge to give to charity anything from my personal fortune over $450 million and I urge everyone to take this simple selfless step.

[img] [/img]

I too pledge to give away [s]hand over to Pret[/s] my personal fortune of £4.50 to the cause of buying me a coffee and pain au chocolat for breakfast...

See, if you hadn't have bought so many expensive socks bb, think how many more breakfasts you might have been able to enjoy? 😉

Fairly normal thing for ultra rich Americans to do from Carnegie to Buffet to Gates.

Most of them are very clear who'll be deciding who benefits from any charitable works - it's not quite like leaving it to Macmillans. Buffet is an exception in that - he's letting Gates decide I think on the basis that he is better at making it and Gates is better at spending it wisely.

And yes Mikewsmith, if governments taxed more in order to spend it on things they feel are good causes, then individuals might have less to spend on things they thought were good causes. It comes down to who makes the best choices - and that is (literally) debatable.

if governments taxed more in order to spend it on things they feel are good causes, then individuals might have less to spend on things they thought were good causes.

Facebook paid just £4,327 ($6,632) in taxes in the U.K. last year despite offering staff in London an average of £210,000 in pay and bonuses, the Sunday Times reported.

The social network giant offered shares worth £35.4 million to its 362 London staff, pushing its British division into an accounting loss of £28.5 million last year, according to accounts for Facebook UK Limited.
Its widening losses allowed Facebook to minimise its corporation tax bill in Britain, the newspaper reported.

Call me a cynic but I'd rather they paid the right amount of tax and it funded schools, hospitals and the like.

Edit - Great PR for Facebook to take the heat of it's appalling contribution to general taxation, by the figures one of it's UK employee's pays more in tax. I'm sure if you had the conversation with HMRC that you would like to donate it to charity rather than them they would understand. I wonder if the charitable donations span all the countries where they generate income and pay no tax?

Also (cynically) if Facebook profits from tax optimisation and 99% of the profits go to charity does that mean proper taxation hurts charities.

Zuckerberg owns less than a third of the shares in Facebook, so its 99% of his share of profits and capital, not 99% all of Facebooks profits

In terms of the tax / charity interplay - the biggest funders of the charity sector are central and local government, either through grant funding or through contracted work. "Individual Giving' is quite a small part of the overall turn over of the charity sector, which might be a good thing as 'individuals' whether its super rich philanthropists or kind old ladies [url= http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/apr/23/charitablegiving.childprotection ]don't really make the best choices[/url]

Trickle down effect?

Which got me thinking what would be the most beneficial way to spend the money, drought prevention, renewable energy research or?

Zuckerberg is on that too:
[url= http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/30/9817766/bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-breakthrough-energy-coalition-cop-21 ]Zuckerberg and Gates energy fund[/url]

Anyway, good on them. Unsurprised to see lots of "Yeah, but..." comments, always a way to spin stuff like this negatively.

Philanthropy is just a play thing for the rich to ease their conscience/massage their ego and charidee for the rest of serves the same prpose, if it works so well why, after the age of the great philanthropists did we need to et up the welfare state? If it the functions of state were left to philanthropy/chairty then we'd have 5* donkey sanctuaries and people starving in the streets. Fair play to them for doing it, but they should've paid the tax too.

Call me a cynic but I'd rather they paid the right amount of tax and it funded schools, hospitals and the like.

Devil's advocate: They [i]do [/i]pay the right amount of tax, surely- the amount the law says they have to, same as everybody on here does.

I suppose whether it's morally right is another argument.

Anyway, good on them. Unsurprised to see lots of "Yeah, but..." comments, always a way to spin stuff like this negatively.

^ this. Good on them as I doubt I'd be that generous if I owned a good percentage of FB 😈

Forty five ****ing billion dollars.

Christ.

What's the right rate of tax? Blame the Governments not the companies that have to do the best for their owners (shareholders).

What's the right rate of tax?

The amount of tax they would have paid without all the elaborate chicanery they did with no objective other than reducing the tax burden

The amount of tax they would have had to pay under a different set of tax rules than the ones they actually operate under?

I don't want to sound like an apologist for Big Coffee or whatever, I totally agree that the amount of tax some companies end up paying is absurd given the money they make here. But I just think there's no point saying they should have paid more while the rules effectively tell them they don't have to, it's looking in the wrong direction.

EDIT IANA tax expert, obviously 😉

Firstly chapeau to them for doing this. It follows an initiative championed by Warren Buffet and subsequently Bill Gates. There have been similar "arts" initiatives like giving the rights to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street Hospital.

We should not get too carried away with the generosity though. As pointed out they are not giving away all their money and in fact Zuckerberg can be awarded more shares / options at any time. There will be a tax advantage / benefit to doing this too but the bottom line is that a whopping $45bn donation has been made. Finally this does feed the ego a bit, associating the Zuckerberg name with major charitable projects but I for one think that's onky natural human behaviour.

As for Facebook paying tax that's up,to governments to sort out, they make the rules. In the UK we should aggressively expand the tax regime to fully tax companies like Amazon, Starbucks, Apple, Google and Facebook

EDIT: Mike I am sure the Zuckerbergs pay many millions in tax every year, probably hundreds of millions. What we all agree on is that the company pays far too little. I'd introduce an online sales tax of 10% and a similar tax on online advertising both paid where the product is bought/delivered and and the advert is viewed/customer located. The real problem we have in Europe is that the EU actively supports this sort of tax avoidance.

One thing to be said for the likes of Bill Gates spending the money rather than the Government of their country spending the money is that those individuals may well spread that money over a greater part of the globe. A government is far more likely to be thinking of votes at home whereas an individual may well take a more global approach and therefore spend that money in a way that has a greater benefit to humankind as a whole. They are also free to look further into the future when making decisions about how to spend that money.
My natural instinct is to feel that the money should be be spent by democratically elected and accountable governments but I'm not convinced I'm right in thinking that, their track records don't always suggest it is the best way to do things, maybe a balance is best. And quite frankly I reckon anyone on here has as much chance of persuading a philanthropist to support a cause they believe in as they have of persuading a government.

NOt really as any set of rules can be subverted, you'd have to write perfect legislation with a forward looking instantaneous amendment process to defeat what is a multi billion pound industry in conning the taxman. No issue with people using the allownaces that are there to be used but charging your subsidiaries that you set up, a licence fee to be your subsidiary for example is a piss take, but you write a rule to counter that but next week some dork will have thought up another rouse.

New OECD rules on transfer pricing will cut some of it down but how do you prevent people signing a contract with Facebook US rather than Facebook UK? Are they paying the right tax in the US?

In any case, Zuckerberg et al donating the majority of their PERSONAL fortunes to charitable causes can only be a good thing. There's plenty of rich people keeping it all to themselves so why is there so much hate to the ones donating?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has [url= http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/year=2015 ]funded over 1100 projects this year[/url] and the majority of the other billionaires who have signed the Giving Pledge are either funnelling money to them or to their own foundations. As I said, irrespective of their motives, it can only be a good thing.

Mikewsmith - I think I was agreeing with you really. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

Mudshark has it ( as do others) - the issue is the Companies Act 2006 makes it an offence to knowingly NOT make the maximum [b]allowable[/b] profit for the shareholders of said company.
If this means that you did not take advantage of a legal loophole - you can actually be prosecuted by not only your shareholders BUT also Companies House and/or HMRC.
Its utter bobbins - we all know it but its written into the law allowing them and others to do it.
Until that stops all the moaning in the world won't stop it.

Now let's see the Queen make a similar statement.

Just another 'government vs individual, who's best' thought:

1. Bill Gates is trying to elimate malaria. I don't know of a government who've tried to do that, or even could given the responsibility of each government (particularly democratically elected ones) is within the national borders, and malaria covers many countries.

2. Taxpayers' money is rarely hypothecated, so any taxes Facebook/Zuckerberg pays would go towards things like military, arms, cyberwarefare and various other necessary functions of government provision which he may or may not wish to support. I would assume the Manhattan Project was taxpayer funded for e.g.

Also, he's the son of a dentist and psychiatrist so I believe this is 100% selfmade so fair play to have made so much and to decide to put it to useful purposes. I assume he's keeping enough for himself to never have to worry about $$ ever again of course.

@brooess Zuckerberg runs Facebook and as such could be awarded (say) $100m is shares/cash every year as CEO. P,is as you say with charitable giving its you who decides how it's spent, a very important distinction

@jekkly the Royal Families wealth is tiny in comparison to Zuckerbeg/Gates/Buffett, just saying

And yes Mikewsmith, if governments taxed more in order to spend it on things they feel are good causes, then individuals might have less to spend on things they thought were good causes. It comes down to who makes the best choices - and that is (literally) debatable.

Debatable?

Mudshark has it ( as do others) - the issue is the Companies Act 2006 makes it an offence to knowingly NOT make the maximum allowable profit for the shareholders of said company.
If this means that you did not take advantage of a legal loophole - you can actually be prosecuted by not only your shareholders BUT also Companies House and/or HMRC.

There is rubbish spouted on this site - and complete and utter rubbish - this falls into the latter category.

@jekkly the Royal Families wealth is tiny in comparison to Zuckerbeg/Gates/Buffett, just saying

Go on then mefty - back up your claim.....

Go on then mefty - back up your claim.

You are asserting that there is an obligation to maximise profits in UK Companies Law, please provide a precise statutory reference to back this up.

Crown estates are valued around £20billion so not a million miles away.

Belong to the State rather than the Queen and are administered as a Quango, the civil list is now liked to a percentage of their income.

Belong to the State rather than the Queen and are administered as a Quango, the civil list is now liked to a percentage of their income.

they still get the benefit of the wealth, don't they?

Most of the income goes to the Treasury to pay for general expendiutre ie NHS etc

I'll refer you to the Companies Act 2006 S172.

(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.

(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.

Within that - the act of knowingly not maximising the divisible profit of the company is an offence under S172 (and others) hence my previous post.
Thats one of the many loopholes they all use to pay as little tax as possible.

As an owner of several companies - its one of the things I have to sign to say I have "to the best of my ability" ensured I have undertaken when filing the accounts every year.

I hate to say this but that section says nothing about maximising profits, indeed subsection (2) specifically identifies a situation where a company may have other purposes.

Likewise HMRC are hardly going to sue you if you don't maximise your profits through tax avoidance when you are also required to give thought to (c) relationships with others, (d) impact on the community and (e) reputation management.

Within that - the act of knowingly not maximising the divisible profit of the company is an offence under S172 (and others) hence my previous post.
Thats one of the many loopholes they all use to pay as little tax as possible.

If you have been told this by a professional adviser, I would seriously consider changing adviser.

THM - well people are debating it so yes debatable.

I've asked one mefty - I'll ask once more - back up your posts.

I hope they pick some good causes. 45billion could make a real difference on a global scale to causes that otherwise will never attract enough funding as there is no profit in it and no political will/benefit.

Got to be better than hollowing out a volcano and fitting lasers to sharks?

I've asked one mefty - I'll ask once more - back up your posts.

I rather thought I had, but if that is not good enough for you - here goes again.

the issue is the Companies Act 2006 makes it an offence to knowingly NOT make the maximum allowable profit for the shareholders of said company.
If this means that you did not take advantage of a legal loophole - you can actually be prosecuted by not only your shareholders BUT also Companies House and/or HMRC.

Which I described as complete bollocks, you then posted up S 172 CA 06 as support for this contention. I commented on this illustrating how your analysis - I am being kind - was flawed. You then ask me to back it up. If you want more here goes.

S 172 CA 06 was introduced to codify an obligation on directors of a company to manage a company with a view to the benefit of all stakeholders (i.e. not just shareholders). There is a long discussion about it [url= https://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr29_4/Keay.pdf ]here[/url]. However the basic point is that S172 introduces a much wider objective than just maximisation of profit, which is the opposite of what you maintain, so it is pretty clear to me that what you originally said was complete bollocks.

Am I the only one struggling to understand how Facebook can be valued at $183bn? More than Merck, Fedex, Disney, Intel, Cisco, IBM...companies that actually make or do worthwhile stuff!

How can one or two tiny advertising boxes on a Facebook page that everybody ignores be worth more than that?! Is that the only way they make money? (I assume Whatsapp hemorrhages cash since it's only £1 a year)

Am I the only one struggling to understand how Facebook can be valued at $183bn?

Nope

Firstly - that is not a discussion. This thread is a discussion - that is nothing more than a paper by a Professor at Leeds Uni.
Secondly - did you read all the way to the end? Section 5. The Conclusion.
It goes on to say the S172 does not in fact do that but remains behest to Shareholder values.

"For the first time the UK, in effect, has embedded in statute the objective of
companies. This objective is set out in s 172(1) of the Act. At first blush s 172(1)
appears to move the UK a significant distance away from the shareholder value
principle and closer to a stakeholder approach, but on more intense scrutiny this is not the case. It is arguable that the legislation does not really change the law, because provided that the action of directors is designed ultimately to foster shareholder benefits, it is not going to be impugned, even if the directors did not, in their decision-making process, consider the interests of other constituents."

And back to my original post - as a director and as a shareholder - if I fail in my duties as a director to maximise profits, rightly so the shareholders can take action against me in a court of law.
Companies House's response to that would be to prosecute me for the incorrect filing of the accounts.
HMRC could if they chose to do so prosecute me following CH's response.
So to counter your "advisor is crap" line - I'll continue to use him seeing as he has ensured that all of our companies are clean, clear and with the minimum tax paid as per the law with the maximum benefit to the shareholders for the last 12yrs and many of his other clients for over 30yrs.

elaborate chicanery

I might add that to my CV. 🙂

Meanwhile:

hammyuk vs mefty

[img] [/img]

takisawa2 makes a fair point - although too much hair. I did actually draft a long response but I lost it when getting on with other things. I will therefore restrict myself to just three points on the response:

1. I didn't describe your adviser as crap, I thought more likely that you have misinterpreted advice you have received. This is illustrated at point 2.

2. Companies House are not going to sue you for not recording something you haven't done - this only needs to be stated to show how ridiculous it is.

3. I don't have a major problem with companies managing their tax affairs efficiently, but it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that Company Law imposes an obligation on them to do so.

Finally, in a multinational context, all these issues become much more difficult. When implementing a cross border tax structure, there is often a major tension because the group is asking directors in high tax countries to reduce their profits, some would say artificially, by channelling them to group companies in low tax jurisdiction. Whilst this may be beneficial for the ultimate shareholder, it will often not be for the direct one to whom they have fiduciary duties.

Did you know Facebook have created the world's largest ever free workforce (i.e every Facebook user) and collects all data entered and sells it to others? This is how they make their money.

Facebook's phrase 'It's Free And It Always Will Be' should be reworded 'You Will Work For Us For Free While We Amass Huge Fortunes By Selling Your Data'. But it won't be.

As Bill Hicks said, if you work in Marketing or Advertising, kill yourselves.

He said that, not me. But I do think marketing and advertising are largely responsible for the dumbing down of society at large. And sadly I can't see it changing anytime soon. Of course any gift to charity is worthy, but quite frankly Mr Zuckerberg has created far more bad than good.

Mr Zuckerberg has created far more bad than good.

if selling my data saves one starving kid, or provides treatment for one child with HIV or Malaria, or clean water for their family, then I'm all for it.

Sure he may have more money than sense, but if he uses it to do good in the world then I say well done sir.

Given it's pretty well known in digital marketing circles that ads on Facebook are really not performing well, I wonder how they make 3.8B dollars. They talk about mobile ad revenue but in that case I assume that's not via facebook but a generic mobile ad platform which uses facebook data to refine how it serves ads.

Anyone know for sure?

Atlaz - As stated they sell all your personal data to advertisers. They don't make much off the adverts on the screen. And they sell EVERYTHING. They own a diary of your life, if you choose to give it to them. They even scan all your photos, they know what you look like, what stuff you have, where you are. It's quite scary.

tpbiker - Yes I share your sentiment. But if Mr Zuckerberg charged everyone a few pounds a year for using Facebook, which I am sure most people would gladly pay, then he would still be able to help a sick child and have the revenue stream so he didn't have to sell your data. And that might be one small step against advertisers and media ruling the world.