Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan pledged to give away 99 percent of their Facebook shares

from the dailymail.com:


"Zuckerberg talked in his letter of creating stronger communities. Yet Facebook, like too many technology behemoths, is a serial tax avoider....
..
Last year, this all-conquering social media firm handed over just £4,327 in corporation tax in this country(UK): less than the annual sum paid in tax by the average worker.

Yet its staff in Britain took home an average £210,000 each in pay and bonuses, safe in the security of a society that relies on public servants to protect them from terror, provide health care in hospitals and repair the roads on which they travel to work.

The Facebook founder has hailed Bill Gates as his hero — the world’s richest man, who has been revered as something close to a secular saint after promising to give away the bulk of his £57 billion fortune.
But Gates became rich from a company that was even used as a case study for a U.S. Senate inquiry into tax avoidance.

Microsoft was accused of avoiding paying £3 billion annually in tax by shifting earnings around between low-tax nations. In Britain alone, it reported £1.7 billion revenues in one year for online sales of software, on which it paid no corporation tax. Zilch.

Gates even has the gall to tour the world telling governments to take more and more money from taxpayers for his beloved foreign aid programmes, once even branding those who oppose such policies as ‘evil’....

...Larry Ellison, chairman of Californian technology giant Oracle, is the world’s ninth richest person. He has also promised to give away much of his money — yet his firm was among those attacked for ‘industrial scale’ tax avoidance by Parliament.

Google has a company motto proclaiming: ‘Don’t Be Evil.’ Yet far from being a paragon of virtue, a new tax designed by Chancellor George Osborne to discourage multi-national giants from diverting profits to avoid tax was named after the firm....."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ct-charity-reeks-hypocrisy.html#ixzz3tIlUi2Ra
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Foundations are established to endure. As for the tax criticism alluding to hypocrisy, that's just baseless self-serving nonsense from people with a narrative to stroke. Those who wish to change the tax code will still play by the existing rules while they are in force. They would be stupid to do otherwise until the rules are changed for all players. And we know they are not stupid. You guys are just pissed off that those smarter than you are not politically aligned with you.
 
Last edited:
Foundations are established to endure. As for the tax criticism alluding to hypocrisy, that's just baseless self-serving nonsense for people with a narrative to stroke. Those who wish to change the tax code will still play by the existing rules while they are in force. They would be stupid to do otherwise until the rules are changed for all players. And we know they are not stupid. You guys are just pissed off that those smarter than you are not politically aligned with you.

I'm not pissed at anything. I find it amusing that there are so many easily misguided, gullible, and inadequately informed individuals out there that think this is actually about charity.
 
I'm not pissed at anything. I find it amusing that there are so many easily misguided, gullible, and inadequately informed individuals out there that think this is actually about charity.
I think it's win-win, except for guys like you for the reason noted above.
 
So, am I to understand that your snark has now resorted to "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" level of activity? I'm shocked, I tell you.
The only snark thus far was from you and yours. And this after a rich man pledges to give away most of his considerable fortune in due course. I imagine if he were from your side of the political aisle, you'd be somewhat more forgiving.
 
The only snark thus far was from you and yours. And this after a rich man pledges to give away most of his considerable fortune in due course. I imagine if he were from your side of the political aisle, you'd be somewhat more forgiving.

No, if he were from my side of the "aisle", I'd be certain it was for tax purposes. I'm not deluded by the rich and their motives, regardless of their political leaning. I'm sorry that you are. Actually, check that. I honestly don't care that you are.
 
No, if he were from my side of the "aisle", I'd be certain it was for tax purposes. I'm not deluded by the rich and their motives, regardless of their political leaning. I'm sorry that you are. Actually, check that. I honestly don't care that you are.
So it's always a foregone conclusion because it reflects your own nature and everyone is just like you? And why the quotations for aisle? New word for you?
 
So it's always a foregone conclusion because it reflects your own nature and everyone is just like you? And why the quotations for aisle? New word for you?

It's a foregone conclusion because, as I said earlier, if someone wanted to give to charity, they'd just give. None of this foundation crap that is driven by ego and tax avoidance, etc.

I quoted "aisle" because you believe there's actually an "aisle" that I am a part of, panty "waste".
 
Back
Top