[ BÀI DO NHÀ THƠ LÊ HOÀNG chuyển ]
Như Quý Vị đã biết sau khi có được con gái đầu lòng,Mark Zuckerberg, chủ nhân Facebook và vợ Priscilla Chan, tuyên bố tặng 99% của tài sản đang có, trong cổ phần của Facebook trị giá 45 tỷ đô cho quỷ từ thiện. Vợ chồng trẻ tỷ phú này là người nhân hậu, đã từng tặng những số tiền lớn cho nhiều quỹ từ thiện, tổ chức trong thời gian qua.
Nhưng trong bài viết của báo The New York Times phát hành ngày 3/12/2015 cho biết thật sự không phải Mark Zuckerberg cho quỹ từ thiện số tiền lớn này, mà chỉ chuyển qua một “công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạng/ limited liability company/LLC”, một hình thức kinh doanh.. có lợi cho ông ta..và đặc biệt trong vấn đề thuế.
Thật hư như thế nào, xin mời Quý Vị xem bài viết dưới đây của báo The New York Times, và lên tiếng của Mark Zuckerberg để tường...
Chuyện làm từ thiện của hai vợ chồng này lúc đầu được thiên hạ ngợi khen và tán thưởng lòng từ thiên bao la của cặp vợ chồng này . Tuy nhiên chuyện không phải suông sẽ một đường như ta nghĩ .
Tôi xin chuyển nguyên văn đến qúy vị thấy rõ sự thật ....
How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself
Zuckerberg Not Actually Giving $45 Billion Away
Today, The New York Times published an article entitled, "How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself."
In the article, reporter Jesse Eisinger says: "Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.
"Here’s what happened instead: Mr. Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle."
That's right. Zuckerberg's altruism is as fake as Fakebook.
In the article, reporter Jesse Eisinger says: "Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.
"Here’s what happened instead: Mr. Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle."
That's right. Zuckerberg's altruism is as fake as Fakebook.
***************************
***** Sau bài báo của The New York Times, Mark Zuckerberg đã lên tiếng trả lời chỉ trích việc ông ta tránh thuế khi thành lập quỹ từ thiện dưới hình thức Công ty LLC…
Xin mời Quý Vị click vào link dưới đây để tường:
Mark Zuckerberg defends his charity LLC from criticism after claims that donation move would help him avoid paying taxes
·
Mark Zuckerberg will use a private company to give away his fortune
· The Facebook founder has set up Limited Liability Company (LLC)
· He and wife Priscilla Chan announced they would be giving away 99 per cent of their fortune by donating $1billion each year
· Some said the structure could reduce his taxes or oversight over funds
· Zuckerberg responded by saying that LLC gave organization flexibility
· See more news on Facebook at www.dailymail.co.uk/facebook
***********************
Nguyên văn bài viết trên báo The New York Times:
How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself
By JESSE EISINGER PRO PUBLICA DEC. 3, 2015 DEC. 3, 2015
Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.
Here’s what happened instead: Mr. Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.
Sorry for the slightly less sexy headline.
Mr. Zuckerberg is a cofounder of Facebook and a youthful megabillionaire. In announcing the birth of his daughter, he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, declared they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook stock valued at $45 billion today.
In doing so, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His P.R. return on investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Mr. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.
An L.L.C. can invest in forprofit 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. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.”
What’s more, 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.
In covering the event, many commentators praised the size and percentage of the gift and pointed out that Mr. Zuckerberg is relatively young to be planning to give his wealth away. “Mark Zuckerberg Philanthropy Pledge Sets New Giving Standard,” Bloomberg glowed. The New York Times ran an article on the front page. Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Mr. Zuckerberg’s plan. A Wall Street Journal article didn’t mention taxes at all.
Nor did they grapple with the societal implications of the would be donations.
So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Mr. Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that 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.
Mr. Zuckerberg didn’t create these tax laws and cannot be criticized for minimizing his tax bills. If he had created a foundation, he would have accrued similar tax benefits. But what this means is that he amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. Anytime a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.
Instead of lavishing praise on Mr. Zuckerberg for having issued a news release with a promise, this should be an occasion to mull what kind of society we want to live in. Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money.
In this case, it is different. One person will be making these decisions.
Of course, nobody thinks our government representatives do a good job of allocating resources. Politicians — a bunch of bums! Maybe Mr. Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book, “The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?” Mr. Zuckerberg has said he has learned from his mistakes. We don’t know whether that’s true because he hasn’t made any decisions with the money he plans to put into his investment vehicle.
But I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Mr. Zuckerberg. I am selfaware enough to realize many people would disagree with my choices. Those who like how Mr. Zuckerberg is lavishing his funds might not like how the Koch brothers do so. Or George Soros.
Megadonations, assuming Mr. Zuckerberg makes good on his pledge, are explicit acknowledgments that the money should be plowed back into society. They are tacit acknowledgments that no one could ever possibly spend $45 billion on himself or his family, and that the money isn’t really “his,” in a fundamental sense. Because that is the case, society can’t rely on the beneficence and enlightenment of the superwealthy to realize this individually. We need to take a portion uniformly — some kind of tax on wealth.
The point is that we are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords.
Jesse Eisinger is a reporter for ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
Email: jesse@propublica.org. Twitter: @eisingerj.
A version of this article appears in print on December 4, 2015, on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: How Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Hims
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét