Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla will give away 99 percent of their Facebook shares

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,240   +192
Staff member

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is officially a father as he and wife Priscilla Chan recently welcomed baby Max into the world. As you’d expect, Zuckerberg announced his daughter’s arrival in a lengthy post on the social network that concluded with a major surprise.

In an open letter to Max (and the rest of us), Zuckerberg and Chan discussed the desire for their child to grow up in a world that’s better than ours today. Getting to that point will involve two major ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality. Laying the foundation today for a brighter tomorrow is something they both feel strongly about which is why they’ve created the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

A few weeks before Max’s birth, Priscilla and Mark took a morning to reflect and record their hopes for their daughter and all children of her generation.

Posted by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative on Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Over the course of their lifetime, Chan and Zuckerberg will donate 99 percent of their Facebook shares (currently valued at around $45 billion) to advance their mission. The two acknowledged that their pledge is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on world issues but they want to do what they can alongside others.

As the Huffington Post highlights, the key phrase here is over their lifetime. Facebook filed a form with the SEC on Tuesday which revealed Zuckerberg doesn’t plan to give more than $1 billion annually over each of the next three years. He also intends to maintain a majority voting position with the social network “for the foreseeable future.”

Relinquishing control of Facebook after having worked so long to build it into the global force it has become and risking the potential it holds for the future would no doubt be foolish, at least at this stage of the game.

Either way, I'm sure the news will put a large smile on the face of another generous technology mogul: Bill Gates.

Permalink to story.

 
Zuckerberg and Chan discussed the desire for their child to grow up in a world that's better than ours today. Getting to that point will involve two major ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality.
The unstoppable growth of population is what further reduces the chances of equality. And you've just contributed to that already infinite pool.
 
Hey, his money, he can do with it as he pleases, but, as with most trust/foundations etc, might start peaking around for back doors. Some of these things are set up to pluck the interest off the money, shelter it so as to avoid any taxes.
 
Hey, his money, he can do with it as he pleases, but, as with most trust/foundations etc, might start peaking around for back doors. Some of these things are set up to pluck the interest off the money, shelter it so as to avoid any taxes.

Boy, ain't that the truth! Just look at what Gates & the other richest man in the world pulled off with their so called philanthropic foundation a few years ago ......
 
Not really much money if you think about it. Eventually, as with any stock, there will be a "crash" to the market, driving the Facebook "worth" down. Given the Zuckster is 31 years old, and just using the average life of a person, say, 80 years old, using the "45 billion" dollar idea, that means giving away the money in a 50 year time frame. Divide it up and it's only 900 million per year. If that were given to every man, woman & child (LEGALLY) from the USA, it amounts to less than 4 bucks per person.

Hey, he's giving it away, but, considering how a lot of these charities, trusts, foundations etc work, most are set up to secure a TAX FREE haven for money, while the namesake keeps the interest. Just look at the Bill & Hillary circus.

Also, many reviews show conservatives give more than liberals.
How many times have you seen story after story where super rich liberals (especially the hollyWEIRD) bunch come to charity or cause after cause trying to get people to pony up money for this or that, and when asked if they made donations, they will usually wimp out and say "I gave my time". Yeah, that's worth a plug nickel.

Who gives more
https://www.rt.com/.../193952-charity-conservatives.../

Top 10 LEAST giving states
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/.../Ten-Least-Generous...

Top 10 MOST giving states
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/.../Ten-Most-Generous...

Statistically speaking, the LEAST giving states are in the Northeast, mostly populated by LIBERALS.
The MOST giving states, are the in the Midwest & South, mostly populated by CONSERVATIVES.
 
Also, when the reachest give money in a charitable gesture, they don't really lose anything, often save more in different ways, using charitable actions as a loophole for avoiding more taxes.
 
Hater's gonna hate, evidently.

Right?! I think I read the phrase 'only 900 million' up there somewhere.

Anyway, good for him... I just hope he does what Bill has done and makes it worth while. There are causes that are high on visibility and low on effectiveness - like a giant climate change conference for example.

and there are ones that aren't very flashy but would have tremendous results... like sponsoring an award for a cheap, powerless water filter. Or finding a way to cut down on theft and violence in developing countries. One of the biggest obstacles to people building wealth for themselves is others being able to take it with no consequence.

Don't screw it up, Mark... I think I heard a line in a movie once something about great power requires great responsibility. :)
 
Don't screw it up, Mark... I think I heard a line in a movie once something about great power requires great responsibility. :)

Just once? That phrase is just as much a cliche in cheap movies as "What doesn't kill you...".

And the actual phrase is:
With great power comes great responsibility.
To put otherwise: It's all yours to screw it up, if not careful. In the world of charity this means: if you are not certain where you donate your money or why exactly, or fail to see it being spent right, no good will come out of it, most likely.
 
Last edited:
Also, when the reachest give money in a charitable gesture, they don't really lose anything, often save more in different ways, using charitable actions as a loophole for avoiding more taxes.

I would do the same if I had that kind of estate. Heck I'd do the same if I was near the Estate Tax Exemption... which sits at a pretty ~$5M/person, ~$10M/married couple... anything above that exemption, the state takes a pretty 40% in estate tax. Hence why use the yearly gift tax exemption and donate money to charities before they die.
 
"Chan and Zuckerberg will donate 99 percent of their Facebook shares (currently valued at around $45 billion)"

99% of $45 billion is closer to $44.5 billion

"Zuckerberg doesn’t plan to give more than $1 billion annually over each of the next three years."

That adds up to, well, $3 billion. So my question, is when is he planning on donating the other $41.5 billion? Or is this a claim to generate some positive publicity for one reason or another, little skeptical. Plus with the constant increase in stock value, until the it bursts, he's likely to have more money after those 3 years, potentially more than he has now.

What he should really do is give it all away in one lump some and disappear to live the rest of his life in peace where no body needs to know his name, it's what he deserves after all, he did unleashing the scourge that is Facebook on the Earth.
 
Seriously, TechSpot readers? I am perturbed by most of the comments so far. Let's hope that you all are giving your share of love this holiday season.
 
Zuckerberg and Chan discussed the desire for their child to grow up in a world that's better than ours today. Getting to that point will involve two major ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality.
The unstoppable growth of population is what further reduces the chances of equality. And you've just contributed to that already infinite pool.

Takes two to make one, so if two make one( and only make one) that's - 1 total, if two make two then that's a even, if two make three or more that's a increase.
 
Do you even know where the expression came from and what it was really about?

Given this is the internet and we all have ready access to search engines, I fail to see how anyone could answer this question with any response other than, "of course."

More to the point... the origin of "hater's gonna hate" is as irrelevant to the modern vernacular as the origin of "queer" or "gay." Either of which, by the way, is more than sufficient to accurately describe the jubilant rants and saltlicks of said haters, perma-critics, and envious pontificators.

Hater's gonna hate. They can't help it.
 
Given this is the internet and we all have ready access to search engines, I fail to see how anyone could answer this question with any response other than, "of course."

More to the point... the origin of "hater's gonna hate" is as irrelevant to the modern vernacular as the origin of "queer" or "gay." Either of which, by the way, is more than sufficient to accurately describe the jubilant rants and saltlicks of said haters, perma-critics, and envious pontificators.

Hater's gonna hate. They can't help it.
Haters gonna hate was coined in reaction to Americas way of building up a hero and then taking great glee in ripping him apart and has nothing to do with the common usage of it now.
 
Haters gonna hate was coined in reaction to Americas way of building up a hero and then taking great glee in ripping him apart and has nothing to do with the common usage of it now.
That's the way half our vocabulary came to be, what was your point in bringing it up?
 
Back