Zuckerberg can surely afford this, given how little tax his company is paying: in the UK, its tax filings for 2015 show revenues of £210.7m, on which the company paid just £4.17m of taxes – an effective rate of 2% (itself a 1,000-fold increase on what it paid in 2014). Facebook, however, also managed to generate a tax credit of £11m, which it can use to reduce its future tax burden. The disease of tax avoidance is unlikely to be cured by the Chan Zuckerberg initiative.
Who but a dickhead would compare tax paid to turnover?
Unless we’re talking about Stemcor of course.
That article really skipped over that project where Zuckerberg gave money to New Jersey schools. Because it was a disaster. And he’s clearly learnt his lesson – stay the hell away from government.
Does he say how much the Guardian proudly paid on its turnover? As an example so others could follow?
You got a couple of rude replies btl Over There, Tim. I gave you a philanthropic uptick though and I feel much better for it. Someone mentioned the next People’s Revolution; they really attract the best of society, don’t they?
” in the UK, its tax filings for 2015 show revenues of £210.7m, on which the company paid just £4.17m of taxes – an effective rate of 2%”
Ignoring incidence, for a moment. And in any case, incidence isn’t a concept the Graun seems able to comprehend. Isn’t this completely ignoring VAT?
Wow, who knew that not wanting government to take more of your money than the law allows is a disease? Candidly, I’d say the notion of living to serve government is a sign of mental ill-health, but a bit redundant in theguardian (sic).
Someone over there says if tax loopholes were closed and taxes were actually paid, would there be a need for philanthropy? Has he got a point?