Slashdot Log In
The Philanthropic Arm of Google
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 16, 2005 07:35 AM
from the reach-out-and-touch-in-a-good-way dept.
from the reach-out-and-touch-in-a-good-way dept.
GoatJuggler writes "I accidentally visited google.org recently and ended up at a different Google site that appears to be a placeholder for Google's future foray into the world of philanthropy. A quote from Sergey Brin & Larry Page is there now, 'We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems.' Not much to see there now, but it's certainly refreshing to see a successful company leveraging their success to do good. Googling part of that quote led me to a blog that references the uniqueness of Google's SEC filing. The Google Foundation is referenced, and Google's job page now mentions that they are looking to fill the position of Executive Director for the Google Foundation. So, expect Good Things(TM) (like saving 3-legged kittens) from Google soon."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Their first task (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Their first task (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.updatewatch.com/)
Answers [answers.com]
Re:Their first task (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ggvaidya.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 16 2006, @11:28PM)
So what's the next task?
All that, and a great tax write off too! (Score:2, Insightful)
Purpose of charitable tax "write offs" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nosense.org/)
The government (well the AU government anyway) doesn't want to apply tax to money you've earned that you give to charities.
In AU (and possibly other places), a "tax write off" doesn't really directly reduce your tax at all. What it does is reduces your taxable income, IOW, the income that tax is calculated against. For example, if, before tax, you've earned $30 000, and you donate $2000 to a charity, your taxable income then becomes $28 000. The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.
Another way to look at it is that your taxable salary is your "profit" for working - you're allowed to make tax deductions on things necessary to generate that salary "profit". For example, being in IT, I can claim Internet access, IT Books etc. All these tax deductions are not reducing my tax, they are reducing the portion of my salary that I'll pay tax on.
So, if you want to pay no tax, give away all of your salary to a Charity until your taxable salary is below the taxable salary threshold eg. in AU, $6000 p.a.
I'm fairly sure that companies have the same general options - if they donate part of their profit to charity, they don't pay tax on their donations. Of course, they could give away all of their profit to a charity, pay no tax, but also not pay the shareholders any increase in their investment (dividend, increased stock price via stock buy back).
I'm not accountant so I could be somewhat wrong about the above. I am fairly sure about the concept of tax deductions not "directly reducing" your tax though - I used to think that way, as I think a lot of other people do. It's all about reducing your taxable income.
Re:Purpose of charitable tax "write offs" (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jbryce.org.uk/)
There are some companies that donate their entire profits to charity. They are mostly trading subsidiaries of the charity in question, and they pay their profits to the charity as a donation rather than as dividends so that they don't have to pay any tax on their profits.
In other words... (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://locut.us/~ian/blog/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 20 2005, @02:26PM)
Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure: put this into your
0.0.0.0 slashdot.org
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Have they unleashed another new, non-standard boondoogle into the new systems that crufts up plain
Already doing good (Score:1, Informative)
(http://www.gamingoverload.com/)
Google also makes me look smart to the people that ask me stupid questions that take 3 seconds to find.
Ahhh... it must give them a warm fuzzy feeling inside
Saving three legged kittens from Google? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.rumorsdaily.com/)
Now I truly fear the monstrosity that is Google.org.
Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.updatewatch.com/)
Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ilikepuffynipples.com/)
Sergei: We can rebuild him. We have the technology.
Then, they fuse together the two- and three-legged cats, and create Cat5, a supercat to guard the Googleplex.
Re:Saving three legged kittens from Google? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.calumny.demon.co.uk/)
Would that Cat5 be twisted pair, then?
Cleaning their image (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://the6thestate.blogspot.com/)
If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my opinion.
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover this is not their first gesture. If u are aware, Google is supporting Firefox big way. Internet world has gained a lot from Google.
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Insightful)
Their search isnt their income-producing profit, their advertising is. And they surely have no lock on the advertising market, even the web advertising market. They also dont really have much power to abuse any perceived monopoly you think they do have, since if you dont like their search, you *are* always free to use another one, on a moments whim (yahoo/msn/whatever).
Someone else's choice of search engine hardly has any effect on your choice (unlike the case where someone sends you a document that your job depends on, and sends it in a proprietary format that the vendor of only one brand of software refuses to document, and even goes so far as to *patent* key technology that would have to be used in any competing software trying to read/interpret that data - which would definitely be an abuse of monopoly)
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is not an independent entity. It actually represents the people and whatever it does affects the people. The debt of your country is your debt as well, and you share it with your co-nationals. Moreover, your government operates with the money from your taxes which is, ultimately, your money. Basically your country being a debtor means that your government has been spending the money you haven't given to it yet (simplistically written, admittedly, but you haven't gone beyond the republican slogans either).
If you didn't like that thought, then think for whom you vote next time.
You might find excuses to prove me wrong, but they won't amount to more than being just excuses.
Raising taxes is not a problem. It's how they are spent that makes a difference. If your government raised the taxes to provide universal health care, nobody would need to pay for insurance. Take with one hand, give with the other. However, that also means that your government would be managing more of your money, and some people have a problem with that (for good reasons too).
You don't provide any reason for saying that low taxes encourage increasing productivity and, implicitly, economic growth. And that's because it's wrong and you don't have a valid reason. The statistics waved so dearly by the republicans are misleading at best. They are measured in yearly intervals and the reference is always the worst year of the recent period (e.g. 1982 for Reagan's tax cuts, 1999 for Bush II). The claims made based on these numbers are fraud. The measurements should be compared over whole economical cycles (i.e. periods between two successive recessions; this usually translates into one decade). The peaks and the averages should be considered, not the lowest points.
If you did all this, you'd find that the tax rate doesn't have any significant influence on the state of the economy.
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/)
If, every time a large corporation does this (and they all do), you're going to get scared of what horrible evil that PR is covering up, you're going to end up cowering in fear at every step. It's just one way of the government spending tax dollars that doesn't involve the government getting to decide HOW to spend those dollars. IMHO, that's a heck of a lot better than handing it to war-mongers.
What really boggles me is that a genuinely good company like Google (I've talked with several people there, and watched their business closely, and they ARE good) gets accused of having horrible malicious goals more than any 3 other companies I've ever heard of. I mean, for Pete's sake, GE makes NUKES! It's their job. They crank them out like candy. And yet, somehow it's Google that we focus our scrutiny on?!
Re:Cleaning their image (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, some entities do this because the government is so corrupted, slanted by special interests, and utterly incapable of doing certain needed things. Many charitable foundations have people who might be termed 'captains of industry' sitting on their board, people who have PROVEN they are capable administrators. Government, on the other hand, is composed of careerist civil service sloths, and the overgrown shyster 'used car salesmen' types who succeed in politics.
Kind and gentle (Score:2)
(http://monogon.org/)
Yes but (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a minute... (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://matrophe.freeshell.org/nfd/)
Why do three-legged kittens need saving from google? What the hell are they doing with three-legged kittens?
Oh.
It was just a misplaced modifier. Whew.
cool (Score:5, Insightful)
i dont really think the starving people in africa bill gates has fed really give two hoots about where the money comes from.
sometimes, being capitalist swine can be a good thing.
Re:cool (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://haltingpoint.blogspot.com/)
But wait, they're getting something out of it, they're getting a tax writeoff and lots of PR! HOLY CRAP! What is this world coming to.
If companies are giving money to poor starving people, thats a GOOD THING. Don't bring your prejudices against America into this.
hmm (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.frogsporn.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 26 2006, @05:30PM)
It will be interesting to see what else these guys can come up with in the coming years
Other Philanthropists (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://quizzes-online.com/)
Though much maligned in our community, Bill and Melinda Gates [gatesfoundation.org] and Steve Case [se-alliance.org] have also set up charitable foundations.
Of course, it's up to the reader to determine whether their goals are truly philanthropic or whether they serve to extend the agendas of Bill and Steve. More to the point, is any philanthropic organisation ever agenda-free?
Re:Other Philanthropists (Score:5, Informative)
(http://btk.sf.net/)
Given that malaria is one of the biggest third-world killers, and that very few drug companies are willing to invest research money into drugs for poor people, I think the Gates' are actually doing some good work in this area.
I suppose you could tie that to an "agenda," but you'd have to be awfully cynical.
wedding announcement? (Score:2, Funny)
gezz (Score:2, Funny)
"No Evil" and its meaning (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://ltk.livejournal.com/)
Many like to say that google is somehow the golden child of corporations. That they are above all others, magically concerned with not only their own profits.
Others like to say its all bullshit; a happy face they stick on to look more appealing to the masses. After all, any corporation is as evil as any other, and their primary concern for their stockholders is obviously profit.
But who's right? I'd say that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think the founders of Google and its staff truly, genuinely wish to keep themselves untainted. People always get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear about businesses like Enron. And I for one would certain prefer to employ the business of a company who has this positive attitude, its refreshing. By virtue of this admirable reputation, they generate more business. Seems win-win.
Corporation (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://batteriesnimh.com/)
Read thr book or see the documentary:
http://www.thecorporation.com
I had a three legged kitten (Score:2)
To the editors (Score:3, Insightful)
Old news (Score:3, Insightful)
The blog and of course the SEC Form S-1 were written in April, 2004. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since then except for a very brief coming soon website.
Nothing to see here. Move on! Move on!
Someday??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Gotta love 'em (Score:1)
Those software patenting, future philanthropic types.. Great guys, I tell ya! :)
Can blame Slashdot for reporting. Google's their great blue, red, yellow, and green hope.
I've been thinking of subscribing to Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.shaunc.com/)
But for the past month, it seems that every day brings a new Google story or three to Slashdot. Then we start getting "news" stories like this [slashdot.org] which aren't news at all, but instead describe features of Google which have existed for at least a year. I suppose that I could submit a story about Google indexing belly-button lint, referencing a two paragraph article that I posted somewhere, and it would wind up on the
This story is a non-story, like many of the Google stories lately. Google.org has a bit of text promising to be philanthropic, in some undetermined manner, at some undetermined point in the future. How in $DEITY's name is this a news story? If I were to buy the
Does OSDN get a kickback from Google for every Google article posted here? I really want to know, because it's getting ridiculous, and if Slashdot doesn't provide a way to opt-out of the multitude of unnecessary Google articles, there's no way that I'm going to start paying for this.
Google owned domains... (Score:1)
Find domain names owned by companies or individuals [virtualchase.com]
Its the Tax Stupid (Score:1, Troll)
And they fail to mention "the tax breaks" they get. Instead of parting with money in form of taxes, and let the govt do the job, they would rather spend it themselves and get the attention. Ah, it feels like god.
And what about the offshore dev centre they own in India -- two of them actually. Will they be doing some philanthropy in India too since they already get huge tax breaks for their development centre in India(being an EOU).
--
All our taxes are belongs to you.
Other google sites (Score:1)
(http://9mmcensor.zerobrains.com/)
Justice VS Charity (Score:2)
(http://canadiancynic.com/)
Could google save toby? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Worth mentioning that Google isn't the only one (Score:2, Informative)
Bill Gates and Sergey Brin & Larry Page (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://vsxgen.sourceforge.net/)
Conclusion: They, and Google, are the greatest on earth.
Bill Gates is one of the largest philantropes on the planet.
Conclusion: He, and Microsoft, is the spawn of satan.
Don't misunderstand my sarcasm above. I think that what Sergey Brin & Larry Page are doing is great. But lets keep things in perspective. And lets not keep a dual standard here.
I love Google, and I dislike Microsoft, but I know that to some extent I'm being irrational.
Answer.... (Score:1)
What do you get when you google Google?
thats my site (Score:1)
you people are so gullible.
They'll give people money (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://defenestrated.typepad.com/)
The fact is, Google has scads of money just lying about the place. They can invest it, but sometimes the "return on investment" is better if that same money is invested in good works, such as scientific research, food programs, and the like. It depends on your definition of "return," I guess.
Regardless of what you think about their ethics or business practices, Brin+Page, Gates, Case, and the like have chosen to invest their capital in ventures that will (ideally) generate more than a capital return in the short-term. By doing so through a foundation, they're demonstrating both good business sense and laudable philanthropy. They shouldn't be condemned for either.
Misread Headline (Score:1)
Site already slashdotted! (Score:2)
(http://www.dutchvirtual.nl/ | Last Journal: Friday August 10, @07:04AM)
3 legged kittens? There's worse in the world (Score:2)
(http://www.medinheaven.co.uk/)
Phillip.
Charity Search? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 13 2005, @02:27AM)
How can both Larry and Sergey say one quote (Score:1)
"We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems."
- Sergey Brin & Larry Page
So Sergey moves one half of the mouth (and controls one half of the brain) and Larry moves the other half of the mouth (and controls the other half of the brain)?
'cause that's the only way how they could have both come up with ONE quote (and together)...
Reminds me of (Score:1)
yeah whatever (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Saturday April 16 2005, @02:50PM)
Philanthropy should be personal, not corporate (Score:2)
(http://dominionrd.blogspot.com/)
If the company decides to be charitable, it is doing so with other people's money. That's dispicable.
Philanthropy is a purely personal decision to make, and should be made with personal funds. Witness that Microsoft does not give to charity, but Bill Gates has given more money to charity than any other person in the history of humanity.
Bankroll X-Prize type programs (Score:1)
(http://www.inmatrix.com/)
Competition is very good for innovation and if you put several millions into something, that could help to shine a light on a problem.
Not to mention that the paltry prizes offered by NASA are pretty much pointless.
zerg (Score:2)
(http://www.omletteso...hp3?who=Lord+Omlette)
Functionality (Score:1)
Re:uniqueness (Score:1)
Re:uniqueness (Score:1)
Mod parent down immediately (Score:2, Funny)
(http://syberdave.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 13 2003, @07:02PM)
Re:uniqueness (Score:2)
Re:uniqueness (Score:2)