Tim Cook: I'll give just a THIRD of what Gates gave to charity last year Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed he is to hand over his relatively measly fortune to charity for the betterment of the planet – once he’s paid off his nephew’s college bill. This is not some sort of publicity stunt to reinforce Apple’s image as a benevolent tech designer. Scurrilous hacks at lesser publications might suggest …
The "suicide cluster" at Foxconn was actually 17 suicides out of 1.2 million workers over 5 years, 10-20x lower than China's average suicide rate, 15x lower than the USA rate and 25x lower than the rate amongst MIT undergrads.
In fact, the suicide rate has "slowed to a dribble" since Foxconn STOPPED giving large payouts above and beyond that required by law to relatives of suicide victims.
Have to agree with 'struggling to fill the page [or site]'. The Reg is not posting many interesting articles of late.
Cook is obscenely wealthy, so it was a very lame thing for him to say.
In other news last week, William Gates was reported to have massive investments in evil energy corporations, but then, he never claimed a ridiculous motto like 'Do no evil'.
That said, I very much enjoyed the one time I saw him speak live, even if he was wearing an all-too obvious toupee. At the time, he was pushing obj. linking and emb. (OLE), and DLLs. MS did not invent the latter, but was sure the main populariser of the idea, even if their implementation was as clunky and bug-ridden as hell until at least Windoze 2000.
Rambling me. Carmageddon 2015: The Need for Sleep.
Tim Cook, the private citizen, has made a very generous gesture and should be applauded for it.
However, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, could do a lot more to meet the social responsibilities of the corporation he leads*. Things have improved since Jobs died, and the company reversed his policy of never giving to charitable causes, but for the size of the company, the amount of corporate citizenship spending is pretty shameful.
* Okay, you can argue that a corporation has no legal duty to fund charitable causes, but it's also true that if I see someone standing on a bridge rail about to jump off, I have no legal duty to stop and try to talk them out of it...
Then you, sir, are a fucking moron.
I mean, seriously, how dumb can one person be to say:
"No, no I don't want you to eradicate malaria, I don't want you to save the lives of millions of starving children around the world, I don't want you to help educate people without the means to do it, and screw those dudes getting ill from drinking contaminated water every day because it is the only source for hundreds of miles....what I want is for you to pay a government organisation, which I am in no way related to and therefore can in no way benefit from directly, instead so that they can continue to make weapons and go to war killing thousands of innocent people and ripping of the population until they are effective wage slaves"
again, as I said, fucking moron.
To the down voters, I would love to know why you disagree, plus I would also like to make a list of like minded morons that I can mentally ignore comments from due to lack of logical reasoning and compassion for fellow humans.
Hi. Downvoted, not necessarily cos I disagree with your sentiment, but because you've managed in a few lines to resort to classical argumentive fallacies, including ad hominum and reducto ad absurdum. Probably needlessly. And to be honest, downvoted also due to your need to calm down a touch. Feel free to add me to the list sir.
Downvoted because I'm absolutely sick of hearing anti taxation rants based around vague handwaving polemnics about weapons this and war that, that sound good at a CND rally or in student common room but pretty bloody naive anywhere else. We can all find things that tax is spent on that we don't agree with but thats not a reason not to pay it. Not always getting the result you want is a side effect of democracry and dealing with it is part of being an adult.
@ Crisp
"There's no reason why Tim Cook can't see to it that Apple pays its fair share of tax and give to charity."
Actually its impossible, at least the tax bit. What is 'fair'? They pay what they legally must using the system set up as it was intended and politicians throughout time have stated openly that people should legally avoid tax and the state should not tax people to excess (in capitalist economies). Fair is the word used to mean more, but again that isnt an absolute value and only used on people who seem to have more than the one arguing for it.
As a result 'fair' is already achieved, but green eyed monsters insist on arguing for more. Those green eyed monsters are often the ones who also want jobs, toys and goodies from the very same companies/people they attack.
So we should continue to pour money down the Charitable Black Hole without questioning what value it has actually contributed, what wrongs it has righted, what lives it has saved and to what end....is that your solution?
Africa as an example remains largely an economic and social basket case despite decades of vast Charitable spending. Much of the Charitable spending is diverted by local War Lords, Corrupt Governments and other parties with self interest as primary goal.
Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a great example of a target missing a massive bullet hole in his forehead. Are you really suggesting that his corrupt regime, so focused on self destruction should continue to receive Charity without question?
Goodluck Jonathan in Nigeria shrouded in corruption and the missing €Billions in mineral wealth that has disappeared from the Nigerian Treasury. Again should we pour yet more money in when they have such mineral wealth but are so corrupt that they cannot or will not serve / save their people?
I recommend that you read more and consider more widely the options, actions and implications before posting again on such a topic.
PS: happy to be added to list of Down Voters, it seems the best list to be on......
As the article says, most of his money is tied up in shares in Apple. If they do well then he does well. If they do badly, his wealth goes down.
Naturally, he will do his utmost to make those shares as valuable as possible at the time he decided to sell them.
Until then he is mostly a paper millionaire.
Anyways, being a $$$ Millionaire ain't such a big thing these days. I woud be at all surprised if there weren't a few $$$ Millionaires reading/posting here.
Apple CEO Tim Cook has confirmed he is to hand over his relatively measly fortune to charity for the betterment of the planet – once he’s paid off his nephew’s college bill.
Is this wrong? Surely paying his bills, which can be argued to include a large bill for his offspring, before giving away money makes sense?
Perhaps Cook should use his power and influence to give more concessions to workers at Far East factories that build Apple's kit, who complained of hideous working conditions.
Maybe he could do both. Maybe one doesnt hinder the other? Maybe its an unrelated problem?
Or perhaps Apple could simply stop avoiding corporation tax – which, though legal, draws flak from those who can't move their wealth around the globe to avoid handing it over to the taxman.
Maybe quit bitching that 'he has more than me'. That is a low blow argument to stop using common sense because some people are greedy (and I mean money grabbers, not the ones who earn it).
Apple has negotiated a deal with the Irish government that allowed it to pay a tax rate of two per cent.
So???
The company also has more than one hundred billion dollars outside of the US that it does not want to repatriate because of tax implications.
And if it wouldnt be stolen for the pleasure of bringing home the cash then they would. Seriously, who would put their money where it will be creamed off when they dont have to?
I cannot believe the attacks in this article against what sounds to be a good thing. Sorry Paul but I seriously hope Tim writes an article on this subject which actually sticks on subject and provides thought and reasoning. I aint a fan of apple (I just dont like the products but can see why others do) but you seem to have a personal beef which is getting in the way of your writing.
a.) Keep accumulating as much cash as possible and start giving to charity.
b.) Reduce profits by increasing wages and/or lowering prices.
c.) Accept taxation
I am sure which I'd pick if I were Tim.
I'm not really sure which I'd prefer if I had the power to force just one choice from the list above.
False dichotomy to assume only one can be chosen. Tim has more control of A than B or C since those are at the discretion of the corporation. Sure, he's got power within Apple to push for B & C (and we don't know if he has) but I doubt could just make it happen alone.
Now, this rich guy talking up his philanthropy reminds me of the gilded age robber barons similar actions.
It might be noted that giving away one's wealth involves giving away what has already been taxed as income or capital gains (this being the USA). That Apple (a company) uses the laws as written by elected politicians to maximize the return to its owners (the stockholders) seems to me just about right. If you want Apple to pay more taxes then it should be obvious how to get that done.
I would prefer the tax only once when it's distributed approach and find corporate taxation simply a bad idea.
When you've earned it and lived your life I can think of nothing better to do than to give it away at the end (or before if it suits you). Bravo to Gates and all the rest for doing the right thing.
You spend $20 buying food for somebody who's hungry, that's charity.
You spend $800 buying a (mostly reliable) beat up old car for somebody without one, so's they can get to work and hold down a job, that's charity.
You give $10 million (incidentally getting a tax break off of it) to a corporatised, statist, so-called charitable organisation that's been captured by bureaucrats and serves only to perpetuate the crony crap that is the biggest problem that we face right now - that's "charity".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
