
Like the US military budget, most of that 14 million is being diverted into a black ops account to turn Zuck from a cyborg into a real man.
Facebook parent company Meta is slashing costs practically everywhere, but it's not cutting founder Mark Zuckerberg's considerable personal security budget – that's actually getting a $4m boost. In an SEC filing published yesterday, Meta said Zuck's personal security budget would be increased to a pre-tax allowance of $14 …
I like the idea, but if you were still a nice person but with tons of money, there still might be a need for security. I don't have a bunch of money, so I don't know this personally, but I can imagine the possible rewards drawing in risks from people who wouldn't target a normal person. Either that or all the rich people are just paranoid.
It's kinda ironic that they created their own problem here.
Don't pay tax -> no funds for decent education -> only the inbred get sort-of educated (they have to buy the dumb ones their way through college) -> shortage of competent people -> those damn foreigners are better at industry -> quick! ban the crap out of them because we can no longer compete -> lose money anyway because now you can't abuse the lower wages in said countries.
Personally I think that anyone who has more than $1M in a bank somewhere should be made to spend at least three weeks every two years helping really poor people survive. And by that I mean physically be there in the misery with just as few resources, not send a cheque to assuage whatever residual conscience they have.
Now for the good news: there are some people who are well off that actively do this and use wealth and fame to try and help. It's the entitled lot that annoy me.
Funny how all comments seem to assume that money actually goes to security-related purposes.
There's lots of ways to get creative with definitions. Travelling on airplanes with the plebs? Too dangerous, he needs a private jet for "security". Hotels? Are you out of your mind? He needs to rent a private mansion everywhere he lands. You know, it's way more secure that way. Actually, you know what? Renting exposes to way too many risks. Much better if he owns a mansion wherever he happens to be for more than 5 hours.
Moreover, pretty much the same thing appeared in the press years ago. And I just selected a random date range. There's a couple of paragraphs in there that will likely give you a chuckle:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinstoller/2019/03/13/while-the-wealthiest-american-billionaires-got-richer-corporate-spending-on-their-personal-security-didntexcept-at-facebook/
p.s. regarding the $1 salary: https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/why-mark-zuckerbergs-1-salary-means-nothing/232696
Yes, just think. If you didn't have him, you wouldn't just have hosed a load of cash on a pointless corporate rebranding exercise and be chucking everything else you've got down the bottomless plughole of VR.
I'd save the $14m and paint targets on the backs of his jackets if I were you.
Given that all his jackets are identical I think painting it one one could be enough, it could spread to the other ones all by itself.
Not that I would advocate harming Zuckerberg. First of all, Cyberdyne diapproves of anyone exposing the metal under the tissue, and secondly I'm convinced there's a clone waiting to take over anyway.
Joking aside, I'm just wondering how you can blow $14M on security for one person. That's almost $40k/day - for what?!? It feels a lot like ego polishing - in a world context he's not that important IMHO.
Zelensky, Biden, OK, those people matter, but Zuckerberg? Nah. Doesn't register.
Heaven forfend something might happen to the Zuckerborg.
I remember when Steve Jobs died, such was his importance to Apple that they were forced to declare bankruptcy shortly after.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen, because a company is more than one man and if Zuckerborg wants to feel safe in his bed then maybe he should realise that.