[eganist]

It's not even a tax break. The headline is basically shaming them for skipping 700 million in taxes by not selling the company.....

.....except since they're not selling the company, they're also likewise not earning a net 2.3bln in income. Hence: ridiculous.

It's one of the most absurd articles to ever come out of Bloomberg, and in fact it's so bad that I'd instead rather see meaningful dialog about people with the means exerting long lasting influence beyond death. The tax argument presented here is entirely contrived.

I'd likewise prefer seeing a debate around whether a 501c4 is enough to achieve the stated goals around influencing climate change policy and whether the option of political contributions is worthwhile compared to a 501c3, for instance. Any discussion stemming from the current "skirts $700m in taxes" headline is bunk.

[utucuro]

I think this is a very meaningful article. Without knowing anything else about Bloomberg, it allows the reader to see just how bad the quality of their content is.