Filed under: Apple
Holding the Command key (aka the Apple key) and pressing Tab will cycle through your open applications. It's easier to Cmd-Tab if you are Copy (Cmd-C) and Pasting (Cmd-V) to and from various applications.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](/Code-https-web.archive.org/web/20110124011342im_/http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Editor-in-Chief
Lead Editor
News Editor
News Editor
News Editor
Features Editor
SoftwareUpdate ipad rumor Mac Ios4 ces-2011 iOS dropbox Apple case features att OsX AppStore jailbreak software survey sales rumors retail android apps gaming Google itunes developer microsoft MacAppStore christmas games game hardware HolidayGiftGuide IpodTouch Ipad2 app iPhone music AppleStore TuawsDailyApp ipod tuaws-daily-app giveaway video hgg holiday twitter ces AppleFinancial deals
© 2011 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SIP said 7:12PM on 12-30-2010
In my view, giving to charities is very much a personal matter. Who gives what amount to which charity is the donors business and no-one else's.
In this case, the only reason to learn about these donations is because shares were given instead of cash and therefore had to be reported to the SEC.
Reply
SIP said 7:14PM on 12-30-2010
I was responding mainly to this sentence: "Unfortunately, none of the charities designated to receive the money were listed in the forms."
Nothing "unfortunate" about the omission of receiving charities.
Reply
jb said 7:30PM on 12-30-2010
there are a lot of bogus charities... just because they are registered as 503(c) corporations does not mean they are legitimate. the guy i bought my first house from had 2 503(c)s, both entirely bogus.
that's why it's nice to know where the money went.
Reply
David Frantz said 9:46PM on 12-30-2010
It really is none of your business, it is up to the giver to determine the viability of the what and who they are supporting.
I really don't understand this incredible desire on some to put their noses into the personal affairs of others. It is nothing more than a personality defect that really should be addressed.
Kleinias said 2:36AM on 12-31-2010
I suppose I also might not understand someone's "incredible desire" to know what charities an executive has donated to. On the other hand, this is a blog devoted to all things Apple, and I can comprehend the normal curiosity some (It is of no consequence to me) folks might have.
jb said 2:42AM on 12-31-2010
it aint really "none of our business" when the american taxpayer is subsidizing these 503(c) charities. it's all of our business. when someone gives that much money to a charity it's in all our our best interests to find out more about that charity.
SIP said 6:32AM on 12-31-2010
@jb: "... when the american taxpayer is subsidizing these 503(c) charities. it's all of our business... "
Just did an online search, and find that these charities are "exempt from federal taxes" -- so are they really "subsidised" by other taxpayers?
In the UK, charities are exempt from paying certain taxes but can claim £0.28 per £1 donated by any tax-paying individual -- a tax rebate directly to the charity which encourages people to give.
Most people, especially those giving large sums, are going to ensure that their donation is going to be used for a good cause.
Reply
jb said 12:04AM on 1-01-2011
look, 501(c)(3)organizations do not have to pay federal taxes. but they are companies like any other. they exist outside the federal tax structure, for the most part. the more organizations go exempt, the more taxes have to be collected from the rest of us to keep the government going.
that's what i mean by subsidized. i pay more taxes because they don't pay any. so they better be held accountable to the public.
go on guidestar.org and look up some of these big charities like united way, billy graham's churches, etc. they have billions of dollars in the bank and don't pay a penny in federal taxes on any unearned income, or on any profits from activities. the directors can pay themselves up to.
furthermore, it's very likely that these big stock donations were set up as charitable remainder trusts. that means that the donator will be able to move all that stock to a trust (without paying taxes), sell the stock (without paying taxes) invest the money into something that pays dividends/interest, and pull all the gains out of the trust (without paying taxes). the donator can do this until he/she dies, pulling in all kinds of income tax-free. of course the money left (the "remainder") then goes to the charity at that time.
but wait, there's also wealth replacement trusts! the tax-free bonanza does not have to end when you die!
read this link, and weep:
http://www.findmyinsurance.com/charitabletrustarticle.htm