mr. zuckerberg stands to benefit as well. put simply, some of that big tax bill that he faces right now will come back to him through the corporation that he will still own a huge part of and will control. now, madam president, our tax system is built on the principle that businesses as well as individuals ought to help pay our nation's bills. corporations impose plenty of costs on society, from environmental disasters, financial bailouts, product recalls and more. businesses also want and need government services, including efficient transportation systems, patent protections, even federal loan guarantees. paying those costs is why we have a corporation income tax to begin. businesses and sreuts are required by law -- and individuals are required by law to contribute and should do so to meet their civic obligations and pay their fair share. there is no reason why facebook and the other corporations who use this tax loophole should continue to receive these windfall tax deductions. senator conrad and i earlier this month intr

mr. zuckerberg, consider it.ow, the problem, of course, is all the administrative things would be tough. they gave no indication they would do that. just a thought. >> a look at the movers and shakers so far. details on that, seema. >> let's do that, bill. yield stocks in this tight range throughout the day, with the winners and losers taking their cues from the earnings report. that continues to be a sign of perhaps a healing in the labor market. taking a pulse of the market, though, the dow currently down five points. we also are going to zone in on technology a little faster than i thought. a lot of these, facebook, of course, creating a pop to the tech ipos, after the filing yesterday afternoon. we have zynga, linkedin, all higher today. we're seeing a lot of strength in retail, target reporting a january same-store sales increase. more than twice what analysts had estimated. gap announcing its january 2012 sales which came in at $833 million, that's also higher than expected. gap ceo glen murray told investo

this is the main appeal of the ceo's like mr zuckerberg so in basically we have lot of people a lot of traffic and he even culturally the. revenue per capita it means that each of us like you and me if you have an accountant face by forced to spend at least. has already spent at least one hundred twenty seven dollars. i haven't spent one hundred twenty seven dollars although i really like this communicated with my friends with overseas friends but i think this little bit of overestimation. facebook definitely has that much from each customer over excitement then perhaps just i would call this a pure is. still a social a p or rather than a purely investment a pure this is a distinction facebook wants to be more in the spotlight it wants to be more talked about this is the reason it wants to go public. we. investment people are especially in these hard times a more down to earth we've tried to be a more skeptical because the time teaches us to solve for so far we haven't been seeing the huge inflow or real proceeds this is what makes us cautious and makes us believe that facebook is not

mr. zuckerberg more than $22 billion. andrew, it's interesting to think that some analysts would be listing itself at a value of about $10 billion. it's come in at $5 billion. it's hard to know if that's disappointing or not. >> i know. what i've been reading and there's been so much written so far, there's been a huge amount of interest. but there is a lot of vested interest in all of this. so, maybe that $5 billion could go a little bit higher than the $5 billion number we're hearing at the moment. there's been so much written about this. one of the interesting things i saw and you probably saw it, as well, was the actual letter written by mark zuckerberg, the company of the ipo. it's outlining why they're doing the ipo. and it's insight into zuckerberg's thinking. it's equal part al truism and pragmatism. he sate it was built to establish a social mission, to make the world more open and connected. he wrote the first version of facebook because, simply, it was something i wanted to exist. there's really an all truistic

mr. zuckerberg holding 50% of the shares and having pretty much of a lock on the way that the company functionsi mean, we look at other companies, you know, like news corp and the like where the ceo, the head of the company, really has almost total control and it hasn't always worked out that well. >> well, i will tell you, i have worked at public companies for the last, i guess 13 years, both of the. [ inaudible ] >> oh, we seem to have lost greg blatt there. >> right at the wrong time. >> it's an important point to make on that. facebook is driving incredible historical change around the world. you're looking at the revolutions and movements throughout north africa. it's probably very important for facebook a public company for someone like zuckerberg to be in control. you would not want him to be thrown out by interests and institutions that begin to buy up stock in the company. it's doing a public service as well. it's a different kind of company that we haven't seen. it's as close to what the original newspapers and why the whole idea having control. >> i think somebody put it they actuall

mr. zuckerberg? i hope so. >> it would be unconventional, which has been their want. thanks, bob.et more reaction to the chairman's testimony. rick santelli joining us from the cme, steve liesman back at hq. rick, i'll let you have first crack at whatever you'd like, whether the impact on savers or this inflation target. what did you hear? >> to me talking about targets, it gets lost on me. first of all, i disagree with their measurement of inflation. i call into question the notion of how it's so hugely impacts the middle class, lower middle class and poor so much more when a weaker dollar makes imports more. and so many people need to shop at places like walmart due to that fact. i also think it's disingenuous to keep passing the buck between fiscal and monetary responsibility. he wasn't bashful about a white pain other housing, but he doesn't tend to take on his hat of an enabler of the low interest rates. we need a hammer as long as rates are low, we can't help ourselves. so that i think's also a circular discussion. >> steve. >> i always want to know if rick has an alternativ

mr. zuckerberg controls a majority of our outstanding voting power we are a controlled company so thereforeed to have a majority of our board of directors be independent nor are we required to have a compensation committee or an independent nominating function." so their entire board can be in-house. >> is that more controlled than for example you look at google which followed a similar sort of path? am i wrong? >> it's a little bit more specific in the language and it's interesting because they had a compensation committee before they filed the s1 and they looked at companies, you know, where minimum $4 billion in revenue, minimum $50 billion in market cap and made sure their compensation was in line with the companies but apparently they're going to do away with that going forward. as long as the stock performs well people aren't going to be angry about this and mark zuckerberg said in s1 he'll make $1. in 2011, mark zuckerberg earned $1.49 million, coo sheryl sandberg $30.9 million, david ebersman engineering the ipo made $18.7 million and it's a tech company so the head of engineering w

mr. zuckerberg never sells his shares, he can avoid all income tax and then, on his death, pass on his shares to his heirs. when they sell them, they will be taxed ohm on any appreciation in value since his death. steve he jobs is a member of how this works. steve jobs never sold the shares. his wife will be taxed on the additional incremental value created post his death. so meredith compared zuckerberg to lady gaga. she's subject to the highest income rate. she's likely to pay $145 million in taxes this year. that's infinitely more than zumerberg will pay because of the taxes being based on the concept of relation. this is what is so interesting about the fees. miller is now arguing for a mark to market taxation system on the top 1% -- >> traes crazy. >> of -- >> it's crazy for a couple of reasons. first of all, okay, great, if you never sell anything and you never use it, then you don't have to pay the tax on it. which, okay, there aren't too many people out there who are actually going to do that. you can point to steve jobs as one of the few examples that this ever happens with. but lady