4 ms·
You never end up with a net plus by giving to charity; you are always giving away money. This is because the amount of tax you avoid is always less than what y
by hsitz 11y ago
You never end up with a net plus by giving to charity; you are always giving away money. This is because the amount of tax you avoid is always less than what you gift. For example, you may gift $100, which ends up reducing your tax bill by, say, $30. If charitable gifts weren't tax-deductible the equivalent would have been paying $30 in taxes and having $70 left over to give to charity (for same $100 loss). The tax-advantaged status gives charitable gifts an extra bang-for-your-buck by giving you same net result (total outgo of $100) while allowing you to direct all $100 to the charity of your choice.
Also, notice that you're not somehow "getting something back" from other taxpayers in this scenario. You're just lowering your tax bill.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- aninhumer 11y agoBut the money still goes to charity. Essentially person A is just indirectly donating to their pet charity using political capital. As long as the charity is legit, I don't see the problem.
- hsitz 11y agoRight, there is no problem, this is not controversial. The linked article that started this thread is suggesting that somehow Zuckerberg plans to get this tax-advantaged treatment by making gifts to an organization that is not actually charitable. That would be a problem, but I would suggest that the linked article is mistaken in saying that this is what Zuckerberg is doing.