4 ms·

Not clear why this comment is getting downvoted, seems like a reasonable summary to me. From the title I was expecting the article to be more nefarious, like "

by dmoy 8y ago

Not clear why this comment is getting downvoted, seems like a reasonable summary to me. From the title I was expecting the article to be more nefarious, like "donating" to a charity that pays obscene salaries to friends & family for cushy jobs or something.

danso 8y ago
It's not a reasonable summary. From the parent commenter: > And further, this article is basically calling out a person in particular for putting $500M into a fund for the purpose of philanthropy (sooner or later) and then not having made enough donations (it would better if he had to donate 5%/year -- again, why?). From the article: > But four years on, there is almost no trace of the Woodman Foundation, or that $500 million. The foundation has no website and has not listed its areas of focus, and it is not known what — if any — significant grants it has made to nonprofits...If the benefit to the needy is difficult to see, the benefit to Mr. Woodman is clear. After GoPro’s initial public offering, he faced an enormous tax bill in 2014. But by donating via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, he eased his tax burden in two ways. First, Mr. Woodman avoided paying capital gains taxes on that $500 million worth of stock, a figure that most likely would have been in the tens of millions of dollars. He was also able to claim a charitable deduction that most likely saved millions of dollars more, and probably reduced his personal tax bill for years to come. The parent commenter goes on to sum up the article as thus: > Evidently people are so angry at successful people at this point, they are [now] going after their charity too, again not clear on why. The article asserts early on that the problem is lack of transparency: > Mr. Woodman achieved this enticing combination of tax efficiency and secrecy by using a donor-advised fund — a sort of charitable checking account with serious tax benefits and little or no accountability...So while donors enjoy immediate tax benefits, charities can wait for funds indefinitely, and maybe forever.
- dmoy 8y ago
  I still don't quite see how it's an issue. The money can't not go to a charity, it's just a question of when. Why is the time lag such a cause for concern? Say I donate money towards an effort that takes 10 years to get tangible results, so what? If there's some shady behavior later to try to illegally claw back charity donations, then sure, that's messed up. But just delaying it N years? So? It still goes to charity at the end. By the same logic, do people get super upset when someone doesn't donate to charity during their life and instead just donated the vast majority of their estate on death? It has nearly the same effect. Maybe people do get upset about that, I dunno.
  - downandout 8y ago
    Why is the time lag such a cause for concern? It's not a cause for concern. It just makes for nice clickbait headlines, and stories full of innuendo with zero proof of actual wrongdoing. In this case, they don't even really make a clear accusation of wrongdoing. This way, they won't get sued over this drivel, but they will get clicks, and those clicks will cause ad impressions.
  - _jal 8y ago
    In public policy, when you insert a time-lag between reward and behavior for which one is rewarded, there is at least cause for concern. See basically every metro-telecom deal ever for evidence. And transparency is vital. Any time there are dark corners, people find a way to fester in them. See every society, ever. Finally, there's really just a degree of gided-age wealth-fatigue. You have to expect it at a certain point - humans are exquisitely attuned to status differences; it is just how they're wired.
    - Washuu 8y ago
      If I suddenly had billions in stock laying in my lap I would be wishing to donate a bunch of money to help offset that tax bill. I know what I could do with $10,000,000 right this moment. The remaining $490,000,000 from the example in the article? I do not know yet, but eventually I will find something.
  - astura 8y ago
    It's important to note the money is usually invested and getting dividends and capital gains during the 10 years it sits in the fund. And those capital gains and dividends are required to be dispersed to charity as well.

by dmoy 8y ago

danso 8y ago

It's not a reasonable summary. From the parent commenter: > And further, this article is basically calling out a person in particular for putting $500M into a fund for the purpose of philanthropy (sooner or later) and then not having made enough donations (it would better if he had to donate 5%/year -- again, why?). From the article: > But four years on, there is almost no trace of the Woodman Foundation, or that $500 million. The foundation has no website and has not listed its areas of focus, and it is not known what — if any — significant grants it has made to nonprofits...If the benefit to the needy is difficult to see, the benefit to Mr. Woodman is clear. After GoPro’s initial public offering, he faced an enormous tax bill in 2014. But by donating via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, he eased his tax burden in two ways. First, Mr. Woodman avoided paying capital gains taxes on that $500 million worth of stock, a figure that most likely would have been in the tens of millions of dollars. He was also able to claim a charitable deduction that most likely saved millions of dollars more, and probably reduced his personal tax bill for years to come. The parent commenter goes on to sum up the article as thus: > Evidently people are so angry at successful people at this point, they are [now] going after their charity too, again not clear on why. The article asserts early on that the problem is lack of transparency: > Mr. Woodman achieved this enticing combination of tax efficiency and secrecy by using a donor-advised fund — a sort of charitable checking account with serious tax benefits and little or no accountability...So while donors enjoy immediate tax benefits, charities can wait for funds indefinitely, and maybe forever.

dmoy 8y ago
I still don't quite see how it's an issue. The money can't not go to a charity, it's just a question of when. Why is the time lag such a cause for concern? Say I donate money towards an effort that takes 10 years to get tangible results, so what? If there's some shady behavior later to try to illegally claw back charity donations, then sure, that's messed up. But just delaying it N years? So? It still goes to charity at the end. By the same logic, do people get super upset when someone doesn't donate to charity during their life and instead just donated the vast majority of their estate on death? It has nearly the same effect. Maybe people do get upset about that, I dunno.
- downandout 8y ago
  Why is the time lag such a cause for concern? It's not a cause for concern. It just makes for nice clickbait headlines, and stories full of innuendo with zero proof of actual wrongdoing. In this case, they don't even really make a clear accusation of wrongdoing. This way, they won't get sued over this drivel, but they will get clicks, and those clicks will cause ad impressions.
- _jal 8y ago
  In public policy, when you insert a time-lag between reward and behavior for which one is rewarded, there is at least cause for concern. See basically every metro-telecom deal ever for evidence. And transparency is vital. Any time there are dark corners, people find a way to fester in them. See every society, ever. Finally, there's really just a degree of gided-age wealth-fatigue. You have to expect it at a certain point - humans are exquisitely attuned to status differences; it is just how they're wired.
  - Washuu 8y ago
    If I suddenly had billions in stock laying in my lap I would be wishing to donate a bunch of money to help offset that tax bill. I know what I could do with $10,000,000 right this moment. The remaining $490,000,000 from the example in the article? I do not know yet, but eventually I will find something.
- astura 8y ago
  It's important to note the money is usually invested and getting dividends and capital gains during the 10 years it sits in the fund. And those capital gains and dividends are required to be dispersed to charity as well.