3 ms·
That first one is a bad example because as the article notes, they are under investigation for suspicion of not being a legally valid charity. That doesn't und
by fjsolwmv 8y ago
That first one is a bad example because as the article notes, they are under investigation for suspicion of not being a legally valid charity. That doesn't undermine the concept of legally calid charity.
The rest of your argument is spot-on, but one rebuttal is that charitable giving exemption is a way to provide a truly democratic way for citizens to give votes of partial non-confidence in how their tax dollars are spent.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoThat's actually my point. I've heard that corrupt charity's jingle for over 20 years and they're still only "under investigation"? In the meantime, they and their contributors get evade taxes, and at the end of it all, there is no punishment for anyone. No one is going to go to jail for stretching the definitions in the law, it is all plausibly deniable. The only solution is to remove this option period. The US government even negotiated with Scientology where they kept their charity status even after being proven corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States#Negotiations_and_the_resolution_of_the_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t... How can anyone take "charity" as a legal term seriously?