3 ms·
because you have just bought yourself a private park at a heavy discount because it is for "charity". Yet it is for your own exclusive use.
by senorjazz 8y ago
because you have just bought yourself a private park at a heavy discount because it is for "charity". Yet it is for your own exclusive use.
- roenxi 8y agoHonestly it is a bit of a stretch to call that a bad outcome for anyone. It seems pretty obvious that in this example there will be a lot of benefit to society in a generation or two. The preservation benefits of the local wildlife alone sound like a win. The tax deduction seems pretty reasonable for giving up control of a large chunk of land. On the one hand, maybe our hypothetical wealthy person get special access. On the other hand, they have given up the right to change their mind and have the land logged and then strip-mined. The giving-up-of-an-economic-resource aspect is significant enough that a reasonable government could compensate the individual for it, the long term benefits seem to be present and our wealthy friend has committed himself to a course of action.
- zip1234 8y agoA potential benefit being that it is preserved for the future and public funds are not used to preserve it. Yes, in the short term, someone gets a tax incentive. In the long term, that land is preserved.
- gambiting 8y agoBut if the alternative is no park at all, then surely an outcome where someone spends their own money to protect some land is again, a good thing.