3 ms·

> taxpayers are subsidizing tax breaks for the rich I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net

> taxpayers are subsidizing tax breaks for the rich I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net tax break for the individual. If instead of donating $1M in stock, they sold the stock and kept the money, they would have more money than if they donated the stock and claimed the deduction. They get to deduct the $1M, but they don't get to keep it as well. > Which means although taxpayers subsidized the $1M donation This is true, but seems like a net benefit. They get to give a gift of $1M that only costs them $600k. But that's still $600k that they could have kept and spent on gilded washing machines and penguin-egg omelets (I'm assuming that this is what the rich spend their money on). Instead, that money, plus a "matching" donation from the government of $400k, goes to a charity that can't really directly benefit the donor.

kareemm 8y ago
>> taxpayers are subsidizing tax breaks for the rich > I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net tax break for the individual. How is there no net tax break? In one scenario they keep the stock and pay more tax, in the other they donate the stock and deduct the charitable gift. > If instead of donating $1M in stock, they sold the stock and kept the money, they would have more money than if they donated the stock and claimed the deduction. Unless they don't sell the stock. Or can't (yet) sell the stock (private companies). > They get to deduct the $1M, but they don't get to keep it as well. Unless they control the recipient charity where the money ends up. > This is true, but seems like a net benefit. They get to give a gift of $1M that only costs them $600k. But that's still $600k that they could have kept and spent on gilded washing machines and penguin-egg omelets (I'm assuming that this is what the rich spend their money on). Instead, that money, plus a "matching" donation from the government of $400k, goes to a charity that can't really directly benefit the donor. You're missing my point. Often the money doesn't go to a charity doing charitable work for years, if ever. Many DAFs only let you allocate the GAINS on the principal to charity (in this case, the gains on $1M). DAFs are another investment vehicle to minimize tax and maximize gains.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net tax break for the individual. Sure there is, because even if the fund and the “charities” it supports don't directly work to the financial benefit of the donor, they serve the interests of the donor, and financial benefit is just an intermediate goal sought as a mechanism to enable serving other interests.

kareemm 8y ago

>> taxpayers are subsidizing tax breaks for the rich > I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net tax break for the individual. How is there no net tax break? In one scenario they keep the stock and pay more tax, in the other they donate the stock and deduct the charitable gift. > If instead of donating $1M in stock, they sold the stock and kept the money, they would have more money than if they donated the stock and claimed the deduction. Unless they don't sell the stock. Or can't (yet) sell the stock (private companies). > They get to deduct the $1M, but they don't get to keep it as well. Unless they control the recipient charity where the money ends up. > This is true, but seems like a net benefit. They get to give a gift of $1M that only costs them $600k. But that's still $600k that they could have kept and spent on gilded washing machines and penguin-egg omelets (I'm assuming that this is what the rich spend their money on). Instead, that money, plus a "matching" donation from the government of $400k, goes to a charity that can't really directly benefit the donor. You're missing my point. Often the money doesn't go to a charity doing charitable work for years, if ever. Many DAFs only let you allocate the GAINS on the principal to charity (in this case, the gains on $1M). DAFs are another investment vehicle to minimize tax and maximize gains.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I commented about this elsewhere in the thread. This is a ridiculous point of view because there is no net tax break for the individual. Sure there is, because even if the fund and the “charities” it supports don't directly work to the financial benefit of the donor, they serve the interests of the donor, and financial benefit is just an intermediate goal sought as a mechanism to enable serving other interests.