4 ms·

> Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years

> Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B. Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions. This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined. I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.

Retric 8y ago
> it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
- joemi 8y ago
  If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)
  - Retric 8y ago
    If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck? And what do you think the current difference in tax is?
      - Retric 8y ago
        I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is. Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.
- evanelias 8y ago
  I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Taxes are the art of plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. I am not on the side of rationalizing why somebody 'owes' taxes on money already taxed.
      - Retric 8y ago
        I am not saying he needs to pay more. I am saying the charitable deduction like all deductions are effectively just another form of spending. We hand out money to people buying a Tesla Model S’s, or paying a mortgage payment. Agree or disagree with the idea, just understand it’s not free.
        JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Except 'Not collecting money' and 'spending money' are not quite the same thing. Almost, but not quite.

Retric 8y ago

> it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.

joemi 8y ago
If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)
- Retric 8y ago
  If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck? And what do you think the current difference in tax is?
    - Retric 8y ago
      I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is. Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.
evanelias 8y ago
I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.
- Retric 8y ago
  Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Taxes are the art of plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. I am not on the side of rationalizing why somebody 'owes' taxes on money already taxed.
    - Retric 8y ago
      I am not saying he needs to pay more. I am saying the charitable deduction like all deductions are effectively just another form of spending. We hand out money to people buying a Tesla Model S’s, or paying a mortgage payment. Agree or disagree with the idea, just understand it’s not free.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Except 'Not collecting money' and 'spending money' are not quite the same thing. Almost, but not quite.