3 ms·

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. Per

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
        IRS considers debt forgiveness income. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431. So, legally they are the same thing. PS: Though with various caviots as the law is never that simple.
- evanelias 8y ago
  > If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock He would need to pay tax on the capital gains. We have no way of knowing what the stock's cost basis is. For sake of example, let's say the $1.8B had a cost basis of $1B. In theory the tax bill would be $160M. While that's a decent chunk of change, I definitely wouldn't describe it as "a large chunk" of the $1.8B being "subsidized by tax payers". Also keep in mind the ultra-wealthy have all sorts of tax avoidance schemes anyway, and regardless of what he spent this money on, he is likely paying a much lower taxation rate than you or I (or the example above). That's a separate topic though.
  - Retric 8y ago
    In that hypothetical situation, 160M would only be part of his deduction, he would also reduce other tax burdens due to the charitable deduction also applying. Also, I would call 0.16 billion a large chunk of 1.8Billion as it would drop that down to 1.64 billion. Anyway I would not call a basis of 1B out of 1.8B a highly appreciated assets. If he wants to keep a more appreciated asset with a basis of say 1/2 or 1/10th it's current price as a better long term investment you can still do this. Donate the highly appreciated stock, sell some less appreciated stock and use the proceeds to buy the stock you want which now has a much higher basis. Then if the stock you buy tanks you can at least take a deduction when you sell it.

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
      IRS considers debt forgiveness income. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431. So, legally they are the same thing. PS: Though with various caviots as the law is never that simple.
evanelias 8y ago
> If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock He would need to pay tax on the capital gains. We have no way of knowing what the stock's cost basis is. For sake of example, let's say the $1.8B had a cost basis of $1B. In theory the tax bill would be $160M. While that's a decent chunk of change, I definitely wouldn't describe it as "a large chunk" of the $1.8B being "subsidized by tax payers". Also keep in mind the ultra-wealthy have all sorts of tax avoidance schemes anyway, and regardless of what he spent this money on, he is likely paying a much lower taxation rate than you or I (or the example above). That's a separate topic though.
- Retric 8y ago
  In that hypothetical situation, 160M would only be part of his deduction, he would also reduce other tax burdens due to the charitable deduction also applying. Also, I would call 0.16 billion a large chunk of 1.8Billion as it would drop that down to 1.64 billion. Anyway I would not call a basis of 1B out of 1.8B a highly appreciated assets. If he wants to keep a more appreciated asset with a basis of say 1/2 or 1/10th it's current price as a better long term investment you can still do this. Donate the highly appreciated stock, sell some less appreciated stock and use the proceeds to buy the stock you want which now has a much higher basis. Then if the stock you buy tanks you can at least take a deduction when you sell it.