3 ms·

This isn’t how it works for the rich. If you donate appreciated assets, you don’t pay taxes on the appreciation, so in the best case scenario (e.g. you bought

This isn’t how it works for the rich. If you donate appreciated assets, you don’t pay taxes on the appreciation, so in the best case scenario (e.g. you bought bitcoin at a penny) you donate $100, but it is the equivalent of $80 after tax. Additionally, you get to write that $100 donation off your income. If you’re in the highest tax bracket, that means you’re saving $39 off your tax bill. You’ve effectively given $100 in exchange for the cost of $41.

asciident 7y ago
You just agreed with your parent post. He said "A donation costs the donor much more than the tax reduction." In your example, the donation cost the donor $100, which is much more than the tax reduction of $39 + $20. But on another point, didn't you just double count the tax? You donated $100 of bitcoin, and you write it off your taxes (so not having to pay that $39), but you just counted another $20 somewhere.
prepend 7y ago
But the donor could have spent the Bitcoin on comic books and paid taxes. So from a personal balance sheet the options are: Donate $100, reduce taxes by $20. (Net expense $80, cash in pocket $0) Cash in $100, pay taxes of $20. (Cash in pocket $80) The donor still gets more cash by not donating. The difference is that they can get more value by donating. In the sense if they donate to a cause they can spend $100 plus the $20 they would pay in taxes for total impact of $120. If they spent it on a taxable cause then they would spend $100 get $80 in impact since they would need to use $20 on taxes.