5 ms·

Except for the fact that they are at least partially in control of the fund either through a DAF or their own charity. You're right they can't spend it on anyt

by kemiller2002 6y ago

Except for the fact that they are at least partially in control of the fund either through a DAF or their own charity. You're right they can't spend it on anything they want, but they have the ability to direct in many specific instances with few exceptions. Often if it's their own foundation, to further almost any goal they want. So yeah, they get to not pay taxes on their money and at least spend it partially how they want.

tyrust 6y ago
A DAF is just donating to a charity with an extra step, so let's put that aside. They can't further "any" goal they want, it must be a charitable goal. Bill Gates can't take money from the B&M Foundation to buy himself a yacht. I don't really see what your point is. Anyone that donates money is avoiding taxes to spend money on something they want, where "something they want" is a charitable goal.
- munk-a 6y ago
  By running a charity and notably donating to it those people can get clout though and further raise themselves in the eyes of their peers while not paying very much for it. Additionally they can get some other soft benefits from the charity like hosting events with money they paid no taxes on, or, if they're Trump, just buying things they want with their charity fraudulently.
  - tyrust 6y ago
    My original point was that a benefactor that stays within moral and written rules is not avoiding taxes, as kemiller2002 suggested. Breaking those rules is tangential to that point. It's a common mistake that bothers me because it often is used to dismiss (or even demonize) what is, in the majority of cases, an altruistic act.
    - kemiller2002 6y ago
      My point is that it's not necessarily an altruistic act. It's giving someone the choice of either paying the government or sheltering the money to be used within a limited set of circumstances at another time. Yes, in most cases they are putting in more money than they would pay in taxes, but they are maximizing their ability to influence a charitable instance at some point in time in the future. Also, you notice in that list it has their names? They could have made anonymous donations, but they didn't. They benefit from it, just not in a direct monetary sense. Cynical? Yes. True? In a number of cases also yes.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        I would add that charitable donations can often be accompanied by strong obligations that hampers the efficiency of that aide - if a donation is made that requires none of the benefits to the homeless goes to people with a past history of drug use then resources need to be diverted to investigate the recipients and ensure that the accounting works out. Sometimes these obligations are burdensome enough that organizations will stop servicing portions of the population altogether or even refund a donation. Chartiable donations can also come with requirements around evangelism which I personally find aborrent and, as has otherwise been pointed out, yes it's an absolute reduction in take home but abuse of the system is rife and the income reduction mechanic makes this really attractive to some folks if they're hit with a particularly hard year. In Canada I've actually been pleased to discover that your retirement is mechanically a charity - investing into an RRSP (registered retirement savings plan) counts as a direct income reduction which can mean that swing years when options may be cashed out or other windfalls happen - can be put profitably towards your own future well being while also ensuring you don't become a burden later in life.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
malandrew 6y ago
Required reading for anyone making this criticism: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio... It's worth reading that entire well-reasoned and well-researched post, but the tl;dr is that many billionaire philanthropists do a lot more good per dollar spent than the government and they get problems solved that government is often incapable of solving. Plus, a sizeable portion of every tax dollar goes to the military, so tax minimization helps reduce how much goes to the war machine.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Funding the military is, irrationally, politically untouchable in America. Both parties have let the military-industrial complex deeply embed itself into the political process and need to toe the line when it comes to the very powerful defense lobbying groups. That said society at large generally approves to good pay and equipment for troops while being less enthusiastic for military research and stock purchases - this is a bit contradictory since folks want troops in a war to have good stocks but don't approve of spending money on maintaining equipment during peacetime. The sort of TL;DR here is that America being the world police isn't something the public approves of and I think it'd be more efficient to pursue addressing this point then hanging your hopes on billionaires. The utter fascination and praise of billionaires is an extremely toxic[1] spin off from general American Exceptionalism which has done quite a lot of damage to... well... Americans actually being exceptional. 1. In my opinion - how you view the effect of this on society is entirely an opinion thing.
gamblor956 6y ago
A donation to a private foundation is not deductible.

tyrust 6y ago

A DAF is just donating to a charity with an extra step, so let's put that aside. They can't further "any" goal they want, it must be a charitable goal. Bill Gates can't take money from the B&M Foundation to buy himself a yacht. I don't really see what your point is. Anyone that donates money is avoiding taxes to spend money on something they want, where "something they want" is a charitable goal.

munk-a 6y ago
By running a charity and notably donating to it those people can get clout though and further raise themselves in the eyes of their peers while not paying very much for it. Additionally they can get some other soft benefits from the charity like hosting events with money they paid no taxes on, or, if they're Trump, just buying things they want with their charity fraudulently.
- tyrust 6y ago
  My original point was that a benefactor that stays within moral and written rules is not avoiding taxes, as kemiller2002 suggested. Breaking those rules is tangential to that point. It's a common mistake that bothers me because it often is used to dismiss (or even demonize) what is, in the majority of cases, an altruistic act.
  - kemiller2002 6y ago
    My point is that it's not necessarily an altruistic act. It's giving someone the choice of either paying the government or sheltering the money to be used within a limited set of circumstances at another time. Yes, in most cases they are putting in more money than they would pay in taxes, but they are maximizing their ability to influence a charitable instance at some point in time in the future. Also, you notice in that list it has their names? They could have made anonymous donations, but they didn't. They benefit from it, just not in a direct monetary sense. Cynical? Yes. True? In a number of cases also yes.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I would add that charitable donations can often be accompanied by strong obligations that hampers the efficiency of that aide - if a donation is made that requires none of the benefits to the homeless goes to people with a past history of drug use then resources need to be diverted to investigate the recipients and ensure that the accounting works out. Sometimes these obligations are burdensome enough that organizations will stop servicing portions of the population altogether or even refund a donation. Chartiable donations can also come with requirements around evangelism which I personally find aborrent and, as has otherwise been pointed out, yes it's an absolute reduction in take home but abuse of the system is rife and the income reduction mechanic makes this really attractive to some folks if they're hit with a particularly hard year. In Canada I've actually been pleased to discover that your retirement is mechanically a charity - investing into an RRSP (registered retirement savings plan) counts as a direct income reduction which can mean that swing years when options may be cashed out or other windfalls happen - can be put profitably towards your own future well being while also ensuring you don't become a burden later in life.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

malandrew 6y ago

Required reading for anyone making this criticism: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio... It's worth reading that entire well-reasoned and well-researched post, but the tl;dr is that many billionaire philanthropists do a lot more good per dollar spent than the government and they get problems solved that government is often incapable of solving. Plus, a sizeable portion of every tax dollar goes to the military, so tax minimization helps reduce how much goes to the war machine.

munk-a 6y ago
Funding the military is, irrationally, politically untouchable in America. Both parties have let the military-industrial complex deeply embed itself into the political process and need to toe the line when it comes to the very powerful defense lobbying groups. That said society at large generally approves to good pay and equipment for troops while being less enthusiastic for military research and stock purchases - this is a bit contradictory since folks want troops in a war to have good stocks but don't approve of spending money on maintaining equipment during peacetime. The sort of TL;DR here is that America being the world police isn't something the public approves of and I think it'd be more efficient to pursue addressing this point then hanging your hopes on billionaires. The utter fascination and praise of billionaires is an extremely toxic[1] spin off from general American Exceptionalism which has done quite a lot of damage to... well... Americans actually being exceptional. 1. In my opinion - how you view the effect of this on society is entirely an opinion thing.

gamblor956 6y ago

A donation to a private foundation is not deductible.