5 ms·

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 G

by 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]

by tyrust 6y ago

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]