4 ms·

And yet I wonder how much $ Jeff Bezos has given out ever since this tweet [1] 4 years ago, when he was seeking ideas publicly on how to expand his "philanthrop

And yet I wonder how much $ Jeff Bezos has given out ever since this tweet [1] 4 years ago, when he was seeking ideas publicly on how to expand his "philanthropic strategy" ?? [1] https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/875418348598603776 https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/875418348598603776

watertom 5y ago
I just figured it was a tax dodge.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  There is no way to end up ahead by giving away money in order to pay tax on that money. So long as the marginal tax rate is <100%, you will always lose more money by giving it away than by keeping it and paying tax on it.
  - satyrnein 5y ago
    Except for potentially things like moving money into your own foundation, then spending the money on your own interests rather than charity. (Not that that's what's happening here.)
aetherson 5y ago
Apparently he created a $10B charitable organization to fight climate change last year.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  Just to dodge tax. Bezos is good business man he will only invest for something in return.
  - solveit 5y ago
    Please explain to me in excruciating detail how you legally end up net better off by donating ten billion.
    - beckman466 5y ago
      "These new philanthropists bring to charity an “entrepreneurial disposition”, Hay and Muller wrote in a 2014 paper, yet one that they suggest has been “diverting attention and resources away from the failings of contemporary manifestations of capitalism”, and may also be serving as a substitute for public spending withdrawn by the state. Essentially, what we are witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class. In the CEO society, the exercise of social responsibilities is no longer debated in terms of whether corporations should or shouldn’t be responsible for more than their own business interests. Instead, it is about how philanthropy can be used to reinforce a politico-economic system that enables such a small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. Zuckerberg’s investment in solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis is an example of this broader trend." [1] Although with your "in excruciating detail" it sounds like you've been presented with the evidence before, yet you are somehow unwilling to admit the failings of the system. This last part is meant as an observation and not as a negative value judgement. This video with Anand Giridharadas is also great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM, as well as his book 'Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World'. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-with-charitable-billionaires-philanthrocapitalism https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-wit...
    - geofft 5y ago
      I'm not sure I agree with the premise myself, but I find the argument plausible: if it goes into a new charitable organization today, that's $10B off his taxable income this year, whether or not the money goes to actual efforts this year. If he directs donates the money later, then he gets that exact amount as a deduction later. Given that he's stepping down as CEO this year, the difference between a $10B deduction on his taxes this year and the same amount of money deducted across multiple future years when he has less income can be substantial. (This argument assumes that he intends to spend $10B on charitable donations at some point in his life anyway; it's not an argument for why spending $10B is better for his taxes than not spending it at all.)
  - OminousWeapons 5y ago
    Yea how dare people engage in behavior the tax code is deliberately designed to incentivize. The nerve of them!
  - nceqs3 5y ago
    You clearly have no idea how the US tax system works.

watertom 5y ago

I just figured it was a tax dodge.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
There is no way to end up ahead by giving away money in order to pay tax on that money. So long as the marginal tax rate is <100%, you will always lose more money by giving it away than by keeping it and paying tax on it.
- satyrnein 5y ago
  Except for potentially things like moving money into your own foundation, then spending the money on your own interests rather than charity. (Not that that's what's happening here.)

aetherson 5y ago

Apparently he created a $10B charitable organization to fight climate change last year.

cute_boi 5y ago
Just to dodge tax. Bezos is good business man he will only invest for something in return.
- solveit 5y ago
  Please explain to me in excruciating detail how you legally end up net better off by donating ten billion.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    "These new philanthropists bring to charity an “entrepreneurial disposition”, Hay and Muller wrote in a 2014 paper, yet one that they suggest has been “diverting attention and resources away from the failings of contemporary manifestations of capitalism”, and may also be serving as a substitute for public spending withdrawn by the state. Essentially, what we are witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class. In the CEO society, the exercise of social responsibilities is no longer debated in terms of whether corporations should or shouldn’t be responsible for more than their own business interests. Instead, it is about how philanthropy can be used to reinforce a politico-economic system that enables such a small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. Zuckerberg’s investment in solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis is an example of this broader trend." [1] Although with your "in excruciating detail" it sounds like you've been presented with the evidence before, yet you are somehow unwilling to admit the failings of the system. This last part is meant as an observation and not as a negative value judgement. This video with Anand Giridharadas is also great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM, as well as his book 'Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World'. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-with-charitable-billionaires-philanthrocapitalism https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-wit...
  - geofft 5y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with the premise myself, but I find the argument plausible: if it goes into a new charitable organization today, that's $10B off his taxable income this year, whether or not the money goes to actual efforts this year. If he directs donates the money later, then he gets that exact amount as a deduction later. Given that he's stepping down as CEO this year, the difference between a $10B deduction on his taxes this year and the same amount of money deducted across multiple future years when he has less income can be substantial. (This argument assumes that he intends to spend $10B on charitable donations at some point in his life anyway; it's not an argument for why spending $10B is better for his taxes than not spending it at all.)
- OminousWeapons 5y ago
  Yea how dare people engage in behavior the tax code is deliberately designed to incentivize. The nerve of them!
- nceqs3 5y ago
  You clearly have no idea how the US tax system works.