3 ms·
Do you even know what you're talking about? In the US, a billionaire has more money at the end of the day if they just pay taxes on it than if they give it to
by javert 5y ago
Do you even know what you're talking about?
In the US, a billionaire has more money at the end of the day if they just pay taxes on it than if they give it to charity and take the deduction.
The only other way a charity helps a billionaire save on taxes is if they use the charity's assets (e.g. boats, helicopers, real estate) as personal assets. But that's felony tax fraud. A billionaire wouldn't be likely to risk prison for that kind of chump change.
The crooked thing about charities is the people who run them, focus on fundraising, and pay themselves a huge salary. But those people aren't billionaires.
Now, you could rent your real estate to a charity you control at an inflated price, or sell them other services, but I think that's probably an edge case.
- d0gsg0w00f 5y agoYeah, charities aren't full tax avoidance for the rich. It's more of a dick swinging contest amongst the wealthy with some tax breaks to take some of the sting away. At least some good may come from these contests though. Even if 90% of the funds go to pay charity management salaries it's better than nothing.
- javert 5y agoThat's way too cynical. That's out of touch with reality. Lots of really rich people give to charity and don't talk about it.
- azundo 5y agoIt isn't about having money, it's about control of that money. Zuckerberg doesn't "have" the money he gives to his foundation, but he still controls it, vs taxes which he wouldn't.
- javert 5y agoBetter Zuckerberg than using the money to send our young men to their deaths in Afghanistan, or pay people to have kids and not work, or to have it siphoned off through fraud by government workers, or wasted by their negligence, or...
- whywhywhywhy 5y agoTalking about almost all charities, the billionaire element is irrelevant. Google "St Judes Executive Salaries"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]