5 ms·

My understanding is that most of this went to his own organisation which is seemingly a faux-charity. If that's correct seems like something he might have lear

My understanding is that most of this went to his own organisation which is seemingly a faux-charity. If that's correct seems like something he might have learned from Donald Trump.

mtgx 4y ago
Arnt 4y ago
No, it's a sensible setup. It decouples operational problems at the receiver from the donor's tax and accounting. Suppose you want to donate a largish sum to someone who's building and running some schools in Kenya. If you have one of those personal charities you can donate a lump sum to your own buffer charity whenever it suits you and taxwise that's all. The deed is done. The buffer can forward the money in later years, according to the progress of the Kenyan project. The buffer is bound by charity rules and more or less has to forward the money somewhere charitable eventually. But if a particular project breaks down (which happens) it can stop sending money there, without any tax or accounting problems for the initial donor.
- ratg13 4y ago
  Yes, but he’s given $5.7B to the foundation and the foundation has payed out a few hundred million. He literally only set up the foundation because the government wanted to tax him more .. the altruism of this ‘charity’ is handwavy at best.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    That's hardly unusual. There are many, many foundations that have been endowed with a large sum that they invest. Many such foundations give away the interest they earn and aim to keep their capital roughly unchanged. Others attempt to spend their money slowly. When I was a student I ran into a foundation that's been doing it for almost 200 years now, and I'm on the board of a foundation that's much younger but follows the same model.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      Let me actually give an example. A little over a hundred years ago, someone who had earned a lot of money decided to set up a research foundation. His goal was to build a house, establish an organisation, and after that provide a steady sum each years, enough to pay the salaries of… I think his plan was 20 researchers. His accounting would be similar to Elon's now.
monsecchris 4y ago
Or the Clinton Foundation.
- sonotathrowaway 4y ago
  At least they had actual tangible impact, Trump pleaded guilty to running a fraud and is barred from operating a charity. If conservatives didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards.
  - wellthatsawrap2 4y ago
  - monsecchris 4y ago
    Actively doing harm is not a tangible impact I desire in a charity.
    - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
      Yes, defrauding child cancer patients causes actual harm. That’s why trump is legally barred from operating a charity. Sorry your whataboutism isn’t working. His supporters inability to admit any truth about him is a big factor as to why he has cost conservatives the past 3 elections.
      - monsecchris 4y ago
        Desiring any sort of consistency whatsoever is not "whataboutism". If leftists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.
        sonotathrowaway 4y ago
        This is exactly why republicans keep losing, they keep trying to repeat lies but they’re not sticking. I think those new Trump NFT trading cards are the secret to winning elections, I hope you bought yours.

My understanding is that most of this went to his own organisation which is seemingly a faux-charity. If that's correct seems like something he might have learned from Donald Trump.

mtgx 4y ago

Arnt 4y ago

No, it's a sensible setup. It decouples operational problems at the receiver from the donor's tax and accounting. Suppose you want to donate a largish sum to someone who's building and running some schools in Kenya. If you have one of those personal charities you can donate a lump sum to your own buffer charity whenever it suits you and taxwise that's all. The deed is done. The buffer can forward the money in later years, according to the progress of the Kenyan project. The buffer is bound by charity rules and more or less has to forward the money somewhere charitable eventually. But if a particular project breaks down (which happens) it can stop sending money there, without any tax or accounting problems for the initial donor.

ratg13 4y ago
Yes, but he’s given $5.7B to the foundation and the foundation has payed out a few hundred million. He literally only set up the foundation because the government wanted to tax him more .. the altruism of this ‘charity’ is handwavy at best.
- Arnt 4y ago
  That's hardly unusual. There are many, many foundations that have been endowed with a large sum that they invest. Many such foundations give away the interest they earn and aim to keep their capital roughly unchanged. Others attempt to spend their money slowly. When I was a student I ran into a foundation that's been doing it for almost 200 years now, and I'm on the board of a foundation that's much younger but follows the same model.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Let me actually give an example. A little over a hundred years ago, someone who had earned a lot of money decided to set up a research foundation. His goal was to build a house, establish an organisation, and after that provide a steady sum each years, enough to pay the salaries of… I think his plan was 20 researchers. His accounting would be similar to Elon's now.

monsecchris 4y ago

Or the Clinton Foundation.

sonotathrowaway 4y ago
At least they had actual tangible impact, Trump pleaded guilty to running a fraud and is barred from operating a charity. If conservatives didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards.
- wellthatsawrap2 4y ago
- monsecchris 4y ago
  Actively doing harm is not a tangible impact I desire in a charity.
  - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
    Yes, defrauding child cancer patients causes actual harm. That’s why trump is legally barred from operating a charity. Sorry your whataboutism isn’t working. His supporters inability to admit any truth about him is a big factor as to why he has cost conservatives the past 3 elections.
    - monsecchris 4y ago
      Desiring any sort of consistency whatsoever is not "whataboutism". If leftists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.
      - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
        This is exactly why republicans keep losing, they keep trying to repeat lies but they’re not sticking. I think those new Trump NFT trading cards are the secret to winning elections, I hope you bought yours.