4 ms·

I'm not sure I see the big problem here. Our government has decided that if you want to dedicate your resources to an approved cause that it won't hinder that c

I'm not sure I see the big problem here. Our government has decided that if you want to dedicate your resources to an approved cause that it won't hinder that cause by taxing those contributed resources. We don't place limitations on who is allowed to run a charity, and the range of valid exempt purposes[0] leaves a lot of potential for those resources to be used. Just because someone is a billionaire or not shouldn't determine whether their charitable contributions are self-serving or not. Millions of people donate to their churches on a weekly basis and directly benefit from those contributions as well. [0] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

makeitdouble 4y ago
Parent's point is probably that their government should change opinion on the matter and tax contributions to your own organizations. Musk's behavior being currently legal or incentifized is kinda beyond the point.
- twodave 4y ago
  I'm aware of that. I'm adding on that just because Musk has a lot of money shouldn't have anything to do with the laws. In my opinion, if he's not allowed to benefit indirectly from his charitable contributions then neither should the average churchgoer.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    “rules are different for you because you have a lot of money” is a concept we can’t get rid of. Trying to make it irrelevant is exactly why people throw money at ethical issues and socially disruptive behaviors, and get away with it unscathed. When street parking laws have nothing to do with wether you’re rich or not, that becomes an issue. Charitable contributions having nothing to do with it is (to me) an issue. TBH I’m atheist, so my sympathy for churgoer tax breaks is limited, but I’d argue donation to orgs that benefit yourself shouldn’t be tax free in general. To take a silly example: if my street looked like a garbage slum and I made a non profit to make it look gorgeous, while there might be wider communal impacts, it’s something I and the street residents should have been doing anyway, and with no tax break involved.
    - twodave 4y ago
      As a Christian, I feel the same way about tithing (I'd do it whether there was a tax break or not). As a pragmatist, I'll take whatever tax break I can get. I do think it becomes difficult to draw a line. What I mean is, one reason why one might donate to a charity like Ronald McDonald House (as a very prominent example of a thing I've personally been on both ends of) is because when you're the one in need you want it to be there for you. At some point this conversation comes down to assuming the worst motives in people, and I don't think you can write policy from that.
yunohn 4y ago
> Our government has decided Who exactly is this perfectly unbiased, disconnected, non-influencable group of people you call “our government”?
- twodave 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that the concept of a charitable contribution is only for rich people? My understanding and personal experience is that many people benefit from this mechanism, most of them not rich by any local standard.
  - yunohn 4y ago
    I’m not suggesting charitable donations are bad, I’m saying the loopholes need to be fixed. Normal people can continue donating, that wouldn’t change.
jandrese 4y ago
Just because the government is looking out for a billionaire's interests doesn't mean it is necessarily in the public interest. Governments are not flawless. This is quite possibly an area that could use improvement.

makeitdouble 4y ago

Parent's point is probably that their government should change opinion on the matter and tax contributions to your own organizations. Musk's behavior being currently legal or incentifized is kinda beyond the point.

twodave 4y ago
I'm aware of that. I'm adding on that just because Musk has a lot of money shouldn't have anything to do with the laws. In my opinion, if he's not allowed to benefit indirectly from his charitable contributions then neither should the average churchgoer.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  “rules are different for you because you have a lot of money” is a concept we can’t get rid of. Trying to make it irrelevant is exactly why people throw money at ethical issues and socially disruptive behaviors, and get away with it unscathed. When street parking laws have nothing to do with wether you’re rich or not, that becomes an issue. Charitable contributions having nothing to do with it is (to me) an issue. TBH I’m atheist, so my sympathy for churgoer tax breaks is limited, but I’d argue donation to orgs that benefit yourself shouldn’t be tax free in general. To take a silly example: if my street looked like a garbage slum and I made a non profit to make it look gorgeous, while there might be wider communal impacts, it’s something I and the street residents should have been doing anyway, and with no tax break involved.
  - twodave 4y ago
    As a Christian, I feel the same way about tithing (I'd do it whether there was a tax break or not). As a pragmatist, I'll take whatever tax break I can get. I do think it becomes difficult to draw a line. What I mean is, one reason why one might donate to a charity like Ronald McDonald House (as a very prominent example of a thing I've personally been on both ends of) is because when you're the one in need you want it to be there for you. At some point this conversation comes down to assuming the worst motives in people, and I don't think you can write policy from that.

yunohn 4y ago

> Our government has decided Who exactly is this perfectly unbiased, disconnected, non-influencable group of people you call “our government”?

twodave 4y ago
Are you suggesting that the concept of a charitable contribution is only for rich people? My understanding and personal experience is that many people benefit from this mechanism, most of them not rich by any local standard.
- yunohn 4y ago
  I’m not suggesting charitable donations are bad, I’m saying the loopholes need to be fixed. Normal people can continue donating, that wouldn’t change.

jandrese 4y ago

Just because the government is looking out for a billionaire's interests doesn't mean it is necessarily in the public interest. Governments are not flawless. This is quite possibly an area that could use improvement.