3 ms·

Color me totally shocked. Not really. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) with $10B in assets isn't really a benign "community foundation", but a wa

Color me totally shocked. Not really. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) with $10B in assets isn't really a benign "community foundation", but a way for billionaires to promise wealth/asset giveaways later and get tax breaks now.[0] 0. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205205488 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205... Every billionaire is a policy failure and likely a deeply greedy, malevolent, and out-of-touch (and bordering on crazy) individual with far too much power and influence over other people and the fate of the species and planet Earth.

marbro 1y ago
[dead]
Fade_Dance 1y ago
According to the audit you linked, the foundation had 1.5b in revenue and made 1.3b in contributions, with management under 1%. This looks like a well run, standard charitable organization. Of course charitable giving has tax breaks. As a society we decided to align our taxation system to incentivize charitable giving. Tax breaks are not given for a promise, they are given for a hard transfer of assets to a charity. If one makes 100 million and gives away 100 million to charity, they net out to a zero tax bill. That doesn't magically enrich the donor by way of some conspiracy which you seem to be insinuating - the donor is still out 100 million plus the opportunity cost of the compounding (say, 5-10 million per year, growing over time via compounding), which the tax breaks don't come close to competing with on a net financial basis. I don't disagree with your view on wealth accumulation in the least, but the vilification of charities giving, literally over a billion to charity over a year in this case, and then hand-waving "the tax breaks make them net beneficial financially for the donors and just another evil for society" I have never understood.

marbro 1y ago

[dead]

Fade_Dance 1y ago

According to the audit you linked, the foundation had 1.5b in revenue and made 1.3b in contributions, with management under 1%. This looks like a well run, standard charitable organization. Of course charitable giving has tax breaks. As a society we decided to align our taxation system to incentivize charitable giving. Tax breaks are not given for a promise, they are given for a hard transfer of assets to a charity. If one makes 100 million and gives away 100 million to charity, they net out to a zero tax bill. That doesn't magically enrich the donor by way of some conspiracy which you seem to be insinuating - the donor is still out 100 million plus the opportunity cost of the compounding (say, 5-10 million per year, growing over time via compounding), which the tax breaks don't come close to competing with on a net financial basis. I don't disagree with your view on wealth accumulation in the least, but the vilification of charities giving, literally over a billion to charity over a year in this case, and then hand-waving "the tax breaks make them net beneficial financially for the donors and just another evil for society" I have never understood.