• jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Which is weird because I thought that’s how rich people used foundations named after themselves? I thought it was mostly self-funded and a way to lower their tax burden

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You lower your tax burden by as much as the taxes you would have otherwise paid on the money you gave to charity.

      If you give 100$ that would have been taxed at 30%, you get a 30$ tax deduction, you’re still down 70$.

      • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, but if you control said foundation, you can then have it spent on things that you care about. It isn’t the get out of tax free card that some people make it out to be, but it can probably be beneficial in some situations.

        Is what I, someone who hasn’t got the slightest clue about U.S. law, thinks.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Sure, but in theory the charity can be audited and it shouldn’t be buying you stuff you would have spent that money on otherwise… Like, you can’t give money to a charity and have it buy you a yacht.

          • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I mean, sure. I was more thinking about “I care about deforestation/child poverty/outlawing abortion/etc, so I’m gonna make sure my money goes there, and I won’t even have to pay taxes on (that part of) it”, with maybe a bit of “I own (many shares of) a company that does X, so why not suggest that the foundation prefers them as a supplier”.

            Like, that doesn’t allow you to buy yachts with it, but if you’re working with that kind of money, you probably have a yacht, or don’t want one/another, and exerting influence is the most interesting thing you can use it for. The particular objective doesn’t have to be harmful, but I feel that it gives very few people another way to excert outsized control on our world, and take revenue away from the state, which might also waste it, but over which the people should, theoretically, be able to excert more influence than on a very wealthy individual.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              But that’s a tax advantage anyone can have access to by giving money to the charity of their choice.

              • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                The tax advantage, yes, the control, no. I like giving to doctors without borders, but I can’t control their objectives, nor their leadership.

                In the end, my problem is with giving power to individuals who can’t be held accountable. The tax part was mostly an excuse to rant about that.

                  • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Not really how percentages work my dude, still less going to the govt

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            You can pay yourself as admin of said charity. Give me $100, I pay $20 tax or stick it in charity to reduce my tax burden. I have $80. I get 100 other people to give my charity $100 each, it has $10k, I take 50% for admin costs, the rest is disbursed. I still make more money than lost to any tax. That’s how a rich person makes money by running a charity. Make even more family money by putting your kids on the BoD.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Technically you can as long as the yacht is used exclusively for the charity. This was the case when the rightwing tried to say a BLM charity foundation misused funds to buy a mansion, but it turns out the mansion stayed in the hands of the charity even after those administrators left the foundation. AFAIK the mansion was only ever used for meetings, fundraisers, and celebrations.

    • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Foundations aren’t deductible though. You have to give it away to an honest-to-God charity approved by the IRS for it to do anything. And even then, you can never get more money by donating it than you would just keeping the money.

        • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          My bad, that’s true. I guess it’s that private foundations are more limited in how much you can deduct. To qualify as a public charity, a foundation needs to get at least a third of its funding from the public and have other board members, so they can’t just be self-funded and self-directed. A private foundation still has to be for a qualified charitable purpose but only lets you deduct half as much of contributions.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      They put their money into other people’s charities so it doesn’t look so obvious. Scratching each other’s backs.

      • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        doesn’t look so obvious

        So what doesn’t look so obvious? You know that donations can be claimed on your taxes too, right?

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          They don’t get the same kind of social debts between each other when they donate to their own charities. You know, the back scratching thing that I mentioned.

          There is a lot more to it than just the charitable donation deduction. They are all getting a tax deduction for exchanging money with other wealthy people through their charities and the charities spend money on each other’s businesses.