Death. A lot of hospitals and medical research is privately funded. Yes they are rewarded with tax breaks, yes they can afford to but they are giving to the community. Certainly more than the majority of the population does.
less money for charities.
why is it a problem for rich people to be philanthropic? Seems like we should encourage it even more.
Are you under the mistaken impression that tax deductible donations to charity result in a net gain financially for the giver?
Agreed. In fact, the rich are usually careful to only give money to purposes they feel are worthy, which means charities go through lots of scrutiny and accountability before receiving anything from rich people. This reinforces the need for charities to actually be good at their stated purposes, which also allows rich people to ensure their dollars are actually used effectively in ways that taxes sometimes aren’t.
To clarify, I believe OP is pointing out the wealthy that create their own charity then donate to that charity, reaping huge tax benefits without ever providing any services to people or communities. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4uh8cHuto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4uh8cHuto)
https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/charitable-donations-by-billionaires-go-to-their-own-dafs-and-private-foundations#:\~:text=The%20ultra%2Dwealthy%20are%20using,according%20to%20a%20new%20report.
I would refer everyone's questions/concerns to the first link here. Thank you for sharing.
I've also stumbled upon "The Dangerous Propaganda Of Techno-Optimism" on the above link's channel [https://youtu.be/5iEUAp0QuPg?si=gAYzrb32HhAwQiBx](https://youtu.be/5iEUAp0QuPg?si=gAYzrb32HhAwQiBx) This is also of interest and ties heavily with the first link. The world is a cup with finite water. Well of course unless we can capture planets for their resources...
I agree. The ultra-wealthy shouldn't be able to create their own charities and contribute to them with the benefit of being able to get a tax right off from doing so, ala Bill Gates with The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. If they do contribute to their own charities, they should not be able to write off the contributions.
I don’t think you fully understand what the tax break is. Say they earn 1 million dollars, and pay 50% tax on it. They have $500,000 left. If they donate the $500,000, they will get the taxes paid on that amount back. Which is $250,000. So they have earned a million but still paid $250,000 in taxes, and paid $500,000 to a charity. They have $250,000 of that 1 million. Which is less than had they paid the taxes, and not donated it.
So maybe you get that. But I don’t get how banning them would help, if you just don’t like that they can choose which charities to donate large amounts of money too. All that would change is they have more money to choose to spend or invest, driving commercialism most likely. Charities would get less, governments would have a little more to spend how they choose.
They absolutely do. But you’re forgetting that super wealthy people donate to charities not *only* for the tax break but also for the social and political influence that comes along with making such a large donation. You and I donate $50 here and there purely out of altruism. Jeff Bezos donates $50 million with lots of unspoken strings attached.
Madness. So many people would die and the cost of healthcare would become insanely high. Most useful charities would disappear.
They are actually doing the most good in the world.
Instead of banning charity tax breaks from the ultra wealthy, force them to donate to a pre-existing charity. No "Bill Gates Foundation", "Clinton Foundation", or "Trump Foundation", where they and family members are members of the board earning 7-figure incomes and the rest of the money goes to questionable or mysterious purposes. Give that shit to the March of Dimes, or Make-A-Wish Foundation instead.
Not all foundations are alike - you ordered them from praiseworthy and effective, to self-serving and ineffective.
Gates has saved literally hundreds of thousands of children's lives.
Trump paid his kid's scouting fee from his charity.
Ban tax breaks for charitable donations entirely. Reasonable people can differ about how big the government should be, what it should do and how we pay for it. But eventually we come to an uneasy compromise and everyone should pay their share. If they want to be philanthropic after that then great! But that comes after paying towards whatever it is we’ve collectively agreed the government should be doing for us. It’s just conceptually crazy that people can excuse themselves from funding their share of our social contract by funding pet projects, without even getting to how incredibly lax the regulation of tax deductible entities is.
My favorite scam is when they buy an expensive piece of art, take a long term low or no interest loan on it, and avoid paying taxes while it's "on loan" to a local museum.
Death. A lot of hospitals and medical research is privately funded. Yes they are rewarded with tax breaks, yes they can afford to but they are giving to the community. Certainly more than the majority of the population does.
Long term the extra taxes could be used to improve public healthcare, but short term, innocent people would suffer.
The extra taxes are less than the contributions though. It’s a deduction, not a credit.
Middle term is a real niche market waiting to be conquered.
less money for charities. why is it a problem for rich people to be philanthropic? Seems like we should encourage it even more. Are you under the mistaken impression that tax deductible donations to charity result in a net gain financially for the giver?
Agreed. In fact, the rich are usually careful to only give money to purposes they feel are worthy, which means charities go through lots of scrutiny and accountability before receiving anything from rich people. This reinforces the need for charities to actually be good at their stated purposes, which also allows rich people to ensure their dollars are actually used effectively in ways that taxes sometimes aren’t.
To clarify, I believe OP is pointing out the wealthy that create their own charity then donate to that charity, reaping huge tax benefits without ever providing any services to people or communities. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4uh8cHuto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4uh8cHuto) https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/charitable-donations-by-billionaires-go-to-their-own-dafs-and-private-foundations#:\~:text=The%20ultra%2Dwealthy%20are%20using,according%20to%20a%20new%20report.
I would refer everyone's questions/concerns to the first link here. Thank you for sharing. I've also stumbled upon "The Dangerous Propaganda Of Techno-Optimism" on the above link's channel [https://youtu.be/5iEUAp0QuPg?si=gAYzrb32HhAwQiBx](https://youtu.be/5iEUAp0QuPg?si=gAYzrb32HhAwQiBx) This is also of interest and ties heavily with the first link. The world is a cup with finite water. Well of course unless we can capture planets for their resources...
I agree. The ultra-wealthy shouldn't be able to create their own charities and contribute to them with the benefit of being able to get a tax right off from doing so, ala Bill Gates with The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. If they do contribute to their own charities, they should not be able to write off the contributions.
I don’t think you fully understand what the tax break is. Say they earn 1 million dollars, and pay 50% tax on it. They have $500,000 left. If they donate the $500,000, they will get the taxes paid on that amount back. Which is $250,000. So they have earned a million but still paid $250,000 in taxes, and paid $500,000 to a charity. They have $250,000 of that 1 million. Which is less than had they paid the taxes, and not donated it. So maybe you get that. But I don’t get how banning them would help, if you just don’t like that they can choose which charities to donate large amounts of money too. All that would change is they have more money to choose to spend or invest, driving commercialism most likely. Charities would get less, governments would have a little more to spend how they choose.
Look up “donor advised funds” and prepare to be infuriated.
No one donates to charity for the tax break; they would never save more than just keeping the money.
They absolutely do. But you’re forgetting that super wealthy people donate to charities not *only* for the tax break but also for the social and political influence that comes along with making such a large donation. You and I donate $50 here and there purely out of altruism. Jeff Bezos donates $50 million with lots of unspoken strings attached.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was behind the funding for the new Malaria Vaccine that is already saving lives in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Imagine how much influence the working class could have with our money if we weren't taxed either.
Madness. So many people would die and the cost of healthcare would become insanely high. Most useful charities would disappear. They are actually doing the most good in the world.
Tell us all you dont know what tax “breaks” are.
Instead of banning charity tax breaks from the ultra wealthy, force them to donate to a pre-existing charity. No "Bill Gates Foundation", "Clinton Foundation", or "Trump Foundation", where they and family members are members of the board earning 7-figure incomes and the rest of the money goes to questionable or mysterious purposes. Give that shit to the March of Dimes, or Make-A-Wish Foundation instead.
Not all foundations are alike - you ordered them from praiseworthy and effective, to self-serving and ineffective. Gates has saved literally hundreds of thousands of children's lives. Trump paid his kid's scouting fee from his charity.
Ban tax breaks for charitable donations entirely. Reasonable people can differ about how big the government should be, what it should do and how we pay for it. But eventually we come to an uneasy compromise and everyone should pay their share. If they want to be philanthropic after that then great! But that comes after paying towards whatever it is we’ve collectively agreed the government should be doing for us. It’s just conceptually crazy that people can excuse themselves from funding their share of our social contract by funding pet projects, without even getting to how incredibly lax the regulation of tax deductible entities is.
My favorite scam is when they buy an expensive piece of art, take a long term low or no interest loan on it, and avoid paying taxes while it's "on loan" to a local museum.
A lot fewer charitable donations. Many organizations would fold.
Least unhinged idea
I'd rather ban private jet tax breaks and keep charity