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.
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.
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 $10k, I take 50% for admin costs, the rest is disbursed. I still make more money than lost to any tax. That’s how a rich person makes money by running a charity. Make even more family money by putting your kids on the BoD.
I mean, sure. I was more thinking about “I care about deforestation/child poverty/outlawing abortion/etc, so I’m gonna make sure my money goes there, and I won’t even have to pay taxes on (that part of) it”, with maybe a bit of “I own (many shares of) a company that does X, so why not suggest that the foundation prefers them as a supplier”.
Like, that doesn’t allow you to buy yachts with it, but if you’re working with that kind of money, you probably have a yacht, or don’t want one/another, and exerting influence is the most interesting thing you can use it for. The particular objective doesn’t have to be harmful, but I feel that it gives very few people another way to excert outsized control on our world, and take revenue away from the state, which might also waste it, but over which the people should, theoretically, be able to excert more influence than on a very wealthy individual.
It’s still exactly the same as contributing to any other charity that has paid employees and everyone has access to the tax deduction that comes with doing this kind of contribution.
Technically you can as long as the yacht is used exclusively for the charity. This was the case when the rightwing tried to say a BLM charity foundation misused funds to buy a mansion, but it turns out the mansion stayed in the hands of the charity even after those administrators left the foundation. AFAIK the mansion was only ever used for meetings, fundraisers, and celebrations.
You lower your tax burden by as much as the taxes you would have otherwise paid on the money you gave to charity.
If you give 100$ that would have been taxed at 30%, you get a 30$ tax deduction, you’re still down 70$.
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.
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.
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.
And then you pay taxes on that salary.
Of course. Still making $, though.
You’re not making more than if you had just kept that money in the first place.
Apparently your math is different than mine. I suggest you re-read what I wrote. How is collecting money as a charity admin not making more?
You take your regular job’s wage, send 100$ to your own charity so you collect 30$ back in tax deduction.
The charity gets 100$, you’re out 70$.
The charity then pays you 100$ in salary.
You’re up 30$ but you have to pay 30$ in taxes on that 100$, in the end you’re back to square one.
Taxes are paid on your total income no matter the source.
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.
But that’s a tax advantage anyone can have access to by giving money to the charity of their choice.
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.
I can’t hire my friends to run my charity and pick their salary
But then your friend would pay taxes on that income so your money ends up being taxed.
Not really how percentages work my dude, still less going to the govt
It’s still exactly the same as contributing to any other charity that has paid employees and everyone has access to the tax deduction that comes with doing this kind of contribution.
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.