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.
Ok, let me walk you through the math. I have avoided 100k of my tax burden by donating 100k to my charity. I pay my employee that money. They pay an effective tax rate of 20%. The government gets 20k of my original tax rate. My nonprofit grooms and breeds gerbils. I created this nonprofit that does not exist because I love gerbils. Now the US govt has more gerbils and lost 80k in tax revenue.
But that’s the same as me donating to the ACLU or some shit?
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.
If I donate to a charity, I can’t hire my friend and pay them a 6 figure salary. No idea how it’s even similar.
It’s the same thing because your money goes somewhere, you get a tax rebate, someone gets a salary, they pay taxes on that money.
You can create a non profit charity, hire your friend and pay their salary if you want, you’re 100% free to do that.
Ok, let me walk you through the math. I have avoided 100k of my tax burden by donating 100k to my charity. I pay my employee that money. They pay an effective tax rate of 20%. The government gets 20k of my original tax rate. My nonprofit grooms and breeds gerbils. I created this nonprofit that does not exist because I love gerbils. Now the US govt has more gerbils and lost 80k in tax revenue.
But that’s the same as me donating to the ACLU or some shit?