Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Weaponized Philanthropy
Quote | Reply
https://www.wsj.com/...x-shelter-1511465095

Interesting read. Intellectually I'm at a crossroads in that I think charitable donations should be deductible, but having control of the money should make it taxable. How does one determine that? To me making a donation means you should have no say in the money being spent other than the trust documents.
Quote Reply
Re: Weaponized Philanthropy [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/george-soross-18-billion-tax-shelter-1511465095

Interesting read. Intellectually I'm at a crossroads in that I think charitable donations should be deductible, but having control of the money should make it taxable. How does one determine that? To me making a donation means you should have no say in the money being spent other than the trust documents.

The problem is that foundations involve the ultra rich and their influence pedaling. I think most people believe that influence pedaling can be a problem. It also involves creating these extra-governmental agencies that can end up subverting the will of the people. I think an ultra rich person should be able to spend their money as they choose (duh!). But I don't think they should be able to set up tax free perpetual entities that their heirs will run and benefit from.

I would outlaw forming any new foundations, and figure out a way to wind down the existing ones. I'd probably use some kind of excelerated spending requirement that would finish them off within a decade or less.
Quote Reply
Re: Weaponized Philanthropy [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
=
Interesting read. Intellectually I'm at a crossroads in that I think charitable donations should be deductible

On the other hand, at first this new tax plan was supposed to simplify things, and every time I read about it there's yet another deduction that's either staying or being "grandfathered in" for some number of years. Starting to look pretty bloated.

Couldn't read the article, paywall.
Quote Reply
Re: Weaponized Philanthropy [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
what is the difference between this and a private foundation? just asking.

personally i think too many types of institutions and organizations seem to be grouped together under 501(c) from a tax perspective. i don't think anyone should get a tax deduction for a donation to a political party, candidate, lobby group or similar.
Quote Reply
Re: Weaponized Philanthropy [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not one to bash rich people, but this is as shady as it gets. 99% of people who donate to charities do so because they value the work they are doing.
Quote Reply
Re: Weaponized Philanthropy [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I couldn't read the article because I don't have a WSJ password. I am somewhat confused. Is Mr. Soros not transferring money on which he has already paid taxes on into the trust? Ifso is the issue that the trust is not taxed on gains that are made subsequently? Ordinary citizens can only get tax deduction on about 20 percent of their income given to charity. I would think the rules should be engineered as such for the very rich. If he can personally control the trust it should not be tax exempt.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply