I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either.

Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.

Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock.

Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause.

Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.

> If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock

He would need to pay tax on the capital gains. We have no way of knowing what the stock's cost basis is.

For sake of example, let's say the $1.8B had a cost basis of $1B. In theory the tax bill would be $160M. While that's a decent chunk of change, I definitely wouldn't describe it as "a large chunk" of the $1.8B being "subsidized by tax payers".

Also keep in mind the ultra-wealthy have all sorts of tax avoidance schemes anyway, and regardless of what he spent this money on, he is likely paying a much lower taxation rate than you or I (or the example above). That's a separate topic though.

In that hypothetical situation, 160M would only be part of his deduction, he would also reduce other tax burdens due to the charitable deduction also applying.

Also, I would call 0.16 billion a large chunk of 1.8Billion as it would drop that down to 1.64 billion.

Anyway I would not call a basis of 1B out of 1.8B a highly appreciated assets. If he wants to keep a more appreciated asset with a basis of say 1/2 or 1/10th it's current price as a better long term investment you can still do this. Donate the highly appreciated stock, sell some less appreciated stock and use the proceeds to buy the stock you want which now has a much higher basis.

Then if the stock you buy tanks you can at least take a deduction when you sell it.

Taxes are the art of plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. I am not on the side of rationalizing why somebody 'owes' taxes on money already taxed.

I am not saying he needs to pay more. I am saying the charitable deduction like all deductions are effectively just another form of spending.

We hand out money to people buying a Tesla Model S’s, or paying a mortgage payment. Agree or disagree with the idea, just understand it’s not free.

Except 'Not collecting money' and 'spending money' are not quite the same thing. Almost, but not quite.

IRS considers debt forgiveness income. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431.

So, legally they are the same thing.

PS: Though with various caviots as the law is never that simple.

If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)

If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.

What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck?

And what do you think the current difference in tax is?

I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is.

Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.