As you've pointed out, any logical analysis would conclude that, even in the most extreme cases, there's still a sizable positive benefit to society.
People have a problem with "undeserved" good will as if good will is some scarce resource that's limited in supply. I think the reality is they're envious.
Its just a constant reminder that we live at the mercy of these elites, that our tax dollars don't appear to have any effect in bringing about the change that we want because these scumbags have rewritten the laws in their favour so that the money only concentrates towards them.
What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing, but I'm sure as hell not going to pander to their 'benevolence'
I'm perpetually baffled at how one person having this much wealth is somehow considered okay. Sure, we can argue about where it goes instead, but jesus christ is this an unfathomable amount of wealth that really shouldn't be in one person's control.
Bezos earned all of his wealth honestly. He offered products and services for prices that people were willing to pay. He did not steal. He did not force anyone into anything. If he is stupid rich, it is because he was able to provide things people wanted more effectively than anyone else.
How can you possibly justify punishing success? What right do we have to give him money for doing what we want, and then turning around and taking it away. What sort of message does that send to other people?
"Work hard and be successful, but not TOO successful..."
But really, mostly it's that Bezos is a giant piece of shit. His company has a long history of controversy and anything good he does doesn't erase that. That has nothing to do with all the upstanding people in the world who are trying to be 'successful'.
That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The article doesn't exactly make this clear.
Yep, more along these lines. Lots of people are latching on the "tax break" but I thought I made a larger point about where the $10b figure is coming from. That's part of my cynicism: Bezos gets to write a great headlines with big rounding number like $10b, but I wonder what kind of creative accounting will be applied here.
If he sold the shares first, he could claim up to the higher 50% limit. But he'd owe capital gains taxes on the sales, which is almost certainly more than the additional deduction.
You previously stated, "Bezos can avoid that limit," with "that" referring to either OP's or my statement about AGI deductibility limits, which is incorrect.
I think you might now be trying to make a statement about being able to claim capital gains as an AGI deduction without paying taxes on those capital gains? Which is true enough, but not responsive; it's just a fact that was never in dispute.
One way of looking at it is that the government is "matching" part of your donation with tax money.
But you never make money that way.
As far as I know it's simply never been touched since 1917.
Some folks just object to that policy.
> the government added the charitable deduction during the 1917 WWI revenue act
The distinction I was trying to draw was that prior to 1917, charitable giving could not be deducted at all, and what changed was that the legislature of the time decided to make it so. It's 100 years ago, but really not that long compared to the history of this country.
If you want to say the IRS represents the will of society, I think I would mildly disagree. They're not elected. That said, they are largely governed by rules set forth by the legislature, who are at least elected, if not always representative.
Are you sure? What about something like this:
1. Buy art for $1M
2. Get your friends to bid up the price of the art by selling other works from the artist to each other at inflated valuations
3. Donate art to art gallery with a valuation of $10M
4. Deduct $10M donation from your taxes
B) you still need $10 million of income to deduct
C) this isn't making money. You can't directly deduct a collectible or security you donate. You can give it away without realizing any capital gains however.
(B) Replace $10 mill with any figure up to 30% of your actual income. The figures are illustrative, not binding.
(C) Consider not doing the fraud vs the fraud. If you and your buddy both do the fraud, you only expend the purchase price but deduct the higher price. As a result you have generated a deduction from thin air. As long as the higher price multiplied by your marginal tax rate is greater than the lower purchase price, you've made money. So at, say, a hypothetical 50% bracket, you need to inflate it by 100% to break even. At a 25% bracket, you'd need to inflate it by 300% to break even.
It's a profit, but it's definitely fraud and seems pretty obvious. It's essentially a pump and dump scheme, but instead of selling the inflated asset, you donate it while it's still inflated and deduct the difference against income.
There's also this cynical idea that these donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good. But that's intangible and unquantifiable.
I dont understand this sentiment(not saying you agree with it). Let's express this as a contract: in exchange for 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause, $WEALTHY_PERSON agrees to donate $LARGE_AMOUNT to a charitable cause. Let's also assume that $WEALTHY_PERSON is proficient in business, and wont continue to contract with parties who do not honor their end of the bargain.
Assuming you want these charitable contributions to continue, would it not be prudent to give them their 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause??
Not that I am saying all wealthy people donate for no other reason than for pr. Just that if you think that, you might not want to go out of your way to tell them that they are not getting what they wanted.
We're being duped on headlines such as "Bezos commits to $10b" when his net worth won't be affected by that much.
The cynicism comes from the PR, sure, but also from a preservation perspective. I doubt any of the grants Bezos is giving will result in research that shows in any way what Amazon is doing is bad for the environment. It won't propose an increase in taxes on gas based engines like lawn mowers, shipping plastic from overseas, selling meat based products, or if Amazon moved Prime to 5 days shipping instead of 1, it could bundle deliveries and reduce trucks on the street and the gas it uses.
And for sure, it won't be a critical view of the American consumerism (which is fueled and promoted and enhanced by retailers like Amazon) and how if the world had even 1/10th of the standard of living of the US the planet would be in flames right now.
It will probably be something like investment in renewable energy, electric trucks, drone delivery. All new stuff, investment opportunities, things that coincidentally help Amazon while helping the world. Don't get me wrong, it's all stuff we need, but the cynicism comes from Bezos being committed to fighting climate change as long as it doesn't take his money, and actually, it should probably make him money in the process.
If this is the way it works out, isn't that actually pretty great? I mean, I personally find Amazon to be quite useful, so it if could continue being an economically viable business while also fighting climate change, I'd be very happy.
These charities are a way to bypass the democratic method of funding public goods. I don't believe the US military budget should be as big as it is. Yet I pay taxes that fund it whether I agree to it or not. If I was a millionaire I could fund a religious school that taught white Jesus as the one true religion instead of funding secular state schools.
The bigger problem is the people who have created many of these problems now want to be in control of the solutions.
From what I understand of tax deductions, a donation of $X basically means that the donor can skip paying taxes on $X of income. This results in a savings of tax% * $X, which is always < $X. Since tax% is always < 100%, it seems that the donation is always negative-sum for the donor.
The tax deduction also seems like a boon for the beneficiary, since they receive $X instead of (1 - tax%) * $X.
Can you help me understand the cynicism? How does the donor benefit here (aside from PR etc)? It seems like they do not come out ahead financially, and the tax breaks benefit the recipient of the donation.