Especially those related to art: there's a loophole where the deduction is exponentially higher than the value of the donated art (on the article it's spelled out: If instead that asset is contributed to a DAF, an appraiser determines its fair market value before it’s donated. That yields a bigger deduction,), and even worse, the donor doesn't lose access to art, since he donates it to his private "museum" that's only open a few times a month or a year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-g...
http://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-20...
And, as the article says, * their financial advisers may be allowed to direct how the money is invested and earn management fees.* , so they can still pump money into the companies they need to and extract wealth (very useful when pumping a private equity debt-laden corporation).
And that's without getting started on how they have access to all the "charity's" assets, so they can use buildings, vehicles, even private jets on the "charity's" dime - see Ingvar Kamprad and IKEA:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
So I don't agree that they're always better off not giving to charity. There are some legitimate charities, but there are also a lot of tax loophole charities.