But it is not new, even in the Bible they spoke about it (Matthew 6:2): "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men."
The tax benefits are there to incentivize philanthropic giving. Society benefits from their giving and they receive a tax benefit and PR boost in return. It's not like they're saving more money total by giving it away. And sure, it'd be nice if philanthropists were super humble and anonymous, but the money helps either way, and I don't think those who are helped by the giving care if the givers have a statue of themselves up somewhere.
What should be encourage: a better distribution of the profits in the value production chain. At amazon, Wallmart, all the employees should be obscenely well paid (relatively to their job), the enormous profits should not be concentrated at the top.
It's a trivial matter to write the terms of the foundation such that yourself/successors can draw permanent income via "board" positions, advisory roles, or other means.
This in turn allows you to take income from the charity (as an advisor/board member/fake title) so you're getting some back (with 40% taxed as income) via charity "employment".
Then as a cherry on top, you get to push headlines that you are altruistic and have buildings named after you.
Also, your friends can be advisors/board members for your charity and donate you gifts.
There's also the unfortunately more common interpretation I see on reddit where somehow people believe that tax deductions are generally greater than the donated amount
First you buy stock in your selected list of companies. Next you pledge suitable sums of money to charity programmes. Then you use your power and influence in ensuring said companies get all the big contracts. Your foundation is funding these programmes of course, so you can influence whom they partner with. The stocks of those companies shoot up and you profit. The funding is effectively more of a strategic investment than a donation. The tax savings are just a bonus.
Think about why Gates, who is in the philanthropy business, fought so hard to ensure Oxford don't put out their vaccine in the public domain? Oxford wanted to do so but Gates stepped in "suggesting" they partner with a well known entity like AstraZeneca instead. Of course, when you are a benefactor to an orgranisation, your suggestions tend to do more than just suggestions. AstraZeneca's terms were that they get exclusive IP and licensing rights and you know the rest.
The whole philanthropy argument is irrelevant PR.
This wealth wasn't created in a vacuum.
Gold & uranium?
There's always something some where worth taking, smoke and mirrors of democracy pave the way.
One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter.
Replacing the government middleman with a rich-person & associated bureacracy middleman. At least the government is meant to be accountable to the people.
They should donate to a foundation. They should not have link with it (direct or indirect). Their family (direct or indirect) should not have link with it (direct or indirect).
The problem with these structures is that they allow someone to control and directly benefit from assets without fiscally owning them. Usually these foundations have complex structures and use generous fiscal code of some countries.
For many, the main goal is to lower the fiscal pressure during transmission to the children.
All of these, frankly, stupid arguments that he should just give the IRS money for no reason because they don't tax him high enough is ridiculous. Literally a drop in the bucket. Full year budget - $4.89 Trillion in 2019.
If you do actually believe that the federal government is the most efficient way to redistribute wealth, at least earmark it to killing the debt, which is an unethical institution (you cannot go back in time and vote against spending that your generation is forced to pay off; it's taxation without representation)
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
I don’t have a problem with the guy or with his wealth, but the whole “oh but if they’d only tax me” thing is infuriating.
Hell, he could just endow any number of non-Ivy League schools and pay for kids to go to college.
You just have to step up and do it one day, or, if you're warren buffet, tell your personal assistant to set it up.
Anybody who wants to pay more taxes can write the IRS a check. It's very easy to do.
Wealth is competitive. Over time, having a higher rate of return than someone else results in substantial differences in overall wealth. Everyone in his position being on the same playing field and chipping in equally is not the same as him martyring himself and letting more selfish peers acquire more resources and sway.
The consistent criticism is that Buffet has not put in enough lobbying to change the system. He could afford building of lobbyists and not farms and burned out influencers manipulating public consensus. Now that’s a a decent criticism. But no one should ever have to pay more than they must, just to have an opinion on their own government.
Buffet shouldn’t have just cut the IRS a check for $2B because it’s “meaningless to just send the money”?
So unless all the pieces are in place there is no value in paying the amount in taxes you publicly claim you should pay?
That’s like saying alcohol should be illegal, but drinking all the time. “Well, there is no point in me not drinking, the point is to change the law”.
That makes zero sense.
I completely disagree with you. The move should be to change the system.
It’s hard to take someone seriously when they say they should pay more tax, have every opportunity to pay more tax, yet choose not to pay more tax.
What you are saying is he should make a donation to the US government.
It’s why we have the phrase “put your money where you mouth is”.
And it’s not a donation. It’s intentionally paying more taxes because that what you think you should be doing. If the law changed he’d be paying the extra money anyways.
The law won't change retroactively so I don't see "If the law changed he’d be paying the extra money anyways." makes any sense.
Changing the law, on the other hand, is significant, because it impacts every millionaire/billionaire.
This is just a bullshit billionaire who won’t do what he’s asking others to do.
Oh but it doesn't get spent with your name associated, so that's obviously not a good option for egomaniacs.
They basically said the cost of company formation (doesn't really matter where, but anywhere that matters, like Panama or Seychelles or BVI or Macau or etc), mail handling monthly payments, virtual office payments, legal and accountant time, etc exceeds more than 99% of peoples' actual tax payment. That includes people making 500k. And that there is virtually no point in doing so. Doubly more if you are US based due to reporting requirements and massive additional costs for that.
IANAL, but based on what I've been told you are not able to easily do this if you are employed by a normal company - it requires that you hold a company in the first place to have intellectual property, branding to be able to licence cross-shell [easiest compared to trying to shuffle physical items of value around], etc, and that the company gets the payment, so people making 500k FAANG salaries are out as they are FTE employed.
And that your cost of finding the 'correct' accountant that has experience in this will far exceed your previous accountant cost.
Also with inheritance tax in the US, your estate isn't taxed unless it's worth more than $11.18 million [0]. So doesn't matter for most people. It's estimated only %0.2 of estates pay the tax.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_State...
Maybe an entrepreneur just needs to make that a web form. Fill in details and generate the same form for $10 instead of $1000.
And then some robots to print, seal up, and mail the envelopes and we're done.
I should be able to spin up a Dutch shell company like an EC2 instance. Maybe have "AWS" regions for Cayman and other places too and a Python API to spin up shell companies in arbitrary locales.
Anyone in the US with any money should setup a trust
How is political capitulation by the masses exceptional?
Covid offered a perfect opportunity for info workers to show solidarity with on-site workers by not opening those laptops at home.
But really it’s the leopards fault they keep eating our faces because we refuse to build a cage (higher taxation, breaking up monopoly).
The solution is not new either as we just went through it in recent memory with ATT.
I’m rather tired of the general public pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.
Stop going to the jobs they offer. It’s our agency not theirs. Demand they respect it.
A general strike? You're asking for people to cooperate in a mass prisoner dilemma on a societal scale. Never going to happen with the complete lack of labor organization in the US.