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.
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.
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.