• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 days ago

    Warren Buffett and Bill Gates created The Giving Pledge, a legally binding agreement to give at least half of their wealth to philanthropy by death or through last will and testament. It currently has over 240 signatures from over 30 countries.

    https://givingpledge.org/

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Signing the pledge doesn’t duck you out of any taxes. Also, giv8ng money away can lower taxes you pay, but it doesn’t lower them as much as the amount of money you gave away. Not how it works.

        • moral_quandary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Signing the pledge doesn’t duck you out of any taxes.

          1. They transfer stock to their charitable foundation.
          2. No capital gains taxes are paid.
          3. Charity gets full value of stock.
          4. Billionaire donor gets a tax deduction on that year’s taxes.
          5. Charity is a tax exempt charity and never pays taxes when they choose to sell the stock.
          6. Unlike any other charity, the charity is owned/ran by them so they dictate how the money gets used including paying themselves, friends, family administrative salaries if they choose.

          No taxes paid and a tax deduction was earned AND the money is still in their control.

          Example of Tax Savings on Donated Stock

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            Then they didn’t actually give the money away, and they still aren’t saving or making more money themselves by doing that.

            • moral_quandary@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 days ago

              Then they didn’t actually give the money away, and they still aren’t saving or making more money themselves by doing that.

              No capital gains tax is being paid!
              They aren’t selling 100 million in stock, paying the capital gains tax and then giving $80 million cash to the charity.
              They are gifting $100 million in shares.

              So, you keep claiming they aren’t saving - yes, they are! They pay no capital gains tax!

              Please, if you would like to reply again do so with a link which proves what I just stated as false. Thanks.

              • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 days ago

                If I sell a million dollars of stock and pay $400k in taxes, I have $600k. If I give away $1,000,000 in unrealized gains I get either nothing, or I can do a tax write off and maybe save like $200k in taxes. Either way I’ll have less than the $600k I would have had. At best it’s a workaround to give several other people working for the “charity” money, but at that point why not just put those people on my own payroll and give them the $600k?

                • moral_quandary@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  If I give away $1,000,000 in unrealized gains I get either nothing,

                  This is the last time I will respond to you - you simply are not understanding.

                  They are not giving away the money the same way as you or I do when we donate to charity.
                  They give the money to themselves!!!

                  The foundation is in their name and they are in charge of how that money gets used.
                  Money is power and influence. They can do a lot with that money.

                  Look at that infographic I posted above as a reply to another commenter.
                  Bill Gates uses his foundation to donate to companies that benefit his existing stock investments.
                  https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/

                  If it’s super important for you to have the last word and you wish to respond, go for it.
                  I am not going to reply to you anymore because you are failing to understand.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        4 - High-end philanthropy is subsidized by regular taxpayers.

        I feel like this is really under-appreciated. Like, Rich Dude decides he wants to donate $100M to…whatever - early childhood education. In the US, he avoids up to $37M taxes, which you can either look at as other taxpayers making $37M matching donation or $37M taken from other society objectives.

        To the extent that government is a (marginally) publicly accountable system for funding a society’s competing goals - education, health, defense, research - charity allows the very wealthy not just to bypass the social structure for prioritizing goals, but to force other taxpayers to adopt their personal priorities. Maybe the goal is good, maybe it’s not - the point is that they’re completely unaccountable.

          • moral_quandary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            What makes high-end philanthropy different from low-end philanthropy?

            When you donate something to a charity (money or physical objects) do you then get to keep using the money or objects? No, you no longer have them in your possession - you have relinquished control of it.

            The rich set up foundations called a Donor-advised fund
            It is: a public charity, where an individual can make a charitable gift to enjoy an immediate tax benefit and retain advisory privileges to disburse charitable gifts over time.

            Ask yourself why every single billionaire starts his or her own charity instead of giving to the thousands that already exist. Because once it is gifted like that it no longer belongs to them. They are literally donating money to themselves and avoiding taxes.

          • tburkhol@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            They probably do not get the same tax cuts: a “normal” person, making a paltry $250,000/year only reduces taxes by 24% of their giving, where the ultra-rich get 37%.

            But the real difference is scale. A million people each giving $100 to their favorite charity is going to distribute that money more-or-less according to the community’s overall priorities. One person giving $100M to their favorite charity has no connection to the broader community and social goals. They supercharge that one thing, which takes attention and resources from everything else.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      There’s a big difference between giving away 99.975% of your wealth, leaving your self with what 1 person can OPTIMISTICALLY make in a lifetime for retirement, and allowing people to scarp half of whatever is left after your life of destruction.

      Not only does that mean Gate’s grand children have a grandpa with unimaginable wealth and power, but half of that is still in the family and all of them and their children’s children are all set for an absolute decadent life even if they all decide to never move another muscle ever again. All while the world continues to burn rapidly, waiting for the dragon to bleed.

      This is the bare minimum, and they only do it to gain sympathy and trick us into believing they aren’t evil.