XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.los-angeles, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On 13 Nov 2023, L Ron <elonx@protonmail.com> posted some news:uiuk3f$uuml$6@dont-email.me:

Democrats created this Jew loophole. Execute all the Democrats and
take their money.

Americans sent half a trillion dollars to charity last year—a
substantial chunk of money to pay for worthy causes left unaddressed by
the government and corporations.

But a huge portion of that money isn’t going to food pantries or
scientific research or even churches. Instead, the ultrawealthy,
including many billionaires who have pledged to give away their
technology or stock-market-fueled fortunes, are funneling their wealth
through opaque financial instruments, where it can sit for years tax
free without touching an actual charity, according to a new report from
the progressive think tank Institute for Policy Studies.

“There's a fair amount of charitable dollars that are not being
deployed, where the donors have already gotten a tax break,” Chuck
Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at IPS, told Fortune.

More than one-quarter of charitable giving in the U.S. last year went to donor-advised funds, or DAFs, according to the National Philanthropic
Trust. DAFs are vehicles that give the donor an immediate tax deduction,
but allow money to sit potentially for decades without being used for
actual charitable work.

DAFs are the fastest-growing type of charitable investment, according to Fidelity. Among the ultrawealthy, they are the most popular, and many of
the headline-grabbing billionaire donations in recent years have gone to
DAFs.

In 2021, Bill Gates donated $15 billion; Elon Musk gave $5.7 billion,
Jack Dorsey gave $700 million, and Mark Zuckerberg $700 million—but
rather than individual charities, those donations all went to the
donors’ DAFs or family foundations, IPS notes. Last year, more than
two-thirds of the billionaires who signed the Giving Pledge, a
nonbinding promise to give away the bulk of their wealth to charity in
their lifetimes, gave either to donor-advised funds or their family foundations.

A donation in name only
Proponents of DAFs say that their structure encourages giving: The tax deduction encourages wealthy patrons to dedicate money for charity even
before they’ve decided which cause to support. “Donors may have good
reasons to postpone grants,” a Stanford Law School article says.. In one hypothetical, a tech founder who “sells a startup for millions of
dollars” may want to donate her takings but is too busy to immediately
decide how to direct the funds; a DAF is a good choice for this person,
the law article notes.

However, while DAFs could in theory grow the charitable pie, in
practice, they too often allow the donor the illusion of charity while
letting them keep control of their funds, critics say.

While a gift to a DAF is treated the same as an outright gift to the Red
Cross or United Way, in practice, it “effectively allows the donor to
retain ongoing control over the charitable disposition and investment of
the donated assets,” tax scholars Roger Colinvaux and Ray Madoff wrote
in 2019. What’s more, “donors are under no obligation, and have no
incentive, ever to release their advisory privileges to make the funds available for charitable use.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/ultrawealthy-charities -that-are-helping-no-one-and-report-nothing-cost-u-s-taxpayers-billions-e very-year-report-says/ar-AA1jY6SH

Take their money and send the Jews back to Germany to live with the
blacks they let in.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)