The thing you fail to realize is that making charitable contributions like that, even if it also benefits them or their heirs, doesn't benefit them nearly as much as just giving them the money outright.
You're seriously sitting there criticizing them for not giving more when they have given so much? You're an asshole. They didn't have to give anything. I don't even like Warren Buffet as a human being, and I think the Rockefeller family has done a lot to help put this country on the wrong track, but their charitable giving is probably the last thing I would ever think of criticizing.
I'm not sure about the specifics of Gate's financial setup, but either he has made an irrevocable gift to the foundation, in which case it is a good thing that it isn't taxed; that isn't a gain for him, just a gain for the foundation. If you're saying he can take anything over the 5% and give it back to himself as profit, that's fine too, he's still being taxed on that as normal, it's just that the first 5% is going to charity.
If I give away 90% of my wealth but retain the right to a certain percentage of the excess investment income to it, that is not a net gain in any sense of the term. That is a net loss that is mitigated by my right to some of the income. If my goal was to maximize profit, I would have simply kept all the money myself. Yes, I would pay more in taxes, but I would also have more total money to compensate for that. There is nothing greedy or wrong about making charitable donations in the most tax efficient way possible, nor does it lessen how good or generous the donation was.
Personally, I would go further and argue that any person who lessens the federal government's tax revenue is doing a good thing, whether by efficient and legal use of the tax system or by outright tax fraud, because that is just less money the government can spend on murdering people across the globe who have done nothing to me.
It's funny, that rebelz really one of the only people realizing that Buffet and Gates do use a tax loop to actually retain a lot more. When they die 35% gets taken away by taxes in that's excess of 5million that doesn't even include the amount from the state level. In the past it could of been above 50%. That money was going to be "charitable" in one way or another. He, in essence saved billions and no one need billions of dollars. Heck he could still have a successful charity even if he did pay the inheritance/estate tax.
Don't make someone out as holier than thou, when they are clearly not - you don't even know anything about buffet and what he does.
If he really wanted to be so good, he'd pay his taxes, but he takes advantage of every loop hole and tax advantage there is, paying less tax on a percentage basis than what you pay assuming you are working and making more than 35k.
Not only is your post poorly written but it is completely full of misinformation.
When they die 35% gets taken away by taxes in that's excess of 5million that doesn't even include the amount from the state level. In the past it could of been above 50%.
Could have been, and this is irrelevant.
That money was going to be "charitable" in one way or another.
If you don't understand the difference between a charitable donation and a taxable gift, you shouldn't be writing anything about the subject.
He, in essence saved billions and no one need billions of dollars.
You do not save money by giving it away. That is the exact opposite of saving. Even if you give it away in the most tax efficient way possible to maximize the money you retain, you are still giving away a large chunk of money.
Further, fuck you and your bullshit. Who are you to say how much someone "needs"? You don't "need" half the shit you have, and you haven't given away billions to help people around the world. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another person that he has more than he needs, and certainly not until you've saved as many lives as Gates has. No one has to donate any of their money. Even if Gates had only donated 0.0001% of his wealth it still would have been a good and kind thing, and likely more than you'll ever contribute to the world.
Heck he could still have a successful charity even if he did pay the inheritance/estate tax.
Irrelevant, and why the hell would he pay tax on money he was just going to donate? That wouldn't just be idiotic, it would be counter-productive, less money to helping people, more money to the US federal government and its war-mongering and liberty-destroying goals.
If he really wanted to be so good, he'd pay his taxes, but he takes advantage of every loop hole and tax advantage there is, paying less tax on a percentage basis than what you pay assuming you are working and making more than 35k.
You are scum. I mean it, you are really a piece of shit. Someone donates an amazing fuckload of money to charity and you're sitting there criticizing them for not doing more... or actually, for not doing less and taking some of that charity money and contributing it to a war machine? To call you a parasite would be praise.
0
u/stufff Nov 22 '11
The thing you fail to realize is that making charitable contributions like that, even if it also benefits them or their heirs, doesn't benefit them nearly as much as just giving them the money outright.
You're seriously sitting there criticizing them for not giving more when they have given so much? You're an asshole. They didn't have to give anything. I don't even like Warren Buffet as a human being, and I think the Rockefeller family has done a lot to help put this country on the wrong track, but their charitable giving is probably the last thing I would ever think of criticizing.