Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 343 posts

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#331

Post by compsciphd »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #293
compsciphd wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but that income will be fully taxed by the recipient (at whatever their tax rate is). The recipient isn't getting it tax free.

Paying all your family members $200k a year until the end of time has a much lower tax liability than taking a billion dollars of income in one year.

I agree, but its also less valuable (money today is worth more than money tomorrow). It's a tax management strategy, I just don't find it "evil" and find the arguments that taxes aren't paid to be a bit false (less taxes in the end, but not no taxes, so perhaps my phrasing of "fully taxed" is also a bit off, not fully taxed at the level of the giver). The only way to get around it would be to hurt charities in general (which perhaps the more socialist amongst us would have zero problem with, but I personally think would be bad for society).

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#332

Post by jacquesm »

Archipelagia wrote: post #213
andrepd wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Elon is the most productive human I need to take a break from this website.

OP didn't say "the", they said "one of the". Don't manipulate. Not a fan of Musk myself, but yeah, he actually seems to be an extremely productive person. Whether this productivity is applied in the right place is another discussion.

You missed the ninja edit, it said 'the' initially.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#333

Post by berkes »

memish wrote: post #190
berkes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon is the most productive human That's an impossible to prove statement. And it reeks of fanboysim all over. It makes your entire argument look very biased as well.

If he's not, he's certainly close. The point is he produces more than he consumes and does so at high scale. You can measure the impact of Tesla and SpaceX with the number of cars and rockets produced. Payload to orbit and so on. That would not have happened if he hadn't spent most of his time and money there for the past 20 years. Who would you say is the most productive?

If output is your KPI, you should certainly define it precisely.

If purely net worth, Musk isn't the 'most productive' because he simply isn't the richest person in the world, and has been loosing billions in months. But I presume you have a different 'productivity' in mind than just worth.

If it's purely numbers of products, someone from the Tata family is probably producing way more cars, rockets and social media platforms. Or else someone in Ali group. Or someone at Aramco, idk. Tesla sells way, way, way fewer (electrical) vehicles than most other large car manufacturers indivually do.

If it's relatively to where they started, Musk comes from a (very) wealthy South African family. He certainly increased his wealth incredibly, but I'm certain you'll find a Nigerian, Bangladeshi or even European person who, relatively, increased their wealth much more. Simply by being born with a debt, or nothing, and becoming reasonably rich, will make such a KPI higher.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#334

Post by 93po »

coliveira wrote: post #326
93po wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight. Elon donated $6 billion in Tesla shares to his non-profit... so that his non-profit could buy Tesla shares to prop up his stock price? This makes zero sense.

He will get a tax break and he doesn't even need to sell the shares immediately. And he still controls the shares through the foundation, just for starters. Don't you think this is a sweet deal? Every aspect of the "charity foundation" created by billionaires is designed to benefit them the most. If I told you that you can control your wealth, diversify your holdings, and pay only 5% of assets per year (in the way yo…

Controlling the shares through the non-profit means nothing. He has control even without those shares, and the only difference is that they're now permanently gone as an option to sell and profit off of. You still call this "controlling your wealth" but it's literally the opposite - that $6 billion is now extremely limited in what it can do now in terms of selfish goals.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#335

Post by 93po »

jonfw wrote: post #320
93po wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that combined for the rest of Musk's life wouldn't even get close to 1% of his total contribution.

How about his children and his children’s children? You can inherit control of a foundation you know

If he had a dozen kids each getting the maximum allowed salary (~$300k) for 30 years, that's still only 1.8% of the total contribution.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#336

Post by badrequest »

Bilal_io wrote: post #92
badrequest wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Billionaire's 501(c)(3)s aren't charities in the typical sense. They're tax-exempt piles of money that are controlled exclusively by billionaire and their families Ah, so basically the exact same as every other billionaire family's charity.

What's your point? Pointing out other billionaires doesn't make the billionaire we're discussing less horrible. Most billionaires are horrible in my opinion. This is due to the idea that you cannot get that rich without exploiting people, taking money from government (while simultaneously talking against people receiving help), and this charity scheme is yet another loophole that needs to be closed.

My point is that the other billionaires are just as bad. The OP was framed in a way as though Musk was doing something novel, when it's the oldest trick in the book.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#337

Post by twodave »

makeitdouble wrote: post #312
twodave wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of that. I'm adding on that just because Musk has a lot of money shouldn't have anything to do with the laws. In my opinion, if he's not allowed to benefit indirectly from his charitable contributions then neither should the average churchgoer.

“rules are different for you because you have a lot of money” is a concept we can’t get rid of. Trying to make it irrelevant is exactly why people throw money at ethical issues and socially disruptive behaviors, and get away with it unscathed. When street parking laws have nothing to do with wether you’re rich or not, that becomes an issue. Charitable contributions having nothing to do with it is (to me) an issue. TB…

As a Christian, I feel the same way about tithing (I'd do it whether there was a tax break or not). As a pragmatist, I'll take whatever tax break I can get. I do think it becomes difficult to draw a line. What I mean is, one reason why one might donate to a charity like Ronald McDonald House (as a very prominent example of a thing I've personally been on both ends of) is because when you're the one in need you want it to be there for you. At some point this conversation comes down to assuming the worst motives in people, and I don't think you can write policy from that.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#338

Post by coliveira »

93po wrote: post #334
coliveira wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He will get a tax break and he doesn't even need to sell the shares immediately. And he still controls the shares through the foundation, just for starters. Don't you think this is a sweet deal? Every aspect of the "charity foundation" created by billionaires is designed to benefit them the most. If I told you that you can control your wealth, diversify your holdings, and pay only 5% of assets per year (in the way yo…

Controlling the shares through the non-profit means nothing. He has control even without those shares, and the only difference is that they're now permanently gone as an option to sell and profit off of. You still call this "controlling your wealth" but it's literally the opposite - that $6 billion is now extremely limited in what it can do now in terms of selfish goals.

Incorrect. Elon still controls everything he puts on his foundation, and when he's gone he will appoint people to control it. That is a fact. He can still sell those shares (without paying taxes) and diversify his holdings if necessary. He can invest in other companies using that money to help him achieve his goals. It is just a bunch of money that he can control in several ways. You just don't have great imagination, but Elon and his lawyers know what is possible.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#339

Post by eadmund »

Retric wrote: post #315
DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to ban family businesses? Grandma needs to interview for her job making perogies? The daughter needs to do a coding test to prove that she's qualified run the cashier over other candidates?

Is the company public or organization give charitable stats? If so that puts a different spin on things. If you don’t want any strings, then don’t ask for a handout from the taxpayers.

> If you don’t want any strings, then don’t ask for a handout from the taxpayers.

Of course, being tax-exempt is the opposite of a handout from the taxpayers: it’s exemption by the taxtaker.

Re: Musk’s $5.7B Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity

#340

Post by eadmund »

yamtaddle wrote: post #202
onion2k wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quarter of Americans don't have a 401k, and most of those who do aren't maxing it out. If you're doing all of the things you've listed you're not really a "regular" anything any more. You're rich. Which is fine, but you should really recognize the fact.

Yeah it's basically impossible to max out 401k contributions unless you're rich or at least nibbling at the bottom edge of rich. For one thing, you probably need to own the company that pays you in order to make it happen. Like, sure, I expect some very successful general contractors and such manage to do that, it's not just the stereotypical richie-rich sorts who can, but even a fairly high-paid W2 worker drone cann…

> Yeah it's basically impossible to max out 401k contributions unless you're rich or at least nibbling at the bottom edge of rich.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employ...: ‘The limit on employee elective deferrals (for traditional and safe harbor plans) is: $22,500 in 2023 ($20,500 in 2022, $19,500 in 2021 and 2020; and $19,000 in 2019).’

The median wage in the U.S. is under $55,000; anyone making $80,000 or more can max out his 401(k) contributions and still live an above-median lifestyle.

Post reply on HN