How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#101

Post by mistrial9 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #26

dools wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is a fear of public spending because of perceived incompetence. The stigma comes from a time when only governments had run big bureaucratic systems. Now we can see there is little difference between public and private bureaucracies except for a lack of oversight on the latter. Still the stigma remains and all public spending is filtered through a profit making entity.

Well, fix government oversight of public bureaucracies and then we can have a discussion. As it is now, it's pretty clear that elected officials have little control and oversight into the bureaucracies that they nominally control and direct. Make bureaucrats firable. End Chevron deference. Bring back political appointments from the top to the bottom of the bureaucracy.

this is exactly true in nearby large counties, US West

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#102

Post by brigadier132 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

redserk wrote: post #80

brigadier132 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually give examples of competent public spending? The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering. On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget? The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?

Can you elaborate on what is competent spending? The theory of privatization solving problems is predicated on the assumption that competition will exist. Competition in the private sector cannot be assumed to always exist.

I'm not advocating for privatization. I'm advocating for decreased government spending and lower taxes. Privatization means the government gives money to private entities to do supposedly necessary functions of the government.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#103

Post by JKCalhoun » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #92

camgunz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I think the tougher claim would be "there is no competent public spending in the US". The US across the Federal, State, and local governments alone spends a lot. It's pretty likely that some of it is competent. But separately, what does "competent" mean? Is it a measure of waste, as in we could've done what the DoD does for less? Is it a measure of useless spending, as in we shouldn't have spent money on X bec…

> because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it. The government is taking money from individuals for their supposed benefit.

Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument?

Society (that's us) want things for society and it turns out they cost money. We would love to pay for these things with razor-like efficiency but we live in an imperfect world. (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.)

The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society. (And here the increasing wealth disparity we have been seeing is almost certainly bad for societies health.)

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#104

Post by elteto » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90

mycologos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool! It looks like the SEC whistleblower program has more generous terms than 1% [1]: > The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected. Submitting a tip ap…

> If you want anonymity you'll need to go through a lawyer Sounds like a business opportunity then — the company just needs a lawyer on staff. Whistleblower fields the company with a tip, company splits the SEC reward with the whistleblower, maintains anonymity.

Ideas are cheap, execution is all that matters.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#105

Post by seanp2k2 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #87

tommiegannert wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference is that I can choose not to pay a company I don't like, and that's fine. Governments will happily make my life crap if I don't pay taxes. I dislike greed as much as the next person, but the monopolized incarceration powers of governments are not to be forgotten. For some services, collective funding makes sense, like having hospitals that can stop the spread of diseases, or forcing pooling of money…

> The big difference is that I can choose not to pay a company I don't like, and that's fine. Which phone company do you positively like ? Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ? How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?

And which power company? PG&E has made it almost not worth it to harness the free power of the sun on my roof with their NEM 3.0 rules, that they passed just before holiday break after delaying for so long and against mass public outrage. They also snuck in a rename to “net billing tariff” (NBT), also called “solar billing plan” in some contexts. https://aurorasolar.com/blog/cpuc-voted-californias-net-bill... Has a decent overview of the changes for the curious.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#106

Post by seanp2k2 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:03 PM UTC

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #73

brigadier132 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually give examples of competent public spending? The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering. On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget? The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?

> The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering. This is not universally agreed upon. Military spending has been a deeply controversial topic along political lines given its overall amount and lack of transparency. As far as examples of competent spending goes, there are plenty but they tend not to get as much attention as the failures do. A big examp…

Soooo, yet more rich folks using government money to grow their own riches?

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#107

Post by camgunz » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #92

camgunz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I think the tougher claim would be "there is no competent public spending in the US". The US across the Federal, State, and local governments alone spends a lot. It's pretty likely that some of it is competent. But separately, what does "competent" mean? Is it a measure of waste, as in we could've done what the DoD does for less? Is it a measure of useless spending, as in we shouldn't have spent money on X bec…

> because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it. The government is taking money from individuals for their supposed benefit.

The government is the people. Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. For example, none of the infrastructure investments in the IRA, the Medicare block grants in the ACA, etc. Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?

To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I think it's pretty clear that most of those are predatory and enshittified. Are you arguing that corporations that are in no way beholden to us voters would be more responsive to our needs than a democratic government?

Maybe my tone is coming across as too incredulous, but most libertarians I get in front of tend to shut down when I challenge their ideology, so I'm earnestly curious here.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#108

Post by rz2k » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #43

dools wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is a fear of public spending because of perceived incompetence. The stigma comes from a time when only governments had run big bureaucratic systems. Now we can see there is little difference between public and private bureaucracies except for a lack of oversight on the latter. Still the stigma remains and all public spending is filtered through a profit making entity.

Can you actually give examples of competent public spending? The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering. On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget? The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?

The Post Office and the DMV are always given as examples of how terrible the government is at providing services. Have these people not visited either one in the last 15 years? Maybe they used to be terrible, but I’m always in and out with whatever I needed done, and the people working there and friendly and competent.

Parks and libraries are pretty well managed, too.

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#109

Post by jrmg » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

kjandersen wrote: post #21

koolba wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. It’s no better than saying “ the rich are not paying their fair share ”. Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough…

(I wrote this comment as a _reaction_ to yours -- it turned out not to be a _response_ to it, so I apologise if I seem to put words in your mouth.) I have this idea rummaging about that I have never quite seen articulated in these discussions. The earnings of "rich friends" are often seen as a singular, isolated achievement, and fairness is then discussed as relative to that: "they earned it, so is it fair to take X%…

It didn’t go well for Obama when he made that argument publicly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

Re: How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

#110

Post by mistermann » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

mycologos wrote: post #29

I know, I know, "bounties" are a fraught concept. Some people find "snitching" odious. But this is a tantalizing use case. All the author of this piece got out of their legwork was another article, but it also yielded some money for the federal government: > Two days after I emailed Finwall in April inquiring about the Xie Foundation’s purchase of the house, the foundation filed records with the California attorney g…

I believe that for the most part, those who call the shots in law enforcement prefer that people involved are subordinate to them such that important exceptions can be made when necessary. Getting amateurs involved screws things up, though it would substantially improve fighting crime.