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

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

#181

Post by mahogany » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

00ff wrote: post #124

Most commenters here seem to have a false impression of the distribution of taxation. "The rich pay little taxes" is disinfo. The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes." The US has had progressive taxation since 1913. Today, taxes on the top 1% of earners comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue, top 5% comprise 60%, while the bottom 50% comprise 2% (however note income taxes are only half of federal r…

> The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes."

By itself, this doesn't really mean much; it certainly doesn't address "fairness". For example, even in an inverted regressive tax system, the rich could still pay the most in taxes. This is simply because they earn the most money. And the larger the ratio between rich and poor, the easier it is for the rich to pay the most in taxes, yet still not be affected as substantially by taxation.

Take an extreme example to illustrate: there are 9 earners making $100 per year and 1 earner making $10,000 per year. If the tax rate were 90% for the low-earners and 10% for the high-earner, the high-earner would still pay the most in taxes (more than 50% of total revenue), but few would call this system "fair".

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

#182

Post by AlbertCory » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

All true. I wouldn't expect ProPublica to expose the "other" nonprofits, which provide steady employment at high wages to politically favored people. Like the Clinton Global Initiative pre 2016. Or the NGOs who've turned homelessness into a reliable source of government grants.

If you go to Charity Navigator, you can find the percentage of the charity's income that goes to "administrative expenses." I seem to recall that CGI had about a 90% figure, but this:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311580204

shows more reasonable numbers: 18.3%. They're based on the 2019 IRS form 990, so it's pretty far out of date.

Re this "once a week guided tour" stuff: I'd be totally in favor of regulations outlawing that. If the taxpayers gave you an exemption for it, then the taxpayers get to see it.

Edit: since the usual HN reply is "do you have a citation for that?" here they are:

https://sfstandard.com/2022/04/27/the-standard-top-25-san-fr...

The largest is Episcopal Community Services:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951945256

which shows five people making $100K or close to it.

The second largest is the Tenderloin Housing Clinic:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/942681706

with five people making well over $100K.

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

#183

Post by tyrfing » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

cavisne wrote: post #31

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…

A fraud whistleblower got a 200 million dollar bounty this year from the SEC

Actually $279 million.

An interesting part:

> Both the $200 million CFTC award and the $279 million SEC award involved individuals who blew the whistle after the agency had already begun to investigate the misconduct at issue.

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

#184

Post by swores » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #119

camgunz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, compl…

> The government is the people The government is the majority. > 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. Uh, I have a simpler explanation. People vote for things that are good for themselves and come up with contrived arguments for why that's moral. > To…

When you have to resort to refusing to engage in an actual debate and just throwing questions back to confuse the conversation you're no longer arguing in good faith - though it's not clear to me you ever were.

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

#185

Post by cscurmudgeon » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

nobodyandproud wrote: post #167

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t the govt lose large amounts of money to various fraud schemes? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1279664 May be the govt should have private sector auditors to help with that?

Yes, by underfunding auditers and accountability. Or throwing out money without any sense of accounting. Yes, fraudsters will take full advantage of it. Your example shows why we need more auditers and more frequent auditing, not less.

> Your example shows why we need more auditers and more frequent auditing, not less.

Yes more auditors for govt. Not more govt. auditors for business.

More auditing != govt auditing of private business

There is a jump of logic there to go from left to right of the equation.

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

#186

Post by laserlight » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #126

seanp2k2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly this is the type of bounty hunting that seems quite likely to get a bounty placed on one’s own head. Making a career out of angering the rich and powerful by going after their money isn’t likely to end well.

You’ve got it backwards, the rich should fear the masses. There’s a reason Leland Stanford moved to Palo Alto.

> the rich should fear the masses

Only if the masses could coordinate, which doesn't happen easily.

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

#187

Post by missedthecue » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

dools wrote: post #10

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #2

As a side note: One of the primary reasons of how the rich get richer and how public services (our society) degrade is, that we stopped taxing them. For decades now. Imho, its a shift of the represented interests in policies. We should stop pondering enshitification or greedflation an start seeing it as a systemic issue, that we can observe everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Commodification#In_Marxist_th...

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.

I don't think it's a stigma. It's observable. Government agencies are created to fix problems. If they fix the problem they are downsized. As an extreme example, the Department of War got very big in WW2, fixed the problem of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and then shrunk. From 40% of GDP, to about 5%, and today a little over 2 or 3%

For most government agencies, it doesn't work this way. They get lots of funding, aren't able to fix the problem, and so the solution is to give them more and more funding. The result is that non or barely functional agencies are getting bigger and bigger, spawn out countless sub agencies and special task forces, and the problems they exist to solve remain. HUD funding for instance has grown multiples, inflation adjusted, since the 1980s, but no American will tell you the housing market or affordability is great right now. And HUD will get another huge increase for the next fiscal year, then again the next, ad infinitum.

This is fundamental problem. Until it's fixed, this fact, or what you term 'stigma' will continue to exist.

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

#188

Post by cscurmudgeon » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #162

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is safety not financial auditing though. Huge difference. Also see FDA and how it allows companies to submit data and studies.

I have no strong point of view and am interested in why you think safety is okay and financial auditing is not. Are both not about serving the interests of the public?

> I have no strong point of view and am interested in why you think safety is okay and financial auditing is not

1. Real-world data. We all know how it went. Like a scientist, I go by with empirical data when dealing with complex systems that can't impact 100s of millions and not by ideology. The last time a govt audited private financial decisions (and other decisions) was when Soviet Union was alive. Let's do a 5-10 year A/B test and see before making a massive change. (This way we ensure dead sparrows don't cause famines.)

2. Also, why can't the govt clean up its massive fraud and wastage first? Isn't that serving the interests of the public more than political commissars micromanaging every nook and corner of the country? First, the govt should clean up massive fraud wasting tax payer money. Then, lets talk about govt auditing minutiae of businesses. In these kind of threads, there is an assumption that the govt. is 100% efficient. It is not. 2 seconds of digging:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/biggest-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-burie...

3. Just because something is important, doesn't mean a bureaucrat should micromanage that by default.

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

#189

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:11 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #120

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.

The reduction in upper rate marginal taxes and the narrative about government incompetence were both promulgated by the same people. They are not distinct. The reality is that all human organizations - government, for-profit, not-for-profit - suffer from incompetence, corruption and inefficiency. The story that the right likes to tell us is that because there is (typically) a choice of companies (and that they are su…

> The reality is that all human organizations - government, for-profit, not-for-profit - suffer from incompetence, corruption and inefficiency.

My observation is that size matters. Generally speaking: The larger an entity is, the more difficult it becomes to be a benefit to the public. The ability to cause harm doesn't diminish the same way (if at all).

Governments and NGOs at least have a realized duty to be a public benefit.

The same obligation is typically not recognized for corporations (eg: Shareholder good is applauded - even while it brings brings detriment to society, employees, the company).

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

#190

Post by boucher » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #52

UncleMeat wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a single person, you'll hit that tax bracket after more than $500,000 in income. This is an absolutely enormous amount of money - roughly 10x the median income. I have absolutely zero problem with income beyond this amount being taxed at 50%. I make around $600,000. My effective federal tax rate is in the low-mid 20s. I'd have to make way way way more money for my effective federal + state rates to approach 50%.

What about sales tax, VAT, fuel levies, consumption taxes, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Your state or country may not have all of the above. But they are all there to tax you to ridiculous amounts but not at the "start". Same goes for withholding or "Pay as you earn" taxes which serve to not let you see how much taxes you are paying. No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then. We ca…

Good one. People making half a million dollars every year are just a few steps away from slavery because they're paying 50% in taxes.