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

How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 284 posts

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

#201

Post by spacebanana7 »

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.

> except for a lack of oversight on the latter.

It’s much easier for regulators to penalise a private sector actor than a public sector actor. Anything which makes the public sector actor look bad can be perceived as an attack on the incumbent politicians, who’re usually the people who hired the regulators.

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

#202

Post by seattle_spring »

AlbertCory wrote: post #182

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…

Do you expect qualified people to work for these charities for free? 100k is not a lot in SF, and it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.

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

#203

Post by seattle_spring »

steveBK123 wrote: post #121

I visited a park/reserve that definitely walked the line on this stuff. On the one hand it was open to the public 5 days/week, most of the year, provided you purchased!! generally-available tickets in advance. On the other hand after a few visits I learned that the giant mansion at the center of the park was still occupied by the textile baron owner who set up the foundation. This foundation was setup almost as soon…

Are you by chance talking about the Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge Island?

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

#204

Post by failuser »

tommiegannert wrote: post #65
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 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…

This is a good argument to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, right?

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

#205

Post by AlbertCory »

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…

> tarred in the press as an example of wasteful spending

umm... they WERE wasteful spending, in that they went bankrupt. You can drive past that building on the 880 freeway.

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

#206

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #189
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

Well, to a point, you may be right. However, there many very large organizations that generally do better than the majority, so I don't think it's a linear or even necessarily causal relationship. Size certainly makes incompetence, inefficiency and corruption easier, and harder to eliminate.

There's also the problem of balance: several UN organizations, for example, do immense good with remarkably limited resources but occasionally they or their cousins fuck up really badly and cause severe harm. Because of the way our media (and our brains) work, we are much more aware of the fuck ups, but this is not necessarily a rational way to assess their overall efficacy.

I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective. It is almost certainly the case that being "the only game in town" does lead to a different set of incentives for public organizations. But I'm not clear that incentives are for worse behavior, at least not overall. Some parts of it are pretty complex to reason about - there's not a lot of potential within (local) government to get wildly rich, unlike in private corporations, but there's enough to keep small time grifters and scroungers happy. So it's certainly different from the private context, but better or worse is hard to say as a general rule.

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

#207

Post by AlbertCory »

seattle_spring wrote: post #202
AlbertCory wrote: post #182

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…

Do you expect qualified people to work for these charities for free? 100k is not a lot in SF, and it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.

1) how do you know they're "qualified"? Which leads to...

2) the Civil Service has rigorous rules on fair, non-discriminatory hiring. Do these orgs?

3) I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations." For all we know, they're people who've never had a private sector job in their lives.

4) Why can't the SF civil service do these functions?

5) What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?

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

#208

Post by mschuster91 »

tommiegannert wrote: post #65
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 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.

Were capitalism regulated, I'd agree with you - however the reality is that capitalism these days has devolved into monopoly and rent seeking:

Unhappy with your phone and especially internet provider? Good luck finding a new one, in most cases there is no competition at all or it's just as bad. Unhappy with your social network, say because there are too many Nazis and conspiracy theorists running rampant? Bad luck, no federation requirement means you'll lose all your followers and they'll lose you. Unhappy with your bank? Competition is just as fucked up. Unhappy with your railroad transport provider? Tough luck, they own the rails so you can't get another company to ship your stuff. Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives. Your email provider banned you because you sent a photo of your naked child to the pediatrician? Even an international media outrage won't help you get your account, your digital life back.

The list goes on and on and on, and the common point is that anti-trust enforcement has gone completely down the drain.

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

#209

Post by cool_dude85 »

dantheman wrote: post #179
JKCalhoun wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> incompetent and wasteful actions on huge scales As others have pointed out, this is independent of whether we're talking about the government or private sector. Regardless, when I see workers on a road crew standing around I don't think "wasted tax dollars", I think "money going back into the economy." Of course in my view of a fair society it would be a preponderance of idle, wealthy money that is going back into…

There is a fundamental difference between public and private and that is one of consent. We have no consent when it comes to government actions. Look at the amount of money wasted on the the war on drugs. Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?

>Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?

How about tied up in physical assets like artwork, which they then use in a scam to lower their tax liability? That seems like one option, explored within the article under discussion.

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

#210

Post by cool_dude85 »

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.

>As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it

How much money have you ever earned all by yourself? If not for the government, me and a few buddies would come and take it.

Hell, I bet you even got all that stuff in the first place from a corporation that only exists due to governmental regulation, who has to follow a contract to pay you because if they don't, you'll sue them in government courts.

Post reply on HN