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

251–260 of 284 posts

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

#251

Post by za3faran »

gorwell wrote: post #163
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US people have been brainwashed to think reasonable taxation is 'socialism' - something they need to have a religious objection to even if they don't know what it is.

Nope, they've been brainwashed to think it's "reasonable taxation" and the solution is always more taxation despite massive waste, fraud and corruption.

I mean, the grand poster is literally citing marxism.

People also don't seem to learn from successful examples in history. Islam requires a 2.5% almsgiving/charitable contribution that is calculated on certain categories of wealth, but it seems that no western country is interested in implementing something that is proven to work, and much cheaper for everyone.

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

#252

Post by s1artibartfast »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #178
s1artibartfast wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.

> at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensu…

That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other.

If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.

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

#253

Post by PrimeMcFly »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #252
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question. Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people. If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensu…

That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other. If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.

> We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements

You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms.

> If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.

It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.

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

#254

Post by habosa »

6ak74rfy wrote: post #224
habosa wrote: post #169

If you live in the US and like to donate to charity you can have your own private foundation and you don’t have to be a jerk about it! It can be a convenient way for you to do good in the world. It’s called a Donor Advised Fund and you can donate large sums to it and then direct the money in pieces to charities you support over time. In between the money gets to grow if you choose to invest it, and you get the tax wr…

True. Don’t know about Daffy but I’ve looked at Fidelity Charitable which does something very similar. “Donate” now, save taxes now, distribute the money when you want but let it grow (however you want) until then.

Fidelity and Vanguard charitable are two of the biggest DAF providers. Daffy is not nearly as well established but I like the UX. Honestly I just use it because donating to most charities via bank transfer is a massive pain and Daffy makes it simple.

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

#255

Post by dredmorbius »

laserlight wrote: post #186
almost_usual wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mob emergence is another hazard, and requires little coordination.

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

#256

Post by makeitdouble »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #245
makeitdouble wrote: post #87

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. 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 ?

well you got 3 choices in each of those industries. Leaving a country is much harder than leaving a crappy cable company.

How many choices you have will change a lot depending on your country, but I think there are many constants. Mobile and internet providers tend to collude and align their offering to the other competitors. There must be exceptions, but I can't think of any. On the other side telecom companies getting sued for collusion feels like part of life.

On Qualcomm, as far as I know any mobile phone sold in the west will have a networking chipset from Qualcomm or pay royalties/patents to Qualcomm for using their technology. Apple was trying to do something about it with their switch to Intel chips, but it didn't end well for them (I think they absorbed the Intel cell modem division and might be trying for a second time at some point in the future ?)

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

#257

Post by xracy »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #51
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...

Most of us here know, but note that the slights of hand are just too good. They can also hire people to shill in every major forum, so there’s a huge uphill battle just to avoid getting drowned out.

I mean... People say this, as if no one knows where the money is, and we've tried everything. When in fact, everyone knows where the money is, and we've tried very little in the ways of actually taxing rich people.

I have no doubt that if we actually raised taxation rates (Corporate Stock Grants is an easy one that everyone on here will pretend is impossible), corporations, and rich folks would start paying more in taxes. Maybe they would still dodge, but until we actually start doing something saying "nothing will work" is like saying "there's no way to hammer a nail all the way into a board" when you haven't actually hit the nail with the hammer.

Edit: Of course it's un uphill battle if you've done nothing. Everything is an uphill battle when you're not doing anything about it.

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

#258

Post by s1artibartfast »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #253
s1artibartfast wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other. If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.

> We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms. > If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case. It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More compe…

I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation.

To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.

>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.

>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society

The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.

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

#259

Post by makeitdouble »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #245
makeitdouble wrote: post #87

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. 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 ?

well you got 3 choices in each of those industries. Leaving a country is much harder than leaving a crappy cable company.

> Leaving a country is much harder than leaving a crappy cable company

That's an interesting take. Sometimes it's roughly the same, in particular when the cable company has a def acto monopoly in the country (the smaller your country is, the worse it probably gets).

I've talked to a few people who see it as an indicator of the place's quality of life: do they have enough consumer protection to either force the monopoly to provide decent service or not have a monopoly in the first place ? how expensive is it ? (basic lifeline services at crazy price will usually go with other primary goods and services also priced crazily)

Basically, a juridiction that can't do anything about their internet won't be able to do much about a lot of other issues directly impacting their population and economy. Sometimes you just need to leave your state, sometimes your country, but either way getting away from that specific juridiction is often the better choice.

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

#260

Post by sesuximo »

mihaic wrote: post #199

Honestly, why isn't there a general indignation against the concept of tax breaks for any charitable contribution? I'm generally not aligned with the libertarians, but let's just lower taxes and simply let people give wherever they want. The only real benefits that non-profit structures like a 501(c) should be that their donations aren't taxed as income, and that's it.

I think the idea is “the government should take money from projects for the greater good” … this is a concept that is 100s of years old
Post reply on HN