On a moral level I think it's fair to give them a tax break on this, since they're effectively donating all future company profits to global society through the foundations.
It's not even a tax break. The headline is basically shaming them for skipping 700 million in taxes by not selling the company.....
.....except since they're not selling the company, they're also likewise not earning a net 2.3bln in income. Hence: ridiculous.
It's one of the most absurd articles to ever come out of Bloomberg, and in fact it's so bad that I'd instead rather see meaningful dialog about people with the means exerting long lasting influence beyond death. The tax argument presented here is entirely contrived.
I'd likewise prefer seeing a debate around whether a 501c4 is enough to achieve the stated goals around influencing climate change policy and whether the option of political contributions is worthwhile compared to a 501c3, for instance. Any discussion stemming from the current "skirts $700m in taxes" headline is bunk.
I think this is a very meaningful article.
Without knowing anything else about Bloomberg, it allows the reader to see just how bad the quality of their content is.
To be honest, since he's giving the money to a non-profit that he owns, we have no idea what the money will be used for.
We take his word that it will be used for Climate Change.
If he takes $1MM to donate to Harvard to secure a seat for each his children/grandchildren, then that's legal. If he uses it to host parties for the wealthy to "raise awareness", then that's legal. If he uses it to setup hotels, flights, IT servers, consultants, etc, then that's all legal. If he runs for office and uses the money for his campaign, that's all legal.
Moreover, if he gets into office he can now accept donations to his foundation in order to influence policy/laws without much question.
...and for a myriad of other quasi-personal uses, it's basically untraceable as non-profits have low financial reporting requirements.
I am very skeptical of these personally owned family "Foundations".
It possibly could be given that the nonprofit is structured as a 501c4 (though not primarily or directly), but it's more likely that this was done to enable lobbying as a primary activity.
.....except since they're not selling the company, they're also likewise not earning a net 2.3bln in income. Hence: ridiculous.
It's one of the most absurd articles to ever come out of Bloomberg, and in fact it's so bad that I'd instead rather see meaningful dialog about people with the means exerting long lasting influence beyond death. The tax argument presented here is entirely contrived.
I'd likewise prefer seeing a debate around whether a 501c4 is enough to achieve the stated goals around influencing climate change policy and whether the option of political contributions is worthwhile compared to a 501c3, for instance. Any discussion stemming from the current "skirts $700m in taxes" headline is bunk.