[bradenb]

To that parent's point, < 1% has gone to charities which means the foundation is just spending money on the people that work in and own the foundation. I wouldn't need to get paid directly if I had a foundation that paid for everything I need or want.

[knorker]

If you have $1B you can already pay for everything you need or want. Donating it to your own non-profit, only to pay for your own expenses, is an extremely expensive way to "launder" that $1B into a tax deduction.

[s1artibartfast]

Yeah, it is really unclear to me how some people think charity donation makes sense just to get back some Fringe non-monetary benefits

[yunohn]

Makes total sense, that’s why poor people commit tax fraud, not rich people who have no reason to want more money!

/s

[knorker]

If I understand you right you're saying that a 501c3 is a net gain in money?

Would you mind walking me through that?

You start off with $1B net. Presumably these are capital gains. You donate it to your own 501c3, and get 125M back on your taxes. Now you take out salary (taxed at what, 37%?), and get a total of $755M (including the $125M). No, that was a losing bet.

Ok, so you also spend it on other things. But to net gain on this you still have to actually spend less than $125M not only on actual charity, but also on overhead.

Basically can you launder this money at less than 12.5%? Keeping in mind that once laundered it's still not really yours. Sure, you control it. But it'll always be just mostly assets under your control.

You can't use that money to buy Twitter.

Also keep in mind that real money laundering can cost about 20-30%.

Is it even worth 12.5% if the billion comes with these huge restrictions?

Am I missing something?

[c22]

Poor people and rich people alike commit tax fraud every day. It's more of a personality issue than a wealth one.

[yunohn]

> alike

Could you detail this?