• jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which is weird because I thought that’s how rich people used foundations named after themselves? I thought it was mostly self-funded and a way to lower their tax burden

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You lower your tax burden by as much as the taxes you would have otherwise paid on the money you gave to charity.

        If you give 100$ that would have been taxed at 30%, you get a 30$ tax deduction, you’re still down 70$.

      • UllallullooA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Foundations aren’t deductible though. You have to give it away to an honest-to-God charity approved by the IRS for it to do anything. And even then, you can never get more money by donating it than you would just keeping the money.

          • UllallullooA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            My bad, that’s true. I guess it’s that private foundations are more limited in how much you can deduct. To qualify as a public charity, a foundation needs to get at least a third of its funding from the public and have other board members, so they can’t just be self-funded and self-directed. A private foundation still has to be for a qualified charitable purpose but only lets you deduct half as much of contributions.