• 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.