Is that because of a technical definition? I thought he does do a load of good for people. Regardless of whether he also profits from it. Isn’t that sort of a win-win? More reason to give back for him as well. But I don’t watch his videos and don’t know the fine details.
I don’t understand your annoyance. I would 100% be ok with my reaction being on the internet if my living situation gets a 1000 times better lol, and I’m pretty sure all the people in the videos feel the same way. You seem to have some Vendetta against this guy.
maybe you could say that about his YT channel, but he also runs a food bank in his city, right? I don’t think he profits from that, so at least by that token he is a philantropist
I’m not American, but tax write-offs aren’t free money afaik—you still end up with less money than you started with, had you not started the charity.
But, aside from that, you could say that about any other philanthropist, as most of them don’t get their money from thin air, which means they could use their philanthropy for tax write-offs. If that makes them not philanthropists, then there are no true philanthropists, which makes the distinction between fake and true ones meaningless.
tax write-offs aren’t free money afaik—you still end up with less money than you started with, had you not started the charity.
Exactly. Giving to charity basically just offsets the amount of income you’re taxed on. To give a really simplified example, say I’m making $100,000 per year and I’m taxed at 25%, so I pay $25,000 in taxes. But if I give $10,000 to charity and write that off on my taxes, I would be taxed as if I made $90,000 in the year, so I’d pay $22,500 in taxes.
Of course it gets really complicated when you own a business as well as your own tax-exempt charitable foundation and you distribute your money by donating to your own foundation…
When your philanthropy is just enough to offsett your taxes and you still get to make money off of the assets you donate until the term of the trust expires, then is it really philanthropy? Not to mention, a lot of the time the “charity” they donate the assets to are run by them indirectly, and it’s then impossible to track where the money goes after that.
Donate your stock to a charity through a trust before you sell it. You get a tax break that year for the donation. The trust sells the asset and is tax exempt so no capital gains tax. You take 5% every year as that amount appreciates from investing it. Only pay regular income tax on that which you wrote off with another “donation”. Make your money back over 15-20 years, then make a profit until the trust expires, or you do and then your kids make the profit. Charity gets whatever is leftover after the trust term expires.
Just one example of why “philanthropy” is usually still making profit for them, maybe slightly less profit in some cases than they could have made with it otherwise, but considering they already have more money than the next 100 generations could possibly use, it’s just a small price to pay for the PR.
Yeah I mean you and I are in agreement then, the dude who coined the term philanthropy literally did it to get positive press while his company did some really terrible borderline illegal union busting. It’s not like calling someone a good person it a descriptive word.
How is he a fake philanthropist???
Google the definition of the word philanthropist, he’s a pretty on the nail example.
It’s not that he’s a fake philanthropist, it’s that philanthropy itself is bullshit. It’s apologia for wealth.
Alright this is a fair argument, it’s actually pretty true.
I think a lot of people mistake philanthropy for charity, but they are not the same.
Sure, just read all the variations of it. It’s not philanthropy if you profit from it, it’s just his business model.
Is that because of a technical definition? I thought he does do a load of good for people. Regardless of whether he also profits from it. Isn’t that sort of a win-win? More reason to give back for him as well. But I don’t watch his videos and don’t know the fine details.
It’s as much of a win-win as morning TV game shows are…
Can you expand on this?
Of course – Pretend to be generous and giving on the front-end, while raking in the cash on the back-end.
Ok, but how is the person they are being generous to not benefiting from this arrangement as well?
… Because they’re the mark. He’s making his money off of their responses and reactions through his content.
Yes, and they’ve accepted this arrangement in exchange for some benefit. Why is this bad?
I don’t understand your annoyance. I would 100% be ok with my reaction being on the internet if my living situation gets a 1000 times better lol, and I’m pretty sure all the people in the videos feel the same way. You seem to have some Vendetta against this guy.
maybe you could say that about his YT channel, but he also runs a food bank in his city, right? I don’t think he profits from that, so at least by that token he is a philantropist
So, a nice tax write-off for the multiple food businesses he’s started?
I’m not American, but tax write-offs aren’t free money afaik—you still end up with less money than you started with, had you not started the charity.
But, aside from that, you could say that about any other philanthropist, as most of them don’t get their money from thin air, which means they could use their philanthropy for tax write-offs. If that makes them not philanthropists, then there are no true philanthropists, which makes the distinction between fake and true ones meaningless.
Exactly. Giving to charity basically just offsets the amount of income you’re taxed on. To give a really simplified example, say I’m making $100,000 per year and I’m taxed at 25%, so I pay $25,000 in taxes. But if I give $10,000 to charity and write that off on my taxes, I would be taxed as if I made $90,000 in the year, so I’d pay $22,500 in taxes.
Of course it gets really complicated when you own a business as well as your own tax-exempt charitable foundation and you distribute your money by donating to your own foundation…
When your philanthropy is just enough to offsett your taxes and you still get to make money off of the assets you donate until the term of the trust expires, then is it really philanthropy? Not to mention, a lot of the time the “charity” they donate the assets to are run by them indirectly, and it’s then impossible to track where the money goes after that.
Donate your stock to a charity through a trust before you sell it. You get a tax break that year for the donation. The trust sells the asset and is tax exempt so no capital gains tax. You take 5% every year as that amount appreciates from investing it. Only pay regular income tax on that which you wrote off with another “donation”. Make your money back over 15-20 years, then make a profit until the trust expires, or you do and then your kids make the profit. Charity gets whatever is leftover after the trust term expires.
Just one example of why “philanthropy” is usually still making profit for them, maybe slightly less profit in some cases than they could have made with it otherwise, but considering they already have more money than the next 100 generations could possibly use, it’s just a small price to pay for the PR.
Yeah I mean you and I are in agreement then, the dude who coined the term philanthropy literally did it to get positive press while his company did some really terrible borderline illegal union busting. It’s not like calling someone a good person it a descriptive word.
He’s philanthropic in the same way Extreme Home Makeover is…