笑死，你根本不知道我在说什么 “资金走向都显示的清清楚楚” lmao 请你告诉我比尔盖茨的Melinda基金会给Bezos Family Found捐款多少，Bezos Family Fund反过来给Melinda 基金会捐款多少，其中多少是独立的项目支出，多少是同一笔款子来回倒。你告诉我其中账目是怎么分的。 不都在网上么？去查了告诉大家呗。
笑死，你根本不知道我在说什么 “资金走向都显示的清清楚楚” lmao 请你告诉我比尔盖茨的Melinda基金会给Bezos Family Found捐款多少，Bezos Family Fund反过来给Melinda 基金会捐款多少，其中多少是独立的项目支出，多少是同一笔款子来回倒。你告诉我其中账目是怎么分的。 不都在网上么？去查了告诉大家呗。
笑死，你根本不知道我在说什么 “资金走向都显示的清清楚楚” lmao 请你告诉我比尔盖茨的Melinda基金会给Bezos Family Found捐款多少，Bezos Family Fund反过来给Melinda 基金会捐款多少，其中多少是独立的项目支出，多少是同一笔款子来回倒。你告诉我其中账目是怎么分的。 不都在网上么？去查了告诉大家呗。
笑死，你根本不知道我在说什么 “资金走向都显示的清清楚楚” lmao 请你告诉我比尔盖茨的Melinda基金会给Bezos Family Found捐款多少，Bezos Family Fund反过来给Melinda 基金会捐款多少，其中多少是独立的项目支出，多少是同一笔款子来回倒。你告诉我其中账目是怎么分的。 不都在网上么？去查了告诉大家呗。
The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy: How the Taxpayer Subsidizes Stockpiled Wealth Our report estimates that the direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving is $111 billion a year. November 15, 2023 Chuck Collins, Helen Flannery Originally in Inside Philanthropy In a politically polarized time, charity reform may be one place where alliances are forming across parties. A recent seminar hosted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, How to Rebuild Public Trust in Philanthropy, brought together a right-left medley of concerns about the abuses in philanthropy. One point of agreement is that the legal framework governing philanthropy, established in 1969, needs to be modernized for these unequal times. Fifty years ago, no one could have anticipated the growing concentration of wealth and the corresponding expansion of the professional wealth-hiding industry. The wealth defense industry — the tax attorneys, accountants and wealth managers who enable the ultra-wealthy to create dynasty trusts, shell companies and offshore accounts to avoid taxes — have manipulated the philanthropy sector to their preferred purposes. They now deploy charitable giving vehicles such as private foundations and donor-advised funds, or DAFs, as additional tools in their wealth-sequestering toolbox. For example, a year ago, Bloomberg documented the growing practice of hedge fund managers shifting assets into DAFs and private foundations to take advantage of tax benefits while retaining billions under management. Over 41 cents of every individual dollar given to a charity goes to a private foundation (14%) or DAF (27%), based on the recent 2023 DAF Report, published by National Philanthropic Trust. These trends reflect billions of annual giving diverted away from working charities to intermediaries controlled by donors. Donor-advised funds have been aggressively marketing themselves for their superior tax benefits, secrecy and nonexistent payout requirements (If you don’t believe it, Google “DAFs” and “tax advantages”). In a new study that we co-authored, “The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy,” we provide updated data showing how DAFs are the fastest growing recipient of charity dollars. And DAFs now take in more than a fourth of all U.S. individual charitable giving: The $85 billion that DAFs received in 2022 made up a full 27% of individual giving that year. Some DAF donors grant money out in a timely way, in the spirit of the law. But others do not. And because there is no account-level transparency, we don’t know how fast the money is moving out of individual funds. The largest commercial DAF sponsors now take in more money each year than our largest public charities. In 2021, seven of the top 10 recipients of charitable revenue in the country were DAF sponsors, including those affiliated with Fidelity Investments, Charles Schwab and Vanguard. And a significant amount of DAF grants flow to other DAFs. We found $2.5 billion in grants going from national donor-advised funds to other national donor-advised funds in 2021 alone (and this doesn’t even include grants to DAFs at community foundations or other nonprofits). Meanwhile, private foundations continue to treat their 5% minimum payout requirement as a ceiling, not a floor, with the largest foundations hewing to the line most closely. Over the past five years, the median payout rate for private foundations has hovered between 5.2% and 5.6%. For perpetual legacy foundations with assets over $1 billion, the median payout was even lower, ranging from 4.6% to 5.4%. And private foundations can include compensation to trustees, overhead and grants to DAFs in their payout. We found that 29% of foundations compensate their trustees, some of which are founding family members and descendants. And a number of private foundations are fulfilling their payout requirement with transfers to DAFs, which have no such requirement. Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, for example, has met 85% of his foundation annual payout requirements between 2017 and 2021 of his foundation with grants to a DAF at JPMorgan Chase. There is a growing disconnect between the generosity-based giving of ordinary people and the taxpayer-subsidized giving of the ultra-wealthy. With fewer than 10% of households deducting their donations to nonprofits, the charitable deduction is increasingly a benefit to the most affluent and wealthy households in U.S. society. The lion’s share of low- and middle-income donors contribute to local charities without any tax reduction. At the other end of the spectrum, the wealthier a donor is, the larger the tax benefit they can receive. Our report estimates that the direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving is $111 billion a year, not including potentially hundreds of billions in lost capital gains tax revenue. For every dollar a billionaire donates to charity, taxpayers chip in as much as 74 cents in lost revenue. This is because the wealthiest donors use charity not only to reduce their income taxes, but also capital gains, estate and gift taxes. The most charitably oriented billionaires in the U.S. — that is, those who have signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their wealth during their lifetimes or in their wills — are not immune from the tendency to move wealth to donor-controlled intermediaries instead of active charities. Our report found that while a handful of Giving Pledge donors are donating funds in a timely manner, those pledges that are eventually fulfilled will likely be met by donations to perpetual private family foundations and donor-advised funds, delaying the public benefit of the taxpayer-subsidized donations. Of the $12 billion in identifiable gifts of over $1 million that the Giving Pledge signers donated to charity in 2022, 68% — more than $8 billion — went either to foundations or to DAFs. And the wealth of the Giving Pledge donors is growing faster than they can give it away. The 73 living U.S. Giving Pledgers who were billionaires in 2010 saw their wealth grow by 138%, or 224% when adjusted for inflation, through 2022. Of these 73 people, 30 of them have seen their wealth increase more than 200% when adjusted for inflation. In the worst cases, some pledgers have used their philanthropy for self-serving purposes, such as taking out loans from their foundations or paying themselves hefty trustee salaries. These actions by some billionaire donors raise concerns that what began as a civic-minded initiative to spur generosity is instead serving to concentrate private wealth and power at taxpayer expense. Some might argue these abuses and examples of self-dealing are rare. But if only a small percentage of the population engages in, say, auto theft, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against auto theft. By allowing charity abuses to remain legal — and to rely solely on private associations to police their own ranks — we undermine trust in the sector as a whole. There are reforms that could limit these abuses and ensure more dollars end up in the hands of actual working charities. These include a payout requirement for DAFs and stronger rules to limit the shell games around payout distribution for private foundations. Lawmakers should also explore increased incentives for non-wealthy donors and a potential cap on the unlimited charitable deduction for billionaires. This won’t happen any time soon. The defenders of the philanthropic status quo — the Council on Foundations, the Philanthropy Roundtable, the Community Foundation Awareness Network and the lobbyists for large, commercial DAFs — have done a pretty good job blocking reform. As a result, abuses will continue to happen in public, and the pressure will build for legislative changes. The missing voice in the philanthropy discussion is the U.S. taxpayer, who subsidizes the private giving of billionaires to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars a year. Without any change, philanthropy will further drift toward becoming a taxpayer-subsidized extension of the private power and influence of our most wealthy.
慈善这个分支我感觉和政府工作有点类似，如果细看的话其实平均质量不高。我顶锅盖说句政治不正确的话，普通人做慈善往往止于行动，我做了慈善，钱也去了需要帮助的渠道，这就圆满了。但是motion is not progress, 没有资本家的精明和科学家的睿智，很可能整个行动都是低效浪费甚至无济于事的。很遗憾资本家里像比尔盖茨这样的人不够多（当然也可能因为其他人没有那么善于宣传）。 关于钱的话，考虑到捐款可以免税，其实就是多花一倍多的钱，保证你回报社会的资金绝对去向你认可的地方，而不是给政府花用（比如去买白宫的马桶之类的）。
那麼多non for profit的單位就是靠大企業捐的款來營運的，加拿大基本上沒有幾個大公司不每年捐款給united way，每年款項都下放給non for profit的組織，像是給社區老人送飯菜那種都靠的也是這個，各個公司也都會有自己sponsor的慈善活動 另外做慈善也不只捐款，很多大公司都會有做義工的活動，我們就有SVP拉著手下VP們去給shlter鋪床單削土豆的活動，也有大冬天每個大公司派高館睡帳篷的體驗活動，都挺好的，高中生也必須做40小時義工不然畢不了業
难道不是避税？
关注的根本不是你说的这种普通人捐款。是慈善基金会，好不好？
慈善基金会，本来就是大资本家给自己定制的合法避税手段，子孙后代躺平传承财富的。就是为了逃避遗产税，只不慈善基金财富传承合法化了。美国的阶级固化，最根本的支柱。中国还有富不过三代的说法，美国有吗？
富人不傻，同时不忘给你洗脑，认为这玩意是做慈善的。
美国有trickle down理论，中国有邓先富理论，都是这么洗脑的。
因为这就是事实
你难道不知道所谓“慈善”基金会在每年5%的捐款之外，投资收益全部免税？
而这5%的捐款额是可以交叉捐赠的。你给我，我给你，IRS并不追查最终去向，也不要求每个基金提供明细。
太阳底下没有新鲜事。怎么什么事情一轮到美国，就装天真？
普通大众韭菜的捐款，是实实在在的捐款。
捐出去10万刀，然后少交了比如3万刀的税，这个和避税毫无关系。
慈善基金根本是相反的一回事。
我想想哦， 同情巴勒斯坦就是反犹太， 果然就是同一班人马在洗脑
空口无凭，给个实际发生的你说这种用慈善基金逃税的例子，英文的。
楼主指着白色的猪仔说，这生下来的猪仔谁说不是白色的？
每个基金会每年的花费都是会公示的，资金走向都显示的清清楚楚，当然前提是能看懂英文。
你看回复吧。
自己去Google 英文，不会吗？
空口无凭，给个实际发生的你说这种用慈善基金逃税的例子，英文的。 说说富豪子女怎样从已经不属于自己的慈善基金里掏钱过奢侈生活又不用交税的？
就是因为GOOGLE不到实际案例才问你从哪里看来的啊。
很多人对基金会的了解全部来自于中文自媒体。
笑死，你根本不知道我在说什么
“资金走向都显示的清清楚楚” lmao
请你告诉我比尔盖茨的Melinda基金会给Bezos Family Found捐款多少，Bezos Family Fund反过来给Melinda 基金会捐款多少，其中多少是独立的项目支出，多少是同一笔款子来回倒。你告诉我其中账目是怎么分的。
不都在网上么？去查了告诉大家呗。
什么叫“过奢侈生活”，人家的游艇和公务机那是基本的business 开销
什么叫“掏钱出来”，人家那叫refinance
真是完全的小白
你到底想说啥
所以这么倒来倒去目的是什么？确定请十几个这种会做倒来倒去账的会计师，租N个办公室，整N个慈善基金，整N个离岸公司，策划N个慈善项目并跨国倒来倒去的花费最后折算后会比做家族信托基金避税潜力还要大？
为了满足捐款5%然后就彻底免税的要求啊。
税务专业的都懂，哪怕稍微了解一点都不会这么天真。。。 论坛里面有些人不懂还非要杠。。。 真的无知。
常识：财产的所有权没有任何意义。财产的控制权才是利益所在
trust fund只隔离所有权，不隔离控制权。
再通过代持/ 抵押 /重贷 多倒几次手。最终效果就是，世界上没有任何外部人员能知道盖茨他女儿买赛马的钱，最初来自哪里。
“IRS并不追查最终去向，也不要求每个基金提供明细。” 你不知道charities 都有annual filing requirement 的吗？ 什么叫做不要求明细？你file tax也不需要明细啊。你完全可以说你每年捐了100万啊。你为什么不写啊？因为你会被audit啊。你被audit要出示各种明细啊。charities也会被audit啊，也要出示明细啊。tax fraud 是刑事案件好吗。
“tax fraud 是刑事案件好吗。”
请问川普一年交750刀的税坐牢了么？你真信他所有business一年下来的收入和支出正好精确的互相抵消，只需要交750刀税？
还是那句话：什么事情一轮到美国，某些人就突然变成天真小白兔了。
如果是 捐给 红十字会， 无国界医生 这种第三方机构， 就算基本上是 真慈善了？
看来你可能真的不懂英文，一个基金会转给另一个私有基金会的钱并不能计入这个5%的支出里面。
你举这个例子是在说川普的企业是慈善基金？还是在歪楼呢？
你不能理解什么叫做fraud我就没办法了。 你怎么知道人家精准抵消，他明明就是有一年business loss,carry 了好几年才抵消。 我说了啊。你觉得irs不查，查也查不出来，你也赶快把钱都捐掉，从此不交税。
那你分析分析trump 上万刀的理发费用当做成本用来抵税合理吗？ 他为什么不会被IRS audit啊？
合不合理和价格多少没有必然联系。即使在国内也一样，你可以花20块理个发，也可以花几千块哩个发，不能因为自己只理20块的头就认为花几千块理发的都是假的。
怎么个左手倒右手法
现在这帮文革余孽开始流行骂邓了，没有邓现在你丫还在用布票买衣服呢。喜欢习均贫是吧，有你哭的时候，现在才刚开始。
用trust fund避税的富豪家族不是绝大多数吗？要是用慈善基金避税比trust fund还好使，那么，绝大多数富豪 都是傻子吗？他们怎么不知道用慈善基金避税更好？他们是被会计师们集体蒙蔽了吗？ 如果慈善基金避税比trust fund还好使，不是应该慈善基金比trust fund多很多才对吗？
你来给邓艾滋洗洗怎么先富带后富的，顺便洗洗trickle down理论的？ 文革余孽，等矮子的词，你倒是拿来扣帽子在行。邓艾滋是语言大师，三种人，四人帮，。。。一套套地。
看不懂英文就容易犯蠢
The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy: How the Taxpayer Subsidizes Stockpiled Wealth Our report estimates that the direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving is $111 billion a year. November 15, 2023 Chuck Collins, Helen Flannery Originally in Inside Philanthropy In a politically polarized time, charity reform may be one place where alliances are forming across parties. A recent seminar hosted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, How to Rebuild Public Trust in Philanthropy, brought together a right-left medley of concerns about the abuses in philanthropy. One point of agreement is that the legal framework governing philanthropy, established in 1969, needs to be modernized for these unequal times. Fifty years ago, no one could have anticipated the growing concentration of wealth and the corresponding expansion of the professional wealth-hiding industry. The wealth defense industry — the tax attorneys, accountants and wealth managers who enable the ultra-wealthy to create dynasty trusts, shell companies and offshore accounts to avoid taxes — have manipulated the philanthropy sector to their preferred purposes. They now deploy charitable giving vehicles such as private foundations and donor-advised funds, or DAFs, as additional tools in their wealth-sequestering toolbox. For example, a year ago, Bloomberg documented the growing practice of hedge fund managers shifting assets into DAFs and private foundations to take advantage of tax benefits while retaining billions under management. Over 41 cents of every individual dollar given to a charity goes to a private foundation (14%) or DAF (27%), based on the recent 2023 DAF Report, published by National Philanthropic Trust. These trends reflect billions of annual giving diverted away from working charities to intermediaries controlled by donors. Donor-advised funds have been aggressively marketing themselves for their superior tax benefits, secrecy and nonexistent payout requirements (If you don’t believe it, Google “DAFs” and “tax advantages”). In a new study that we co-authored, “The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy,” we provide updated data showing how DAFs are the fastest growing recipient of charity dollars. And DAFs now take in more than a fourth of all U.S. individual charitable giving: The $85 billion that DAFs received in 2022 made up a full 27% of individual giving that year. Some DAF donors grant money out in a timely way, in the spirit of the law. But others do not. And because there is no account-level transparency, we don’t know how fast the money is moving out of individual funds. The largest commercial DAF sponsors now take in more money each year than our largest public charities. In 2021, seven of the top 10 recipients of charitable revenue in the country were DAF sponsors, including those affiliated with Fidelity Investments, Charles Schwab and Vanguard. And a significant amount of DAF grants flow to other DAFs. We found $2.5 billion in grants going from national donor-advised funds to other national donor-advised funds in 2021 alone (and this doesn’t even include grants to DAFs at community foundations or other nonprofits). Meanwhile, private foundations continue to treat their 5% minimum payout requirement as a ceiling, not a floor, with the largest foundations hewing to the line most closely. Over the past five years, the median payout rate for private foundations has hovered between 5.2% and 5.6%. For perpetual legacy foundations with assets over $1 billion, the median payout was even lower, ranging from 4.6% to 5.4%. And private foundations can include compensation to trustees, overhead and grants to DAFs in their payout. We found that 29% of foundations compensate their trustees, some of which are founding family members and descendants. And a number of private foundations are fulfilling their payout requirement with transfers to DAFs, which have no such requirement. Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, for example, has met 85% of his foundation annual payout requirements between 2017 and 2021 of his foundation with grants to a DAF at JPMorgan Chase. There is a growing disconnect between the generosity-based giving of ordinary people and the taxpayer-subsidized giving of the ultra-wealthy. With fewer than 10% of households deducting their donations to nonprofits, the charitable deduction is increasingly a benefit to the most affluent and wealthy households in U.S. society. The lion’s share of low- and middle-income donors contribute to local charities without any tax reduction. At the other end of the spectrum, the wealthier a donor is, the larger the tax benefit they can receive. Our report estimates that the direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving is $111 billion a year, not including potentially hundreds of billions in lost capital gains tax revenue. For every dollar a billionaire donates to charity, taxpayers chip in as much as 74 cents in lost revenue. This is because the wealthiest donors use charity not only to reduce their income taxes, but also capital gains, estate and gift taxes. The most charitably oriented billionaires in the U.S. — that is, those who have signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their wealth during their lifetimes or in their wills — are not immune from the tendency to move wealth to donor-controlled intermediaries instead of active charities. Our report found that while a handful of Giving Pledge donors are donating funds in a timely manner, those pledges that are eventually fulfilled will likely be met by donations to perpetual private family foundations and donor-advised funds, delaying the public benefit of the taxpayer-subsidized donations. Of the $12 billion in identifiable gifts of over $1 million that the Giving Pledge signers donated to charity in 2022, 68% — more than $8 billion — went either to foundations or to DAFs. And the wealth of the Giving Pledge donors is growing faster than they can give it away. The 73 living U.S. Giving Pledgers who were billionaires in 2010 saw their wealth grow by 138%, or 224% when adjusted for inflation, through 2022. Of these 73 people, 30 of them have seen their wealth increase more than 200% when adjusted for inflation. In the worst cases, some pledgers have used their philanthropy for self-serving purposes, such as taking out loans from their foundations or paying themselves hefty trustee salaries. These actions by some billionaire donors raise concerns that what began as a civic-minded initiative to spur generosity is instead serving to concentrate private wealth and power at taxpayer expense. Some might argue these abuses and examples of self-dealing are rare. But if only a small percentage of the population engages in, say, auto theft, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against auto theft. By allowing charity abuses to remain legal — and to rely solely on private associations to police their own ranks — we undermine trust in the sector as a whole. There are reforms that could limit these abuses and ensure more dollars end up in the hands of actual working charities. These include a payout requirement for DAFs and stronger rules to limit the shell games around payout distribution for private foundations. Lawmakers should also explore increased incentives for non-wealthy donors and a potential cap on the unlimited charitable deduction for billionaires. This won’t happen any time soon. The defenders of the philanthropic status quo — the Council on Foundations, the Philanthropy Roundtable, the Community Foundation Awareness Network and the lobbyists for large, commercial DAFs — have done a pretty good job blocking reform. As a result, abuses will continue to happen in public, and the pressure will build for legislative changes. The missing voice in the philanthropy discussion is the U.S. taxpayer, who subsidizes the private giving of billionaires to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars a year. Without any change, philanthropy will further drift toward becoming a taxpayer-subsidized extension of the private power and influence of our most wealthy.
https://ips-dc.org/the-true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy-how-the-taxpayer-subsidizes-stockpiled-wealth/
国家不就是它们操控之下的吗
问题是我报税的时候报一个上万刀刀理发成本 IRS肯定会audit我啊 IRS会audit川普和富人吗？ 显然不会啊 你告诉我为什么？
trust一般千万左右就可以上了 慈善基金需要至少几个亿起吧 运行的成本和规模不一样啊
开航空公司赚钱吧？ 我为啥不去开个航空公司呢？ 因为我没钱啊
我也想开慈善基金避税啊 可是只有几百万怎么开？ 工资都不够发的
你怎么知道没有audit过？
巴菲特几个孩子的和他前妻名字的基金会。老东西死了都不想交税
IRS audit 也没用。
美国税法到处都是为巨富设计好的loop whole。
就像上面说的，川普理发就上万，是你穷你不理解，IRS充分理解。
还有就是议员股票内部交易，合法啊。 你不理解，很生气有用吗？
再说一遍，人家是合法的。美国是法制社会。
每天吃方便面的人听到有人说吃一顿饭要花上千块钱确实可以以为别人是在吹牛，但是那并不妨碍别人确实是花上千块吃顿饭。
照你们说那些慈善基金啥也不干，不是投资赚钱就是把钱转来转去，你要雇啥人开啥工资呢？你雇你自己你老婆你娃不就行了吗？你们一家人干不就行了吗？
那你是说如果富豪家族如果几个亿向上，如果打算避税，标配当然是慈善基金而不是trust，所以 你看到美国富豪家族几个亿向上的标配慈善基金了吗？如果还是trust占绝大多数，那么这些富豪 家族都是傻子吗？
不说别人，就说川普家，他家资产上几个亿了吧，他家标配用于避税的慈善基金在哪里？ 如果没有，川普他爹到他一大家子都是傻子吗？
第二， 资产到一定规模后， 为了避开遗产税（40%）， 慈善基金是一定会做的。 不然40%可以交到你 吐血（比如小扎的Meta 股票， 要是折现交税， 估计市值给你跌倒只有20%； 所以只能捐入 自家控制的慈善基金）
第三： trust， 里面是通过遗产税 或者赠与税免税额 转入的， 以后 可以 以小搏大（比如 低价买入 新公司原始股等）， 来做大， 但是不一定会马上套现， 或者长期持有来付 长期资本利得税； 所以Trust 也可以规模很大。。。
第四： 慈善基金 总的来说还是有积极的社会意义的。
关于钱的话，考虑到捐款可以免税，其实就是多花一倍多的钱，保证你回报社会的资金绝对去向你认可的地方，而不是给政府花用（比如去买白宫的马桶之类的）。
说实话，irs真的没很想audit你。他们真的在audit有钱人。 我帮你出个主意。你去onlyfan上直播赚100万，去理1万的头，报1万的理发费，我保证irs不audit你，audit也不罚你。
你自己脑子进水问问你爹妈文革过啥日子，你爹妈不行问你爷爷。邓小平最大功绩就是灭了你们这帮文革余孽。改革开放40年是两百斤开始的吗？瞎了你的眼
就跟旧社会一口洋文的洋买办一样，尤其那种下面夹根洋枪的
交税给政府不见得比慈善基金有效
另外做慈善也不只捐款，很多大公司都會有做義工的活動，我們就有SVP拉著手下VP們去給shlter鋪床單削土豆的活動，也有大冬天每個大公司派高館睡帳篷的體驗活動，都挺好的，高中生也必須做40小時義工不然畢不了業
我們多倫多不就給個破廣場改名花了幾百萬嗎...還是個多年改名計畫呢
对啊，以后所有人都给这些巨富交税多好。
你的理解是错误的
个人的小额捐赠并没有多少省税的意义；在美国通过捐款做慈善避税也得富有到了一定程度，捐赠巨大必然有各种技术把钱留住，所以省税是一定的，当然还有社会荣誉这样的回报。所以这是利人利己的事情。就算是小额捐款到了慈善组织，你也得看清楚这些钱怎么用的，不会纯粹用于捐赠的项目，还会用于许多其它的花费的。说省税这个事不是妖魔化慈善捐款，只是让人把事情看得清楚一些，不要天真的相信纯粹的利人不利己的慈善捐款这样的事情。
邓艾滋演技高超，在江西住着小洋楼说自己受苦了，价格双轨制自然先富说是改革，艾滋政委语言大师，唱的比做的好。淮海战役是艾滋指挥的。滋滋的徒子徒孙消灭这个那个，深得艾滋真传。
邓艾滋时代，价格双轨制，先富直接抢劫后富，枪指挥党，挂改革羊头卖先富抢劫后富之实，最擅长。
trust fund可以包裹慈善基金，达到不同目的
报告， 韭菜好没资格讨伐镰刀 目测这楼是那些觉得被割很幸福的韭菜在讨伐我们这种挣扎的韭菜， 说我们不识抬举妖魔化镰刀
你不知道不要乱说。首先交叉捐的都会是些大基金，irs 5000以上要提供明细的。基金的开支也是公开的，公众可以查询。 美国大把普通人都捐，真金白银出去，没有什么所谓交叉捐。好多人还一堆信用卡债。 华人确实很少捐，哪怕大几十万收入，这是事实。
是
不说平头老百姓的慈善捐款, 大富大贵的慈善基金就是不想交税, 这样可以自己决定自己的钱怎么花, 不想政府以 tax dollar 的形式决定怎么花这些钱.
philanthropist, 这个词了解一下, 为这些人量生打照的.
为啥理发的钱可以deduct？我老公把理发的钱放在business cost被会计师驳回。他说要不是商业meeting要见客户他也不会需要频繁理发但是会计师说不行。还有西装衬衫好像也不可以，虽然真的平时都不穿。
有钱人需要用资金拓展自己的社会影响力，你交一个亿的税，政府民众都完全不会感激你。
而你捐两个亿到慈善基金会里，可以用这个基金会去接触各政要名流，影响社会，做政治和利益交换。
就是这样 既没实力 又没良心。你仔细观察一下 不是100% 但至少90%是黄右
黄右们肯定没有回馈社会的认知 他们不会去做 在他们眼里 做了的也是不安好心
真是什么事都能往左右上引，比川粉有过之而无不及。你没资格笑别人。
因为你老公不理发客户也不会不见他啊。Trump不理发，川粉真的会不去付费看他演讲啊。 你来读读这个article. https://www.hellobonsai.com/blog/are-haircuts-tax-deductible#:~:text=If%20your%20line%20of%20work,courts%20ruled%20in%20Hynes%20v.
你看专业人士想的都一样。这片文章也建议你去onlyfans 哈哈哈哈。