ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Maybe that's what his library foundation does, but that's not the crux of the primary charitable organization (the one he jumpstarted with a $5B donation in 1999). According to this article, much of what is donated is spent preventing/curing diseases that effect children... 657580[/snapback] I know... I understand. Second to none implies you do everything the right way. Why not be whole and do EVERYTHING right? No matter what you do... You can sure stink up all the good you do by doing something half-ass just once.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 You mean after he threatened to move them to Hartford, CT... http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/artic.../Patriots1.html 657675[/snapback] You beat me me too it Gavin... I was gonna say the samething. Still cromag... You can't deny that Kraft is a flaming hypocrite.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Top US Foundations by giving:http://fdncenter.org/findfunders/topfunder...p100giving.html 657710[/snapback] I am not disputing what he gives... That is sure great, awesome, and wonderful... Keep up the good work Bill and Melinda! Why the hell are they worried about the chump change when they try and get larger libraries to buy into the "free computer" PR? It makes no sense... Could it be an "upgradability" issue, PR, etc... Why not put a threshold out there and only cater to the underpriviledged institutions... Just say NO to the ones that can use their economic sensibilities and obtain their machines elsewhere... What are they trying to prove?
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 I see a lot of "evil" corporate giants and even a few classic robber-barons in that list. Know who I don't see? Politicians that B word about the evils of corporate giants and robber-barons. 657741[/snapback] I do agree with you... Big difference between the two though... It is good business to give... In politics, it can be preceived that you are "buying" votes. Not a very good business practice for politicians in today's "microscope" world. I used to work in a deli... You get an old Polish lady to see that you threw a couple extra slices of coldcuts on the scale AFTER you weighed it and you would have a customer for life! After that, they wouldn't piss and moan if you sold them more than they originally wanted.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Before the proposed move to hartford, he wanted to build in south boston, the residents banded together and said no....... He then toyed with providence and hartford, but remained in foxborough, with state help for infastructure....... Still better then the taxpayers paying for the stadium.... Another owner would have moved the team out of the region and been handed a stadium with tax payers money....... 657823[/snapback] Now you got the elite that can only afford the PSL and a ticket to get into the Razor... The rest are hoping to get tickets in other cities... My Brother-in-law always looks for Bills tickets, it is the only way some NE fans will ever see an NFL game. Look at Chicago... Whole generations will grow up to never enjoy a big league game. Sure the taxpayers haven't been pinched... I also read where Smith-Barney reworks his bill every 30 days... Nice little agreement. On another note... What happens if NE doesn't win anymore and the fans turn fickle? Just because the game is bigger... Doesn't make it BETTER.
Moose Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 When discussing Gates' charitable contributions, they never discuss how much money he gives away above and beyond that magic dollar amount he needs to contribute to pay the least amount in taxes. Then maybe I'd be more impressed with his "giving". (The same goes for anyone, not just Gates.) As for Kraft, let's not forget his generous yearly contributions to the NFL Officials! BTW, this whole topic is very sad indeed. If the Bills leave Buffalo, I'm done with NFL football forever.
cromagnum Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Now you got the elite that can only afford the PSL and a ticket to get into the Razor... The rest are hoping to get tickets in other cities... My Brother-in-law always looks for Bills tickets, it is the only way some NE fans will ever see an NFL game. Look at Chicago... Whole generations will grow up to never enjoy a big league game. Sure the taxpayers haven't been pinched... I also read where Smith-Barney reworks his bill every 30 days... Nice little agreement. On another note... What happens if NE doesn't win anymore and the fans turn fickle? Just because the game is bigger... Doesn't make it BETTER. 658590[/snapback] I agree with you that, kraft is pricing out the working class.........The alternative would have been watching, another afc-east team every sunday, cuz the pats would have moved to st. louis....When NE becomes mediocre, maybe, seat prices come down for the rest of us....
KD in CA Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 When discussing Gates' charitable contributions, they never discuss how much money he gives away above and beyond that magic dollar amount he needs to contribute to pay the least amount in taxes. Then maybe I'd be more impressed with his "giving". (The same goes for anyone, not just Gates.) Isn't the "magic dollar" amount zero when you consider that he has to give the money to get the tax deduction?? When I do my taxes I get a deduction equal to the amount of the gift times my tax rate (less the AMT cornholing). Thus if I give $100 and my tax rate is 20%, I PAID a net $80 to "reduce my taxes".
Moose Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Isn't the "magic dollar" amount zero when you consider that he has to give the money to get the tax deduction??658744[/snapback] Simple answer: no. Those itemizing deductions reduce their taxable income by the total contributed to qualified tax-exempt organizations, with some limits. The tax saving usually equals the deduction times the marginal tax rate – the top rate for the person’s income level. From what I understand, the more taxable income you have, the more charitable donations you need to make in order to keep your total output (donations plus taxes) at a minimum. That is the "magic dollar amount".
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Isn't the "magic dollar" amount zero when you consider that he has to give the money to get the tax deduction?? When I do my taxes I get a deduction equal to the amount of the gift times my tax rate (less the AMT cornholing). Thus if I give $100 and my tax rate is 20%, I PAID a net $80 to "reduce my taxes". 658744[/snapback] Well, he's in a higher bracket so he's paying "less" to reduce his taxes... Aren't you also limited to deducting 50% of your income? If Bill 'went to the limit' and no further that would mean that he must have made $58B in the last 6 years (based on having donated $29B)....unless of course he gave most of that after August of last year....still an impressive amount of money to make in a 6 year period...and yet his net worth hovers at $50B.... Yes, the guy is evil incarnate as a businessman but face it, he is doing a lot of good with the money, and pledging to do more....give it up folks, find another target...
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Simple answer: no. From what I understand, the more taxable income you have, the more charitable donations you need to make in order to keep your total output (donations plus taxes) at a minimum. That is the "magic dollar amount". 658769[/snapback] Use the example given, why don't you? For example, an individual with a taxable income of $50,000 donates $2,000 to his or her church. The tax savings from this generosity will be $540 – $2,000 times the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate of 27 percent. So the person gives $2000 and receives $540 in tax breaks....as KD said...your point?
Moose Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Use the example given, why don't you?So the person gives $2000 and receives $540 in tax breaks....as KD said...your point? 658775[/snapback] But is that $540 not in addition to having reduced one's taxable income by $2000?
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 But is that $540 not in addition to having reduced one's taxable income by $2000? 658788[/snapback] That $540 is the net result of reducing one's taxable income by $2000. Remember that a deduction does not mean "deduct what is owed to the Gov't," (that's a tax credit) but "deduct the amount of taxable income that is used to calculate how much is owed the Gov't." Let's pretend this is the guy's only deduction (yeah, I know, he'd do better with a standard deduction, but whatever). His AGI (adjusted gross income, which is used to calculate what your tax rate is) is $50,000. That puts his tax rate at 27%. So that means his starting tax bill (how much taxes he's supposed to pay the gov't) is $13,500. From that $50,000 he can deduct certain expenses, such as charitable contributions. By contributing $2000, his taxable income gets reduced to $48,000. Multiply that $48,000 by 27% and you have a tax bill of $12,960. $13,500 - $12,960 = $540 off your taxes for donating $2000.
Moose Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 That $540 is the net result of reducing one's taxable income by $2000. Remember that a deduction does not mean "deduct what is owed to the Gov't," (that's a tax credit) but "deduct the amount of taxable income that is used to calculate how much is owed the Gov't." Let's pretend this is the guy's only deduction (yeah, I know, he'd do better with a standard deduction, but whatever). His AGI (adjusted gross income, which is used to calculate what your tax rate is) is $50,000. That puts his tax rate at 27%. So that means his starting tax bill (how much taxes he's supposed to pay the gov't) is $13,500. From that $50,000 he can deduct certain expenses, such as charitable contributions. By contributing $2000, his taxable income gets reduced to $48,000. Multiply that $48,000 by 27% and you have a tax bill of $12,960. $13,500 - $12,960 = $540 off your taxes for donating $2000. 658795[/snapback] Great explanation! Thanks! But isn't there some "sweet spot" by which someone with an extraordinarily high income would actually pay less - total - by donating the right amount?
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Well I was told Id never strike it rich in the Navy. So I ask this question, how much friggin money does one man need? Bill Gates is worth 56 billion dollars and wakes up every morning 17.5 million dollars richer. Why is he still doing what he is doing? I would of sold the company or gave it to my children and spent the rest of my life fishing and helping others. Is it that when you buy your dreams you have nothing to do but be more greedy? If I had billions, I would walk right into Ralph's office, take his asking price, and made sure the Bills would stay in Buffalo no matter what. I dont understand these big money owners like Kraft, Jones, and the moron up in D.C. HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU NEED? When your dead, your not taking it with you, you are going to be as equal as I am! 6 feet in a hole. I dont understand that kind of life? I figure most of it has to brew from the big country clubs at the poker table where these guys brag and pick on the "poor low class millionares" Go Bills, Go Sabres 657258[/snapback] Beyond all these tangents generated by your post, Navy, I understand what you mean. Good man.
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Great explanation! Thanks! But isn't there some "sweet spot" by which someone with an extraordinarily high income would actually pay less - total - by donating the right amount? 658807[/snapback] Actually, technically I was wrong. %age isn't calculated until after deductions. So you can affectively change your bracket through deductions, but again, if you are talking about tens of millions of income to start with, you're not moving out of the highest bracket with donations alone. I believe there is a 50% cap on deductible contributions (can deduct only 50% of income). But of course I'm not an accountant, just someone who did his own taxes a month or so ago....
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Ah, here it is, another TBD moron who cant finish reading a post. I never said Gates was a bad guy, but I would not call him a saint now...... As for the "source".... Meet me in person before you make judgements.. oh thats right, you dont go to the games or tailgates...... hiding something? 657843[/snapback] Ah, so Tom should meet you in person before he makes judgements but it's OK to start a thread bitching about what Bill Gates should do with HIS money and how he's not a saint because he still works and makes even more money everyday. Got it. Now, please feel free to espouse some gem about my post total.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Well, he's in a higher bracket so he's paying "less" to reduce his taxes... Aren't you also limited to deducting 50% of your income? If Bill 'went to the limit' and no further that would mean that he must have made $58B in the last 6 years (based on having donated $29B)....unless of course he gave most of that after August of last year....still an impressive amount of money to make in a 6 year period...and yet his net worth hovers at $50B.... Yes, the guy is evil incarnate as a businessman but face it, he is doing a lot of good with the money, and pledging to do more....give it up folks, find another target... 658773[/snapback] Gates doesn't "make" billions a year. Gates has $56B...for the most part, only on paper, which as a practical matter he can't touch (for example: billions in MS stock which, if he sells, depreciates his worth dramatically as the stock price tanks.) Realistically, if he liquidated his net worth entirely to cash...maybe $10-20B (which is still a nice chunk of change, obviously, but that's a hell of a difference nonetheless). Annual earnings-wise...he gets a million a year as Chairman of Microsoft, and holds a billion shares of MSFT stock that paid out a $0.36 dividend last year...so that's $361 million right there. I don't know what the "magic number" is for that annual wage is...but I'm pretty sure it's less than the billion a quarter he donates to his charitable foundation.
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Gates doesn't "make" billions a year. Gates has $56B...for the most part, only on paper, which as a practical matter he can't touch (for example: billions in MS stock which, if he sells, depreciates his worth dramatically as the stock price tanks.) Realistically, if he liquidated his net worth entirely to cash...maybe $10-20B (which is still a nice chunk of change, obviously, but that's a hell of a difference nonetheless). Annual earnings-wise...he gets a million a year as Chairman of Microsoft, and holds a billion shares of MSFT stock that paid out a $0.36 dividend last year...so that's $361 million right there. I don't know what the "magic number" is for that annual wage is...but I'm pretty sure it's less than the billion a quarter he donates to his charitable foundation. 658883[/snapback] Ummm, yeah, that was kinda my point. except that his net worth is valued at $50B right now, according to Forbes (down a billion from last year, due as they say to the value of his portfolio plus the amount of donations made). Couldn't dig up numbers, but I knew his yearly income would amount to $100s of millions at most, and that his donations far exceeded what he made. My point was that the size of his donations would imply that he had to make a lot more money than he actually did in order to look at the donations purely as a 'tax shelter.' (and that's besides the fact that donation/tax break is not a dollar for dollar thing....). Beauty of the typed word...sometimes things you say get misinterpreted....
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Ummm, yeah, that was kinda my point. except that his net worth is valued at $50B right now, according to Forbes (down a billion from last year, due as they say to the value of his portfolio plus the amount of donations made). Couldn't dig up numbers, but I knew his yearly income would amount to $100s of millions at most, and that his donations far exceeded what he made. My point was that the size of his donations would imply that he had to make a lot more money than he actually did in order to look at the donations purely as a 'tax shelter.' (and that's besides the fact that donation/tax break is not a dollar for dollar thing....). Beauty of the typed word...sometimes things you say get misinterpreted.... 658899[/snapback] And you can't make that point enough...because most people can't distinguish between net worth and net earnings. It wasn't directed at you nearly as much as it was the "Bill Gates is worth $50B and only pays $75M (or whatever) in taxes on it!" As a practical matter, save property taxes, Gates doesn't pay ANY taxes on his net worth. No one does, really.
Recommended Posts