Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[Zonkerbl]

If I had a tax advisor who told me I could minimize my tax exposure by giving away all my money to a charitable trust and the only way I could use that money would be to commit a felony I would fire that tax advisor immediately.

Trump apparently embraced that strategy and would have gotten away with it without anyone noticing if he hadn't been elected. What I conclude from this is that the wealthy are all a bunch of liars and thieves, aided and abetted by sociopaths like SD20.

[Ruzious]

Additionally...yes you can treat your non profit almost as your personal piggy bank. sorry. but you can. and almost everybody does. You can transfer wealth and assets in and out of it at will. you just need to expense it out. You can also pay yourself and realize income whenever you want if needed. you can pay other (for profit) corps. etc. Bottom line: non-profits average around 7.5% in actual direct annual charitable donations while they hold over $3 trillion in assets just in the US. Do the math.

That's absurd. Sure, you can take out LEGITAMATE fees and expense them, but they have to be legitmate. You cannot use it as a piggy-bank. In fact, the people running the tax-exempt org have a fiduciary obligation to not do that and can be prosecuted. Also, business income generated by assets in the non-profit is subject to unrelated business income tax - as is debt-financed income.

[montestewart]

"Charities" and "charitable trusts" and low figures like 7.5% are routinely conflated to cast a negative image across all charity as taking in huge amounts of money and giving out very little.

If you don't like like rules intended primarily to benefit billionaires like our president and huge corporations like our president's and their huge pots of money and written at their behest by their personal (U.S.) representatives, call for specific changes to those laws.

On the other hand, if you don't like altruism because it upsets the God-given natural order of haves and have nots (God wanted those orphan crack babies to die), again, call for specific changes to those laws. It's a win-win at Wynns, except for the losers.

Or, you can lump them all together, ground the characterization in one or two (possibly) concrete facts, misrepresent complexity as simplicity, and achieve a momentary spasm of catharsis, kind of like

I give to a number of charities and have personally observed their work or know some of their beneficiaries. All these charities are public and publicly rated, and all of them return 90% or more of every dollar taken in to the intended beneficiaries. That's a lot more than 5%.

[stilldropin20]

If I had a tax advisor who told me I could minimize my tax exposure by giving away all my money to a charitable trust and the only way I could use that money would be to commit a felony I would fire that tax advisor immediately.

Trump apparently embraced that strategy and would have gotten away with it without anyone noticing if he hadn't been elected. What I conclude from this is that the wealthy are all a bunch of liars and thieves, aided and abetted by sociopaths like SD20.

1. its not illegal.

2. (in bold) YES. you are finally getting it!!! its sinking.

3. I'm telling you the some of the many ways in which they minimize their tax exposure. But these tend to be the most abused which makes me the opposite of a sociopath. I'm exposing so as to stop this abuse!!

This is where we align. And this is where my crack addict hippy parents got one thing right. They taught me to be a giver instead of a taker and someone who helps others. All of these loop holes are easily closed! with the stroke of a pen!!

----The trick to a succusssful closure of these loopholes is a secret congressional session the secrecy of night with a sealed congress that is not allowed to leave the senate or house chambers until the bill is signed and a president that sits in the oval until the bill is signed. No aides! No lobbyists! No phones! No computers!! A very small and tight lipped joint bi-partisan committee must pre work the bill by themselves. So they would need to be well versed accountants and legal writers. Bottom line you can NOT allow it to leak or you will see massive capital flight off shore. I'm talking 10-15 trillion. Our markets will crumble. This legislation must make it more painful to remove wealth from our markets and into offshore accounts than (for example) the bernie tax plan. Very much like and early withdrawl penalty. Except harsh. like 50-70% kind of penalty.


--thats the "trap" clause.

--then just lay out a harsh tax code (like bernies) for wealth over $10 million no matter how it is held. Personal, corporate, trust, foundation, non-profit, etc....except bernies does NOT mention non profits and foundations. which is where it is all held. 88-89 % of the entire world's wealth is held corporately or in corporate trusts and foundations.

[stilldropin20]

"Charities" and "charitable trusts" and low figures like 7.5% are routinely conflated to cast a negative image across all charity as taking in huge amounts of money and giving out very little.

If you don't like like rules intended primarily to benefit billionaires like our president and huge corporations like our president's and their huge pots of money and written at their behest by their personal (U.S.) representatives, call for specific changes to those laws.

On the other hand, if you don't like altruism because it upsets the God-given natural order of haves and have nots (God wanted those orphan crack babies to die), again, call for specific changes to those laws. It's a win-win at Wynns, except for the losers.

Or, you can lump them all together, ground the characterization in one or two (possibly) concrete facts, misrepresent complexity as simplicity, and achieve a momentary spasm of catharsis, kind of like

I give to a number of charities and have personally observed their work or know some of their beneficiaries. All these charities are public and publicly rated, and all of them return 90% or more of every dollar taken in to the intended beneficiaries. That's a lot more than 5%.

Monste,

please list me the charity giving away 90% lol. That's nearly impossible to have virtually no overhead.

--but to your point. Yes, some of these are good cause. About .01(%) of them or less. Bottom line around 7.5% is the cumulative average of destination charitable donations to the end user. You can look all this up. So for every (1) efficently run non-profit giving away 35% there are (200 more) giving away 5%...hence the 7.5% cumulative average.

it's just math. By and large these are nothing more than tax shelters.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

all hat no cattle. no way crazy eyes comes out of the primary over Kamala harris who is far more polished and can appeal across to aisle based on her law and order back ground. If Harris immediately gets behind Trumps china trade policy and promises to follow through with it elected as well as USMCA and the wall then their is no possible way she could lose to any Dem or trump himself. and she's the only one that can do it as she has the flare, "gleam in her eyes" and the sex appeal (to men and women) the left so desperately craves in their politicians.

Its kamala or bust for you guys. and she has to adopt a lot of MAGA to win against Trump.

[stilldropin20]

Additionally...yes you can treat your non profit almost as your personal piggy bank. sorry. but you can. and almost everybody does. You can transfer wealth and assets in and out of it at will. you just need to expense it out. You can also pay yourself and realize income whenever you want if needed. you can pay other (for profit) corps. etc. Bottom line: non-profits average around 7.5% in actual direct annual charitable donations while they hold over $3 trillion in assets just in the US. Do the math.

That's absurd. Sure, you can take out LEGITAMATE fees and expense them, but they have to be legitmate. You cannot use it as a piggy-bank. In fact, the people running the tax-exempt org have a fiduciary obligation to not do that and can be prosecuted. Also, business income generated by assets in the non-profit is subject to unrelated business income tax - as is debt-financed income.

most of this sounds like that naivety i keep talking about. as far as the bold you will need to define these terms you're using here for me to comment.

but generally speaking, a non profit can buy a plane, buy a boat, and fly and ship you around the world for the rest of your life (so long and you are doing "the charities good work" at each port. if that aint a personal piggy bank then i dont know what it is.

[Ruzious]

SD, those are terms that anyone involved in non-profits should know about. I'd suggest googling UBIT if you really are involved with any non-profits.

[Zonkerbl]

It is very interesting that the astounding level of crimes Trump has been getting away with up until now seem to be standard business practice - the IRS signed off on his scheme to fraudulently value his real estate holdings at a fraction of their actual price for tax evasion purposes. Is it illegal if the IRS is complicit in the scheme? Maybe we should take all the resources we wasted on the War on Drugs and start a new war on Tax Evasion.

Watch on YouTube

[I_Like_Dirt]

Maybe we should take all the resources we wasted on the War on Drugs and start a new war on Tax Evasion.

I would be totally in support of this. Funding the IRS to target tax evasion, done effectively, would significantly increase government income overall. The costs wouldn't come close to the returns. DCK often talks about simplifying the tax code, and he has a strong point there, but enforcement needs to be at the core of any attempted strategy. The only reason it doesn't happen is because so many people are doing it and because the voting public doesn't have an emotional fear of such crimes.

[stilldropin20]

SD, those are terms that anyone involved in non-profits should know about. I'd suggest googling UBIT if you really are involved with any non-profits.

i own a "smile make" over non profit for poor folks. we dont collect much money from the public...mostly just me personally funding it or families of poor folks funding it to help a family member out with a smile makeovers. my accountant expenses out the details and its a very legit non profit. I've helped many women of domestic abuse and rape who got their teeth punched out and the broken teeth are a constant reminder of the attack. i dont convey any personal assets nor real estate/stocks/bonds to it for tax shelters. This is strictly to perform smile make overs. I also own multiple corporate trusts. This is how i own my real real estate in a massive holding/trading company. And then I individually own each parcel of real estate o rbuilding in its own LLC for layered protection. but non-profit is altruistic as it gets. its just a way for wealthier families to pay for their poorer family members dental care and get a charitable donation write off in the process. Which is fair to them. Better than public aid paying it! and public aid doesnt cover much anyway.

But i do manage massive real estate portfolios for an uber wealthy family. They dot all their I's and cross their T's and have the most legit corporate accountants and corporate tax lawyers in the city of chicago so I'm certain they are not breaking any laws. And they move stuff in and out of their corporations and to their corporate trusts, and in and out of their foundations, and in and out of their multiple non-profits monthly if not weekly. They all do. All wealthy people do this.

so i just dont know what YOU mean when YOU say, for example, "business income?" Which business you talking about in your example? Their are other terms you throw around without defining them as well. I mean i think i know what you are saying. You're just not using the terms correctly to convey that YOU know what YOU are saying. Hope that helps.

[Ruzious]

SD, you said you put 100 million of real estate in charitable trusts. If I were you, I'd ask the accountants if they've looked at the UBIT implications. A lot of them don't typically deal with UBIT and are clueless about it. At least ask the question to cover yourself. It's a tax on business earnings that aren't related to the tax-exempt purpose of the organizations. Real estate rental income can be exempt as long as it's not debt-financed.

[Zonkerbl]

What's so special about being debt-financed?

You know what - don't answer that. I don't want to know.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Shilling for Big Pharma (I know they're big in NJ) is a negative. Taking in a lot of Wall Street money is a negative.

He, Harris, and Gillibrand want to keep the filibuster which is bad. Dems need to wake up... get rid of the filibuster, its the way to progressive policy. Warren is out front on this.

But this is good stuff here

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Shilling for Big Pharma (I know they're big in NJ) is a negative. Taking in a lot of Wall Street money is a negative.

He, Harris, and Gillibrand want to keep the filibuster which is bad. Dems need to wake up... get rid of the filibuster, its the way to progressive policy. Warren is out front on this.

But this is good stuff here

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

so ATT can own you phone lines and satellites and as well as make your phone and service your plan and even control some of your browser (like google and apple do) but the farmers who farm the food cant also own the distribution network?

I mean dont get me wrong...i hate "big" everything. big tech, big pharma, big farming, big media. hate them all and want them all busted up. but its odd to single out farmers who historically have always had a "farmers market" literally since the beginning of time. And rightfully so. I want the farmer to sell to me directly. The more the middle men involved the higher the costs and the more stuff that can go wrong.

[stilldropin20]

SD, you said you put 100 million of real estate in charitable trusts. If I were you, I'd ask the accountants if they've looked at the UBIT implications. A lot of them don't typically deal with UBIT and are clueless about it. At least ask the question to cover yourself. It's a tax on business earnings that aren't related to the tax-exempt purpose of the organizations. Real estate rental income can be exempt as long as it's not debt-financed.

i believe we are speaking the same language. so yes...the specific sq ft of space rented out by one non profit to another non profit is tax exempt. if the entire building is occupied by a non profit then that building is is also local real estate tax exempt. absolutely. other instances also make the rental income tax exempt so long as it is expensed out. but yes...this is just a component of the tax loop holes that apply to non-profits. The others are more a bit more lucrative but this can be substantial depending on the structure of the deal and type of real estate.

[montestewart]

SD, those are terms that anyone involved in non-profits should know about. I'd suggest googling UBIT if you really are involved with any non-profits.

Forget it Jake, It's Chinatown.