Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Think you're missing a word there, and I mostly agree with you, but, you'd be surprised how you can game the tax system, with both business losses and donations.

Cheers on picking up the missing word, I will correct.

I am aware of how much the system can be gained, I used to do it for a living. But giving away $10 so you don't have to pay $3 in tax isn't how you do it.

There are groups that think everyone's evil and selfish, but I agree, in that I also think it's pretty absurd to call feeling good (not talking about moral superiority, here) about doing good to be evidence of people being selfish.

It's pretty ridiculous, isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if you really would end up with more money by not giving the charity then donations would drop.

There is a very good reason rich people donate vast sums of money to charity. They do come out ahead.


The only charity you don't come out ahead with are things you can't prove. Like the salvation army bell ringer donations or giving a homeless guy on the street corner some money.

No, they don't come out ahead. When you give $10 your assessable income drops $10. If the tax rate were a ridiculous 90% then you'd still only reduce your tax bill by $9, and be $1 worse off overall. It's just maths.

Now, it might be that between getting back 35% of the donation in reduced tax, and getting invited to some charity functions that provide great business contacts, and big noting himself in front of the rest of the business community... between all that stuff he might have an overall reason for giving to charity that has nothing to do with actually wanting to help out the charity.

But what's far more likely is that it's a combination of all that stuff, and actually liking what the charity does.

I really liked an idea I heard on the radio once talking about this sort of topic. Now this would never become a low a but I found it to be a good idea.

The idea is that the CEO can never make more money than X times their lowest paid worker. So the CEO needs to raise the rate the lowest paid worker makes in order to get their own raise. Of course now most CEO's of larger corporations don't even get a salary. They get money from investments.

Everyone always knows exactly what everyone else should do with his or her money.