Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday June 07 2015, @08:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the red-flag dept.

After seeing problems with the Red Cross response local storm relief (example: 40% of available emergency vehicles used for press conferences), reporter Laura Sullivan decided to look into what happened in Haiti, where the American Red Cross collected a whopping $500 million in donations.

Her report is damning. The largest proportion of these were to go into housing. The Red Cross built...wait for it...six houses. In one area where the Red Cross promised to spend $24 million, and even printed a brochure exclaiming over all that they accomplished, the local residents are unaware of any Red Cross activity.

Meanwhile the Red Cross refuses to provide more than a very high level overview of their projects. No financial figures are provided that would allow one to figure out how much of that $500 million was actually spent on relief, and where the rest of it went.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Soybean on Monday June 08 2015, @12:06AM

    by Soybean (5020) on Monday June 08 2015, @12:06AM (#193440)

    THIS is how philanthropic tax dodges work. Ask Bill Gates. He pays his tax contribution to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, THEN claims a salary off it. He's double dipping right there, AND avoiding a huge chunk of tax liability.

    How does that work? You seem to think that salaries don't have income tax. In fact, when you are your own employer, salaries are double-taxed because there is an employer side FICA tax [accountingcoach.com] that regular employees never see.

    So, your theory is that Bill Gates is taking capital gains, which has a maximum tax rate of 20% and 'donating' that to a charity which then pays it back to him with an effective tax rate of well over 30% as a tax dodge?

    Puhlease.

  • (Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @05:35AM

    by TLA (5128) on Monday June 08 2015, @05:35AM (#193524) Journal

    30% of a 40% tax dodge. Let's run the numbers. Keep it simple.

    Gross from job: $10million
    Tax liability: $4million (assume high tax band rate of 40%)

    Donate that to your charity.
    Draw 4 million salary, minus 10% "servicing": that's 3.6million taxable income.
    40% of THAT is 1.44million.

    I just cut your net tax liability by 64%, in one go. Rinse and repeat, for further 64% net reduction in liability each go round until you drop into the low bracket. YOU'RE WELCOME.

    --
    Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @02:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @02:27PM (#193656)

      > Tax liability: $4million (assume high tax band rate of 40%)
      > Donate that to your charity.

      WTH? You've obviously never made a charitable donation in your life.

      If you donate $4M out of $10M that does not cut your tax by $4M, it cuts your taxable income by $4M.
      You still owe 40% on the remaining $6M.

      Where did you come up with this bullshit theory anyway?

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday June 09 2015, @02:40AM

        by isostatic (365) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @02:40AM (#193906) Journal

        > WTH? You've obviously never made a charitable donation in your life.

        Quite, but it looks like a common belief.

        Lets run the numbers from the muppet you replied to

        >> 30% of a 40% tax dodge. Let's run the numbers. Keep it simple.
        >> Gross from job: $10million
        >> Tax liability: $4million (assume high tax band rate of 40%)
        >> Donate that to your charity.

        So that reduces taxable income to $6m, leaving a tax bill of $2.4m

        >> Draw 4 million salary, minus 10% "servicing": that's 3.6million taxable income.

        WTF is "Servicing"?

        >> 40% of THAT is 1.44million.
        OK, so tax of 2.4 + 1.44 = $3.84m

        >> I just cut your net tax liability by 64%, in one go. Rinse and repeat, for further 64% net reduction in liability each go round until you drop into the low bracket. YOU'RE WELCOME.

        No, you cut it by 5%, made up of this unexplained "servicing" thing.

        Now I can accept there are tax dodges, things like lending yourself money, writing down asset values, etc which means rich people pay a fraction of the tax (as a percentage, still way more in actual dollar-value) than the rest of us, or that you could get untaxed benefits (e.g. donate $4m to charity, get free use of a $80m charity jet or something), but the simple act of donating to charity doesn't save you money.