http://www.homewarrantyreviews.com/qa/165/how-to-locating-mobile-phone-anonymously-in-uk…

The rich are defined as those who have money. It is this class that led us into the banking crisis, and from there to the Obama administration and to a number of other social ills while turning their backs on the conservative Christian base (Mitt Romney? A cultist? Really, Republicans?)

We, the USA, the nation, as an organization, are in debt. We must repay this debt or abandon the current financial system. Either way, the people who will suffer the largest setbacks WILL BE THE RICH, which the deserve because of their debased and immoral business activities over the last two decades and, really, beyond.

Depending on the investment return of the foundation, the funds available for distribution to the heirs can vary. As an example, a $500 million foundation with a net 10% return would generate a $50 million return, of which $19 million would be available for the heirs. If there were 20 heirs, each could receive $950,000 per year – an extremely liveable “wage”.

That’s how it works – wealth preservation for the heirs, and a tax benefit for the donor.

Most of the major foundations were set up by people who valued hard work and the American opportunity society. Most have been taken over by left wing ideologues.

Tax ‘em to death.

So now a new Maryland bill refines “millionaire” as anyone making over $100K — the less mobile productive folks who are more likely to grin and bear it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303448404577412711946431318.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs%3Darticle

Divide and conquer. Are we surprised?

Doubtless the remaining Maryland true millionaires won’t come to the rescue for this group — they will chuckle ruefully, seeing it as payback.

Don’t understand the Internal Revenue Code? As Jay Leno says, “well, duh, that’s why it’s a ‘Code’.”

The word “non-profit” does not appear in relation to section 501(c)(3); however, it does appear in relation to (c)(4) (a social welfare group, contributions to which are not deductible).

The number of categories in 501(c) has varied over the past few decades, but 33 is correct (off the top of my head). Most deal with deferred compensation and have nothing to do with charity. They appear in 501 because of the complex nature of deferred compensation arrangements. One should not be scandalized by this.

The only entities to which contributions are deductible are listed in 170(c), which includes mostly (c)(2) – essentially (but not quite) the same thing as a 501(c)(3). The other few on the list are insignificant.

The category “charity” encompasses traditional “helping the poor,” but it also includes everything else in (c)(3): art, religion, education, science, and such.

The problem the OP describes is with private foundations more than with public charities. I would require all 170(c) organizations to satisfy a “public charity” status (found in 509). I would also toughen the definition of “public charity.” If so, many complications would disappear: closely-held, “family charities” would be no more, we’d rid ourselves of all the PF excise taxes, and we’d clean up considerable mess in the estate and gift tax arenas. This would also likely resolve the issues of “foundations” created by the very wealthy for one purpose, which later morph into something else entirely.

I might also eliminate section 170 entirely, which would mean no contributions are deductible. That would not likely hurt churches or traditional charities, contributions to which are in-elastic. It would, however, hurt education and the arts which would have to stand on their own without an effective government subsidy.

But, one must, as stated by others, distinguish between “non-profit” and “tax exempt,” which are not at all the same thing; and, one must distinguish between entities which are tax exempt and entities to which contributions are deductible, which are also vastly different.

Insane!

His stock, and Bill Gates stock, has never been taxed. By gifting their stock to their foundation they didn’t even pay the capital gains tax they claim is too low. By gifting their stock before it was taxed the government has never received any revenue. Now the foundation sell the stock and it remains untaxed.

We need to at least tax the gifted stock at the capital gains rate. The government would have received over $15 Billion dollars if the two men had sold the stock and given the proceeds to their foundation.

It is hard to hear Obama talk about the Buffett rule while the man avoids even the minimum tax he claims is too low for the good of the country

Neil Stevens is onto something

The Plutocrats and Oligarchs are hiding in plain sight as very profitable, privileged, tax exempt, “nonprofit” billionaire trust funds for the scions of the elite.

Although many universities fall into this category, I would start with ‘Busting the Trusts” like that great Progressive TR did. Wealth concentrated in a privileged

“Great wealth in the hands of a few is undemocratic, whether it?s directly by a person, or given over to these private corporations that serve as embodiments of boundless ego. Tax them to fund a truly charitable social safety net for all Americans.”

This is one of the best ideas that has come from the most excellent RedState.

All the best, Neil Stevens, whereever you are.

Soros is the scum of the earth: http://patriotslament.com/node/653

When someone buys a bottle of Paul Newman’s popcorn or salad dressing, the profits “go to charity”. Why is Newman bragging about not paying taxes here? Why does that make us want to buy his product?

When liberals avoid paying taxes, it is “for a good cause”.