One way they are different is that they can avoid - not evade - taxes better than we can. One way they do this is with their 'donations' to charity, as explained by Ray Madoff of BC Law.
First, some have a different definition of charity than many people. For example, Leona Helmsley's bequest of $8 billion for the care and welfare of dogs. Had these funds been taxed, the federal deficit would be $3.6 billion less. Or, put another way, you and I have to kick in our share of $3.6 billion. While many bequests of the wealthy do benefit the world, Madoff argues that there should be a limit as to the amount of the bequest that is tax-free. Sounds reasonable to me.
Madoff does not have a high opinion of the laws governing private foundations, which must spend 5% of their assets each year. The problem is that fees to the trustees and administrative costs are part of this 5%. Shouldn't all of it go to charity?
This is just another example of the corruption of the language. Charity no longer means doing something for those in need.
No comments:
Post a Comment