this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1320 points (97.3% liked)

Clever Comebacks

1173 readers
1 users here now

Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
  2. Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
  6. Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

If the charity itself is doing proper work, that makes sense tbh. I mean, if you had billions to donate, would you give it to some random ass organisation... Or set up your own thing to do things that you personally agree with?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 114 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the charity itself is doing proper work

I would be utterly shocked if it was.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

You'll know when these billionaire charity trusts actually have an impact because they will do everything in their power to scream it in your ear.

[–] marco@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I'd you want to see how it's done, check out what his Ex-wife did with her money from the divorce

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/15/mackenzie-scott-billionaire-donations-non-profits

[–] Ichi_matsu@ttrpg.network 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed, and I’m find with the tax deduction if the charity works they do is legit, it’s not like he is paying taxes anyway.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

That's... actually a good point.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah and if he donates a majority of his wealth, thats more than he would have been taxed regardless.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is exactly the issue. He doesn't "donate" shit. He opens a non-profit that does nothing but funnel his fortune to his children. It's all a sham. Same as with that other clothing company who "donated" their entire fortune.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Not sure about elsewhere, but in Canada a Charity is a special kind of non-profit that has more public oversight as to how they manage their money, and allowed to write charitable receipts. Non-profits might do some good things, but you don’t get a tax credit for donating money to them, and there’s less oversight of how they’re managed.

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, I’d go for the middle option: donate to existing charities that appeal to me. I don’t want to run a charity, it sounds like a massive headache.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re probably a different demographic. I’d guess the kind of people that become billionaires, assuming they actually want to be philanthropic, think that they can do a better job of managing their charities than existing charities would do managing their donations.

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

It’s definitely fair to say I’m in the “extremely unlikely to ever be a millionaire, let alone a billionaire” demographic!

[–] McJonalds@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

i would definitely do the latter but that is not whats happening here