Foundations Have No Right to Immortality: Why subsidize indulgences with little public benefit?

[marmar]

NY Times, via ReclaimDemocracy!:



Foundations Have No Right to Immortality
Why should taxpayers subsidize indulgences with little public benefit?


By Ray D. Madoff
First Published in the NY Times, July 9, 2008


The latest news from the Palace, that Leona Helmsley left instructions that her charitable bequest of as much as $8 billion be used for the care and welfare of dogs, rubs our noses in the tax deduction for charitable gifts and its common vehicle, the perpetual private foundation. Together these provide a mechanism by which American taxpayers subsidize the whims of the rich and fulfill their fantasies of immortality.

The charitable deduction enables people to donate as much of their assets as they like for charitable purposes without paying a tax. While some choose to contribute to broad public goals, the law does not require it. In recent years, charitable status has been recognized for organizations with purposes as idiosyncratic as promoting excellence in quilting and educating the public about Huey military aircraft. Indeed, Mrs. Helmsley might have limited her beneficence to the Maltese breed of dogs she favored, and that, too, would have been allowed as a “charitable” purpose.

If this were only a matter of Leona Helmsley wasting her own money, no one would need to care. But she is wasting ours too.

The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley's case, given that her fortune warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2008/foundations_perpetual_taxpayers.php

[Alcibiades]

1. Good article

Corporations also should not be granted immortality.