U2 singer Bono praises philanthropy of Apple's Steve Jobs

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 114
    lukeilukei Posts: 332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    Since you're obviously more generous than most, maybe you should share with us the percentage of your annual income that you donate to charity?



    More than 2% I have no idea if that is more generous than most.. Many people on this site confusing a pop band using a company to 'tax plan' with a corporation with many thousands of employees and external shareholders including pension plans etc. U2 corporation was relocated exactly in line with changes to Irish tax laws for musicians,



    Steve Jobs gives millions I am certain. Why certain? Because anyone affected by an illness who has the means will at the very least fund help for sufferers or research into a cure for it. Bill Gates has a mission to give nearly all his money away which is admirable. Bono obviously has a lot of fans on here, I am not one of them. His music is okay but other parts of his world I don't agree with.
  • Reply 82 of 114
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 83 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    ROTLFMAO. Then go ahead and show the how it works.



    I simplified it because the people posting in this forum clearly don't understand finances. Looks like I didn't simplify it enough. I can guarantee that tax brackets, IRAs, and other investment options don't change the actual picture. You don't have more money by making charitable donations. The most you can say is that taxes reduce the out of pocket cost of the donation, but never to zero or below.



    But feel free to provide an example of how it works.







    Your inability to provide logical arguments is noted.







    No, it's not. The money that Apple donates is shareholder money. Jobs is acting in the shareholder's interest. His fiduciary responsibility is to donate money only if it has a net positive to the company. He is only allowed to give away his own money. Giving away other people's money is not charity.



    Yes, Jobs could be earning a greater salary. But 'what ifs' are not the same as charity. You don't have any way of knowing if he's donating money today, nor do you know if he'd donate more money if he had a million dollar salary. Furthermore, that's all irrelevant. Bono claims that since APPLE gave lots of money that Jobs is a philanthropist. He's wrong. Jobs may or may not be a philanthropist, but giving away someone else's money doesn't make him one.



    In your world, accountants would be useless. The only reason people pay accountants is because they make more in not paying taxes than they paid for the accountant. I'm not going to give you a lesson in tax law in the forums. Your anger is disgraceful, and your accusations are getting very disrespectful.
  • Reply 84 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    In your world, accountants would be useless. The only reason people pay accountants is because they make more in not paying taxes than they paid for the accountant. I'm not going to give you a lesson in tax law in the forums. Your anger is disgraceful, and your accusations are getting very disrespectful.



    That doesn't make sense. I pay an accountant to prepare my return for me, because I expect them to be able to maximize my deductions that save me more than the accountant charges me.



    However, that doesn't change the fact that any deductions through charitable donations reduce the amount of your income that you have to pay tax on - it does not mean you reduce your tax bill by the amount you give away (or as you seem to be suggesting, by more than you have given away).



    The tax code is clearly a complex mess, but it's not completely stupid.
  • Reply 85 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    In your world, accountants would be useless. The only reason people pay accountants is because they make more in not paying taxes than they paid for the accountant. I'm not going to give you a lesson in tax law in the forums. Your anger is disgraceful, and your accusations are getting very disrespectful.



    I'm not angry at all - just frustrated at people who think they know what they're talking about - and clearly don't.



    The bolded statement, though, is completely wrong. There are a lot of reasons for paying accountants:



    1. My time may be more valuable than what I pay the accountant - particularly when you consider how much time I'd have to spend researching the tax laws.

    2. I may be concerned about making a mistake - and paying penalties or going to jail for making a mistake.

    3. The tax laws may be too complicated for me to understand and I therefore want to hire an expert (for the same reasons I don't rebuild the transmission on my car when it breaks).



    NONE of those have anything to do with the issue at hand. Even if it's true that the accountant saves you more money that what you pay him, that doesn't prove the claim that people are making that a charitable contribution actually makes you more money than the value of the contribution.



    As for a lesson in tax law - I've already shown how it works (and I've done plenty of tax returns myself for both individual and corporate taxes). I've given examples of how the math works. You say I'm wrong - so prove it. Give an example of how one can donate a million dollars and have more money than if you never donated the money.



    Put up or shut up.
  • Reply 86 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lukei View Post


    More than 2% I have no idea if that is more generous than most.. Many people on this site confusing a pop band using a company to 'tax plan' with a corporation with many thousands of employees and external shareholders including pension plans etc. U2 corporation was relocated exactly in line with changes to Irish tax laws for musicians,



    Steve Jobs gives millions I am certain. Why certain? Because anyone affected by an illness who has the means will at the very least fund help for sufferers or research into a cure for it. Bill Gates has a mission to give nearly all his money away which is admirable. Bono obviously has a lot of fans on here, I am not one of them. His music is okay but other parts of his world I don't agree with.



    Whether 2% is average or not depends on your tax bracket. The numbers are here:

    http://www.cch.com/wbot2010/030AvgIt...Deductions.asp

    I suspect that the charitable contributions figures reported to the IRS are inflated. First, no doubt some people claim contributions that they haven't made. Second, the people who have very low incomes do not need to file tax returns - and many of them probably give nothing. In any event, that's OT.



    Steve Jobs may give millions. He may give billions. He may give nothing. There's no way to be certain one way or the other, nor does it matter.



    The important issue is that Bono doesn't know, either. All Bono knows is that APPLE gave money - which does not make Jobs a philanthropist.
  • Reply 87 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I'm not angry at all - just frustrated at people who think they know what they're talking about - and clearly don't.



    The bolded statement, though, is completely wrong. There are a lot of reasons for paying accountants:



    1. My time may be more valuable than what I pay the accountant - particularly when you consider how much time I'd have to spend researching the tax laws.

    2. I may be concerned about making a mistake - and paying penalties or going to jail for making a mistake.

    3. The tax laws may be too complicated for me to understand and I therefore want to hire an expert (for the same reasons I don't rebuild the transmission on my car when it breaks).



    NONE of those have anything to do with the issue at hand. Even if it's true that the accountant saves you more money that what you pay him, that doesn't prove the claim that people are making that a charitable contribution actually makes you more money than the value of the contribution.



    As for a lesson in tax law - I've already shown how it works (and I've done plenty of tax returns myself for both individual and corporate taxes). I've given examples of how the math works. You say I'm wrong - so prove it. Give an example of how one can donate a million dollars and have more money than if you never donated the money.



    Put up or shut up.



    http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4587136...tax-money.html



    The link is too simplified to explain what Gates does, but it is beyond laughable to say you can't save money on taxes by donating to charity. The fact of the matter is you're asking for a very complex answer in a forum where such an answer has no place. I can explain why the neils-Bohr model of the atom is atomically impossible too, but that would require a bunch of quantum physics and it's easier to just say it's a close approximation and that the reality is different. Many, many things can't be explained in a APPLE forum. Please, if you want answers, use google, take classes, but don't tell random people that their personal experience never happened.
  • Reply 88 of 114
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 89 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    All Bono knows is that APPLE gave money - which does not make Jobs a philanthropist.



    Apple IS Steve Jobs
  • Reply 90 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,589member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post


    [SIZE="7"]Apple IS Steve Jobs



    \ Back to the big type again I see. The regular 7 point type doesn't make you less significant.
  • Reply 91 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    From the article:



    Fine, continue to misconstrue the simple explanation to explain away reality.



    http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...s-comment.html



    The facts are facts, it's a very noble cause, but mr gates isn't just giving away his money.
  • Reply 92 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4587136...tax-money.html



    The link is too simplified to explain what Gates does, but it is beyond laughable to say you can't save money on taxes by donating to charity. The fact of the matter is you're asking for a very complex answer in a forum where such an answer has no place. I can explain why the neils-Bohr model of the atom is atomically impossible too, but that would require a bunch of quantum physics and it's easier to just say it's a close approximation and that the reality is different. Many, many things can't be explained in a APPLE forum. Please, if you want answers, use google, take classes, but don't tell random people that their personal experience never happened.



    ROTFLMAO. Your own article proves that you're wrong:



    "A rich person who pays 50 percent tax on their income, essentially saves half of any charitable contribution due to tax deduction. "



    and



    "you will never regain 100 percent of the money of a donation through a deduction."



    So tell me again how donating money to charity gets you more back than your donation? When even your own source says it's not possible?



    So far, I've provided a detailed explanation of how it works - and your own source confirms that I'm correct. So where is this magic example you can give me that shows that you can get more from donating money than from keeping it?
  • Reply 93 of 114
    The heated comments being posted are silly. No one on this site actually knows what Mr. Jobs does privately with his money, and quite frankly, it is none of your business what he does. With that, it is ridiculous to presume judgment on this man.



    What I do know is that a person's character is often reflected in the company one keeps. This would include his wife (who has a long history of service and charitable work) and Larry Ellison (who comes across as a mean SOB, but has and will continue to give millions if not billions to charity). Most of his neighbors say that he is a kind and good neighbor. These things do not necessarily make him a saint, but they are inconsistent with a miserly scrooge.



    With respect to grand public charitable gestures made by Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett, they are wonderful things. It teaches us that with great privilege, comes great responsibility. But whether it is public or anonymous, philanthropy done unconditionally is an act of compassion.



    Finally, for those still with an ax to grind, let it go. Mr. Jobs once said "Life is short, follow your heart." Put aside your anger and resentment, let it go.



    JoeG
  • Reply 94 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    ROTFLMAO. Your own article proves that you're wrong:



    "A rich person who pays 50 percent tax on their income, essentially saves half of any charitable contribution due to tax deduction. "



    and



    "you will never regain 100 percent of the money of a donation through a deduction."



    So tell me again how donating money to charity gets you more back than your donation? When even your own source says it's not possible?



    So far, I've provided a detailed explanation of how it works - and your own source confirms that I'm correct. So where is this magic example you can give me that shows that you can get more from donating money than from keeping it?



    Oh hooray, we misunderstood each other. I'm not saying he made money by donations, obviously. I'm saying what he gave away is less than he would have paid in taxes. So yes, he's not magically making money by giving it away, he's lowering his percentage of taxable income by donating, and the amount he donates brings his earnings down far enough to change the tax percentage enough that he comes out losing less money than he would otherwise.



    Better?
  • Reply 95 of 114
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 96 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    Oh hooray, we misunderstood each other. I'm not saying he made money by donations, obviously. I'm saying what he gave away is less than he would have paid in taxes.



    And, as you've been told - including examples and evidence from the source YOU provided, that's not possible.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    So yes, he's not magically making money by giving it away, he's lowering his percentage of taxable income by donating, and the amount he donates brings his earnings down far enough to change the tax percentage enough that he comes out losing less money than he would otherwise.



    You obvious don't understand how tax brackets work.



    I'm still waiting for you to provide real evidence that one can have more money after making a big donation than if they hadn't made it.
  • Reply 97 of 114
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    Oh hooray, we misunderstood each other. I'm not saying he made money by donations, obviously. I'm saying what he gave away is less than he would have paid in taxes. So yes, he's not magically making money by giving it away, he's lowering his percentage of taxable income by donating, and the amount he donates brings his earnings down far enough to change the tax percentage enough that he comes out losing less money than he would otherwise.



    Better?



    The donations are 100% of his donated income. You don't seem to understand progressive taxation, the rate is reduced because the income, minus deductions, is less.



    You end up with less income overall.
  • Reply 98 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    tl/dr



    Got a link to another blogger's opinion, someone who know what a paragraph is?



    Yeah, I know, terrible formatting. I think I see the discrepensy tho. I did a poor job earlier of phrasing my position. I'm trying to say that what he gave a way plus his taxes is less than if he had just paid taxes, that he got a good business deal for his money. I can see how what I wrote would make it seem as if I were arguing he was actually turning a profit with charity, which is nonsense. Am I still being unclear, or was it just this confusion leading to our disagreement?
  • Reply 99 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    The donations are 100% of his donated income. You don't seem to understand progressive taxation, the rate is reduced because the income, minus deductions, is less.



    You end up with less income overall.



    I'm not saying you end up with more money than you started with, but that the donation total plus his total paid in taxes winds up being less than how much he would have paid in taxes outright if he hadn't donated anything and all of his income was taxable.
  • Reply 100 of 114
    Finally off work. Here's the math:



    Say I have 100,000 in taxable income and the tax rate for those making over 95,000 is 20%, so after taxes I have 80,000.



    Now, say I give 10,000 away so that I made 90,000 in taxable income, and the tax rate for 70,000-95,000 is 10%. 10% of my taxable 90,000 is 9,000. Thus 10,000 plus 9,000 is 19,000, subtracted from my total of 100,000 is 81,000, or 1000 more than if I had just paid taxes. Now, make these numbers billions and I'm a philanthropist AND I saved my income.



    Ok?
Sign In or Register to comment.