# U2 singer Bono praises philanthropy of Apple's Steve Jobs

Posts: 10,473member
Quote:

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.

Wrong.

Quote:

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.

OK. Right off the bat, it's clear that you don't understand tax brackets. If the tax bracket for over \$95 K is 20% (I didn't look - I'll take your word for it)., then you only pay 20% on the amount over \$95 K - not the entire amount. So you'd pay the tax on \$95 K (which would be less than 20%) plus \$1,000.

Quote:

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?

Nope. You clearly don't understand tax brackets. See above.

If you don't even understand how tax brackets work, you have absolutely no business commenting on this topic.

Let's do the correct numbers. Assume that all income below \$95 K is taxed at 10% and all income over \$95 K is taxed at 20%.

If you earn \$100 K and have no deductions, you'd pay \$10,500 (10% of the first \$95 K plus 20% of the remaining \$5 K). So you'd have \$89,500 left in your pocket.

Instead, you give away \$10 K. So your adjusted income is \$90,000 - you'd pay 10% or \$9,000. You'd have \$81,000 left in your pocket.

When you learn how the system works, it goes exactly as I said. If you continue to spout nonsense, you can presumably use your imagined scenarios to 'prove' anything you wish. Unfortunately, you're not correct.
Posts: 94member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta

Wrong.

OK. Right off the bat, it's clear that you don't understand tax brackets. If the tax bracket for over \$95 K is 20% (I didn't look - I'll take your word for it)., then you only pay 20% on the amount over \$95 K - not the entire amount. So you'd pay the tax on \$95 K (which would be less than 20%) plus \$1,000.

Nope. You clearly don't understand tax brackets. See above.

If you don't even understand how tax brackets work, you have absolutely no business commenting on this topic.

Let's do the correct numbers. Assume that all income below \$95 K is taxed at 10% and all income over \$95 K is taxed at 20%.

If you earn \$100 K and have no deductions, you'd pay \$10,500 (10% of the first \$95 K plus 20% of the remaining \$5 K). So you'd have \$89,500 left in your pocket.

Instead, you give away \$10 K. So your adjusted income is \$90,000 - you'd pay 10% or \$9,000. You'd have \$81,000 left in your pocket.

When you learn how the system works, it goes exactly as I said. If you continue to spout nonsense, you can presumably use your imagined scenarios to 'prove' anything you wish. Unfortunately, you're not correct.

That is not what I understood. I apologize for my ignorance.
Posts: 2,455member
deleted
Posts: 10,473member
Quote:

That is not what I understood. I apologize for my ignorance.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance.

What is offensive is when you continue to blather your ignorance after being told repeatedly that you're wrong - and even your own source says that you're wrong. A little bit of maturity would have said "I don't really understand this stuff and people who do are telling me that I'm wrong, so maybe I should listen - and maybe learn something. Or maybe do some research to see how it works".

Instead, you continued to insist that you were right - even though you had to know that you're not very knowledgable about taxes. Learn from this mistake and you'll be much better for it.
Posts: 1,814member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent

If you read the Sorkin article, you'd see that he wasn't just commenting on the impact of Jobs' personal donations but how he could inspire others to do likewise. Furthermore, there are folks like Bill Gates (very few though) who are not just giving money but dedicating his life to charitable causes.

Or trying to reverse a lot of bad karma from years of screwing people at Microsoft.
Posts: 1,887member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster

Apple, eBay, HP, Intel, Intuit and Oracle are founding members of the new

Stanford Hospital Corporate Partners Program. Their contributions are projected to provide as much as \$150 million over the next 10 years to help build the new hospital and create a global model for patient-centered, technologically advanced health care.

Corporations do not make charitable contributions. Instead, they invest PR dollars and R&D dollars into projects like this.

This is NOT philanthropy.
Posts: 1,887member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster

Apple IS Steve Jobs

Wrong. He's not even an employee anymore.
Posts: 5,293member
Quote:

Corporations do not make charitable contributions. Instead, they invest PR dollars and R&D dollars into projects like this.

This is NOT philanthropy.

Of course it is.
Posts: 55member
This is a good follow up to what has been talked about here. One point the author makes is that

"Apple is not publicly proactive about giving away a portion of its profits, but perhaps even worse, it actually inhibits consumers from giving to causes they care about via Apple gadgets. The company won't allow apps for donations and hasn't publicly said why, but there have been reports that it is concerned it would have to manage the funds and verify the legitimacy of the charities."

What are they thinking over at Apple? seems so simple to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/...html?hpt=hp_c2
Posts: 386member
Quote:
Originally Posted by sternapples53

This is a good follow up to what has been talked about here. One point the author makes is that

"Apple is not publicly proactive about giving away a portion of its profits, but perhaps even worse, it actually inhibits consumers from giving to causes they care about via Apple gadgets. The company won't allow apps for donations and hasn't publicly said why, but there have been reports that it is concerned it would have to manage the funds and verify the legitimacy of the charities."

What are they thinking over at Apple? seems so simple to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/...html?hpt=hp_c2

they're just being careful. They dont want crooks taking advantage of the app store.
Posts: 3,288member
On a lighter note, how much could Jobs donate when he only earned \$1/ yr.?
Posts: 10,473member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret

On a lighter note, how much could Jobs donate when he only earned \$1/ yr.?

He could donate up to 100% of his net worth - which is many orders of magnitude higher than \$1.
Posts: 1,814member
Quote:

Corporations do not make charitable contributions. Instead, they invest PR dollars and R&D dollars into projects like this.

This is NOT philanthropy.

Clearly, eBay is looking for a way to auction organs in the future.