Donating to the US south is a very worth area to donate. Unfortunately, the US south is mostly Republican and they don't like handouts but are very happy to accept bribes and hush money. I believe that very little of the money will make much of a difference as the bigotry and ignorance in the area is so very deeply entrenched that a more fundamental education program is needed to change the maladaptive attitudes and behaviours set in motion over centuries ago.
did you miss what Cooks said last time? He saved some money for his nephew make sure he affords college. The rest he donates to charities.
That is funny. I've never married and have no kids. I paid for my nephew's college education and am thinking that the rest will go to charity. I wonder how common that is with people in similar situations?
Not to be contrary, but to correct the record: There are very few charities who spend such a large proportion of their income on administrative expenses and survive to tell the story. The average is closer to the range of 10-20%. In fact, in the field of charity ethics, there are widely recognized thresholds of administrative expenditure at 10% and 20%: Under 10% is considered great; while 10-20% is considered acceptable; and more than 25% becomes potentially controversial, depending on the organizational model and other factors.
What I've seen is when rating a charity they like to see 15% or under for a good rating for admninistrative expenses and under $10 in terms of money spent to raise $100.
If you hit 10% administrative and $5 to raise $100 you are rated excellent. And there are a lot of charities that hit those marks.
Donating to the US south is a very worth area to donate. Unfortunately, the US south is mostly Republican and they don't like handouts but are very happy to accept bribes and hush money. I believe that very little of the money will make much of a difference as the bigotry and ignorance in the area is so very deeply entrenched that a more fundamental education program is needed to change the maladaptive attitudes and behaviours set in motion over centuries ago.
perhaps we should take our advice from a more civilized state like Illinois or New Jersey where corruption never happens
Aren't tax reductions great?! Abolish all tax shelters involving Charity. Then lets see how charitable people are when they really have to invest in others.
Those who have no clue (about a subject) should refrain from making brash statements. All the "charity deduction" means, is that you don't have to pay income tax on the money you gave away (to a 501-c3 charity) And as a matter of fact, on donations of that size you acttually do end up paying (large donations get "haircut" IOW, you actually end up paying federal taxes on (large sums of) money you give away to charity)
I would agree that is a nice thing for Tim to do this. But to put it in a different perspective, if he's worth $1 billion and he gave $6.5 million, that's like someone who makes $100,000 giving $650 just in terms of percentage of income, not disposable income.
I would agree that is a nice thing for Tim to do this. But to put it in a different perspective, if he's worth $1 billion and he gave $6.5 million, that's like someone who makes $100,000 giving $650 just in terms of percentage of income, not disposable income.
You are comparing a guesstimate of one individuals wealth with a fictional person's income.
If someone who was worth $100,000 gave $650 away then that's a rather sizeable single donation, particularly from someone who doesn't have a massive amount of money. And this likely won't be Cook's sole charitable donation this year.
You post a link to some trash like Washington Times (a publication by morons, for morons) and they point to ".....so says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry" as the source of this information, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
Pathetic. But perhaps not half as pathetic as the likes ofJBDragon, who not only trot out junk, but actually seem to believe it.
It is simply untrue that "all charities average 85 percent of their donations going to administrative costs" and "they are nearly all scams." Where mdriftmeyer is getting his information is "pulling it out of his rectum."
All charities have some administrative costs, but most work hard to keep those to a minimum so that most of the money goes to the actual cause.
But rather than believe mdriftmeyer's made-up nonsense, or taking my word for it (as someone who has worked with numerous charities), it's really quite easy to look this stuff up and find out for yourself:
You post a link to some trash like Washington Times (a publication by morons, for morons) and they point to ".....so says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry" as the source of this information, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
Pathetic. But perhaps not half as pathetic as the likes ofJBDragon, who not only trot out junk, but actually seem to believe it.
The liberal rags aren't going to push this information and not protect Clinton when she is all they have in the upcoming election.
She used her own cell phone, had her own freaking server in her house so they could funnel favors and money without anyone ever finding out because all they had to do was destroy the information on the server and/or not grant access.
@ "Almost all charities average 85% of their donations going to administrative costs."
Charity Watch debunks that statement above. But I bet most people aren't aware that as long as a charity distributes a mere 5% of what they receive in charitable donations, they will not be sanctioned by the feds nor will they be subjected to any additional oversight.
You post a link to some trash like Washington Times (a publication by morons, for morons) and they point to ".....so says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry" as the source of this information, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
Pathetic. But perhaps not half as pathetic as the likes ofJBDragon, who not only trot out junk, but actually seem to believe it.
I never said I believed it was true. Just pointing out the OP didn't make it up out of thin air. You and I are actually pretty close in political beliefs based on what I've seen you write.
Comments
Keep your libel to yourself, please.
That is funny. I've never married and have no kids. I paid for my nephew's college education and am thinking that the rest will go to charity. I wonder how common that is with people in similar situations?
What I've seen is when rating a charity they like to see 15% or under for a good rating for admninistrative expenses and under $10 in terms of money spent to raise $100.
If you hit 10% administrative and $5 to raise $100 you are rated excellent. And there are a lot of charities that hit those marks.
perhaps we should take our advice from a more civilized state like Illinois or New Jersey where corruption never happens
Aren't tax reductions great?! Abolish all tax shelters involving Charity. Then lets see how charitable people are when they really have to invest in others.
Those who have no clue (about a subject) should refrain from making brash statements. All the "charity deduction" means, is that you don't have to pay income tax on the money you gave away (to a 501-c3 charity) And as a matter of fact, on donations of that size you acttually do end up paying (large donations get "haircut" IOW, you actually end up paying federal taxes on (large sums of) money you give away to charity)
He’s not married as far as we know. We don’t know if he has a partner or children. So what else is he going to do with his money?
Buying gold watches for shelter dogs?
Right. Donating to Republicans is clearly bad; perhaps he should try the Clinton "Foundation".
or Jeb's Super Pac.
Taken with a hard light (flash lamp) directly on the camera: the worst, least skilled way to do flash photography of people.
I would agree that is a nice thing for Tim to do this. But to put it in a different perspective, if he's worth $1 billion and he gave $6.5 million, that's like someone who makes $100,000 giving $650 just in terms of percentage of income, not disposable income.
You are comparing a guesstimate of one individuals wealth with a fictional person's income.
If someone who was worth $100,000 gave $650 away then that's a rather sizeable single donation, particularly from someone who doesn't have a massive amount of money. And this likely won't be Cook's sole charitable donation this year.
You mean where they keep 90% of the money for the Clinton's and the charity gets a whole 10%!!!!
Right. Donating to Republicans is clearly bad; perhaps he should try the Clinton "Foundation".
You mean where they keep 90% of the money for the Clinton's and the charity gets a whole 10%!!!!
Curious: where did you find that data? (Or did you make it up).
Gotta love politics....
and politicians.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/inside-the-beltway-807384353/?page=all
Gotta love politics....
and politicians.
Of course no partisan nonsense going on there.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/
You post a link to some trash like Washington Times (a publication by morons, for morons) and they point to ".....so says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry" as the source of this information, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
Pathetic. But perhaps not half as pathetic as the likes ofJBDragon, who not only trot out junk, but actually seem to believe it.
All charities have some administrative costs, but most work hard to keep those to a minimum so that most of the money goes to the actual cause.
But rather than believe mdriftmeyer's made-up nonsense, or taking my word for it (as someone who has worked with numerous charities), it's really quite easy to look this stuff up and find out for yourself:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_111649.html
http://www.charitynavigator.org
Or, you know, you could be a cynic like mdriftmeyer and not give anything to anyone because "they're all scams."
You post a link to some trash like Washington Times (a publication by morons, for morons) and they point to ".....so says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry" as the source of this information, and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
Pathetic. But perhaps not half as pathetic as the likes ofJBDragon, who not only trot out junk, but actually seem to believe it.
Something more liberal for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/an-award-for-bill-clinton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html?_r=0
And again.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/29/clinton-foundation-shook-down-supermodels-charity/
Also Clinton taking foreign money while Hillary was Sec of State.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
The liberal rags aren't going to push this information and not protect Clinton when she is all they have in the upcoming election.
She used her own cell phone, had her own freaking server in her house so they could funnel favors and money without anyone ever finding out because all they had to do was destroy the information on the server and/or not grant access.
Charity Watch debunks that statement above. But I bet most people aren't aware that as long as a charity distributes a mere 5% of what they receive in charitable donations, they will not be sanctioned by the feds nor will they be subjected to any additional oversight.
http://www.charitywatch.org/