November, 15 2023, 08:09am EDT

New Report from the Institute for Policy Studies Reveals the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy
The new analysis details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
On November 15, the Institute for Policy Studies released a crucial new report revealing the true cost of billionaire philanthropy to taxpayers, the nonprofit sector, and our society.
The report comprehensively details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
As communities prepare to enter the season of giving and highlight charitable donations as a critical way to support communities’ urgent needs, this report reveals how the wealthiest donors in our society give differently than ordinary donors.
- The ultra-wealthy claim the lion’s share of the hundreds of billions in annual tax subsidies to incentivize charitable giving.
- Yet most donations by the ultra-wealthy flow to private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs), intermediaries controlled by these donors (As our report shows, 41 cents of every dollar of individual giving in 2022 went to one of these intermediaries). At best, this delays the flow of funds to working nonprofit charities on the ground. At worst, it leads to a warehousing of charitable funds. Private foundations are only required to payout 5 percent of assets annually to charities and donor-advised funds (DAFs) have no payout requirement. To make matters worse, some wealthy donors are playing shell-games to fulfill these minimal obligations.
- The most charitably-orientated billionaires in the U.S., those who have signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their wealth during their lifetime, are not immune from these trends. At their current pace, most funds will end up in perpetual family foundations, not in the hands of active charities.
As wealth concentrates in fewer hands, the imbalance is having a corrosive impact on our nonprofit sector. U.S. nonprofit charities are currently experiencing a transition from broad-based support across a wide range of donors to an increasing reliance on a small number of ultra-wealthy people, a trend IPS has named “top-heavy philanthropy.”
The report sounds the alarm over the way that wealthy donors are using taxpayer-subsidized giving systems to create perpetual foundations that extend their private power and influence.
Key findings include:
WEALTHY DONORS RECEIVE THE BIGGEST TAX BREAKS.
Millions of U.S. donors give directly to local charities without any reduction in their taxes. Less than ten percent of households use the charitable deduction. Wealthy donors, in turn, receive most of the taxpayer subsidies for charitable giving. The taxpayer subsidy for charity is hundreds of billions of dollars –and the wealthier the donor, the greater the taxpayer subsidy.
- The direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving was $73.24 billion in 2022 due to personal and corporate charitable deductions and is $111 billion including other known reductions in taxes. But the subsidy is several hundreds of billions a year if estate and capital gains tax reductions are included.
- The wealthier the donor, the greater the taxpayer subsidy for their donation. For every dollar a billionaire donates to charity, taxpayers chip in 74 cents in lost revenue. This is because wealthy donors not only reduce their income tax obligations, but also capital gains, estate and gift taxes.
RISE OF DONOR-CONTROLLED INTERMEDIARIES.
Low and middle income givers are more likely to give directly to local nonprofit charities in their community including youth centers, food banks, and organizations addressing poverty, social needs, arts, and environmental issues.
In contrast, the report finds that wealthy donors are more likely to contribute to their own private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAF), intermediaries that they continue to control. These donors receive immediate tax reductions in the year of their donation, but as this report shows, the funds may take decades to reach working charities, if ever.
An estimated 41 cents of every 2022 individual donation going to charity went to either a private foundation or DAF, up from 37 percent in 2021. In 2022, 27 percent of individual donations went to DAFs, up from 22 percent in 2021. In 2022, 14 percent of individual donations went to private foundations.
“One of the main drivers of DAF growth is the financial industry’s aggressive marketing of DAFs for their considerable tax benefits, secrecy, and non-existent payout rate,” observed Chuck Collins, author of the report.
Over the past five years, the median payout rate for private foundations has hovered between 5.2 and 5.6 percent. And this payout includes compensation to trustees, overhead, and donations to donor-advised funds (DAFs) which have no payout.
Donations to DAFs are now more than a quarter of all U.S. individual charitable giving. The $85.5 billion donated to DAFs in 2022 made up a full 27 percent of the $319 billion in individual giving that year, up from $73.34 billion and 22 percent in 2021.
The largest DAF sponsors now take in more money each year than our largest public charities. By 2021, seven of the top ten recipients of charitable revenue in the country were DAF sponsors, including the four largest affiliated with Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard and the National Philanthropic Trust.
A significant amount of DAF grants go to other DAFs. We found $2.5 billion in grants going from national donor-advised funds to other national donor-advised funds in 2021 alone.
GIVING PLEDGERS NEED TO PICK UP THE PACE.
The report analyzes the progress of the Giving Pledge, founded in 2010 by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, that has inspired over 220 billionaires to pledge to donate half of their wealth during their lifetime. The report found that while a handful of donors are moving funds in a timely manner, most have seen their wealth dramatically increase over the fourteen years since the start of the Giving Pledge and need to pick up the pace of giving.
The report suggests that most of these pledges will be fulfilled by donations to private family foundations and donor-advised funds, delaying the public benefit of the taxpayer subsidized donations. In the worst case, some Pledgers have used their philanthropy for self-serving purposes, such as taking out loans from their foundations or paying themselves hefty trustee salaries.
The 73 living U.S. Giving Pledgers who were billionaires in 2010 saw their wealth grow by 138 percent, or 224 percent when adjusted for inflation, through 2022. Their combined assets increased from $348 billion in 2010 to $828 billion over those twelve years.
Of these 73 people, 30 of them have seen their wealth increase more than 200 percent when adjusted for inflation. Those with the greatest growth include Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan (1,382 percent), Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna (1,166 percent), Elaine and Ken Langone (755 percent), Arthur M. Blank (739 percent), and Bernie and Billi Marcus (714 percent).
Of the $12 billion in identifiable gifts of over $1 million that the Giving Pledge signers donated to charity in 2022, 68 percent — more than $8 billion — went either to foundations or to DAFs.
The action of some billionaire donors raise concerns that what began as a civic-minded initiative to spur generosity is instead serving to concentrate private wealth and power at taxpayer expense.
“The missing voice in the philanthropy discussion is the U.S. taxpayer, who subsidizes the private giving of billionaires to the tune of several hundred billion a year,” explains Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. “We should be alarmed at the ways billionaires use philanthropy as a taxpayer-subsidized extension of their private power and influence.”
“We need to update the laws governing philanthropy to keep the financial industry from capturing it and turning it into another tax dodge for the wealthiest people in our society,” Collins adds.
Key recommendations to reform charitable giving and ensure more money ends up in the hands of actual active charities, where it’s needed most:
- Implement a payout requirement for donor-advised funds
- Raise the minimum payout rate requirement for private foundations
- Prevent grants to DAFs from counting towards foundation payout
- Require sponsors to report on DAFs on an account-by-account basis
- Implement a universal charitable tax credit for non-itemizers
“We have to make sure that the tax breaks we underwrite are actually funding charities actively working for the public good,” warns Helen Flannery, co-author of the report and a researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies who is an expert on philanthropy and charitable giving.
“We hope this report will encourage policymakers, the media, and the public to look at the charitable pronouncements of billionaires with more scrutiny,” she adds. “Sometimes their giving is a genuine attempt to give back, but other times it is more about enhancing their political voice, their reputation, or their wallet.”
Full report: https://ips-dc.org/report-true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
Whitmer Praised for 'Game-Changing' Michigan Clean Energy Bills
"This is a HUGE climate win that will create a safer, sustainable future AND good-paying, clean energy jobs!"
Nov 28, 2023
As scientists worldwide continue to sound the alarm about the need to swiftly ditch planet-heating fossil fuels, Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer won praise from green groups on Tuesday for signing what she called "game-changing" legislation that "will help us become a national leader in clean energy."
"These bills translate into better air, water, and health for everyone," said Derrell Slaughter, Michigan clean energy advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The pathbreaking standards for the Midwest industrial heartland will see the state move to 100% clean energy by 2040 and put more resources toward energy efficiency."
"Michigan has seized the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to combating climate change and ensure a sustainable, just, and prosperous future for our state," he added.
Senate Bill 271 is the part of the "Clean Energy Future" package that features the 100% clean energy standard. S.B. 273 increases Michigan's energy waste reduction standards, and S.B. 277 lets farmers rent out their land for solar power generation.
Additionally, S.B. Bill 502 directs the Michigan Public Service Commission to consider affordability, equity, environmental justice, and public health in reviews of power company plans; S.B. 519 establishes a Community and Worker Economic Transition Office at the the state Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity; and House Bill 5120 empowers the MPSC to greenlight large renewable energy projects.
Johanna Neumann, senior director of Environment America's Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said Tuesday that "since the 1800s, Michigan has been at the forefront of leveraging new technologies to improve American lives. By committing to a future powered entirely by clean, renewable energy, Michigan is building on its legacy of innovation."
"Gov. Whitmer and the state Legislature are creating a situation ripe for Michigan to realize its vast renewable energy potential," she continued. "The state has enough wind resources to power the state 3.5 times over and enough sunshine to meet 55 times the state's 2020 electricity demand."
Neumann noted that Michigan joins other states also "leading the way" with clean or renewable energy mandates for the coming decades: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.
"In 2018, when Environment America launched its 100% Renewable Campaign, only Hawaii had any statewide 100% clean or renewable energy goal," she said. "It's great to see more states ensure that powering our lives with clean and renewable energy will lead to a healthier and safer future. We'll keep driving more states to get on the 'road to 100%'"
While climate campaigners welcomed the package, there are some notable critiques. As Michigan Advanceexplained:
The Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition has expressed opposition to a key part of the package, S.B. 271, which requires energy companies to generate 60% of their energy from renewable sources by 2035 including biomass, landfill gas made from solid waste, gas from methane digesters using municipal sewage waste, food waste and animal manure, and energy-generating incinerators in operation before January 1.
The group says that the carveout for landfill gas, biomass, gas from a methane digester, and its inclusion of incinerators and natural gas using carbon capture technology will disproportionately impact lower-income communities.
"Gov. Whitmer and her allies will try to spin the passage of S.B. 271 as a victory for climate and environmental justice," said Juan Jhong-Chung, Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition co-executive director. "In reality, it is a disaster for everyone but DTE and Consumers Energy. There can be no climate win without environmental justice, and environmental justice communities who will bear the brunt of this dirty law were systematically excluded, dismissed, and ignored during its drafting."
The Detroit Newsreported Tuesday that "DTE Energy, one of Michigan's two dominant electric utilities, gets about 15% of its electricity generation from renewable sources, according to its website. And Consumers Energy, the other dominant electric utility, already plans to get 40% of its energy from renewable sources by 2040."
Whitmer, who celebrated signing the bills with an event at Detroit's Eastern Market, declared on social media that "today is a huge win for Michigan. We'll protect our air, water, and land while facing climate change head-on and lowering costs."
As The Detroit News detailed: "Whitmer said the measures will lower household energy costs by an average of $145 a year, but Republicans have argued rates will increase as utilities pass the costs of renewable projects along to customers. The study the governor appeared to get the $145 projection from examined additional changes on top of the new laws' move to clean energy."
Whitmer also declared that the legislation will bring nearly $8 billion in federal funding to the state for clean energy projects and create 160,000 "good-paying" jobs, according to Michigan Advance.
"With today's bills, we define the future," Whitmer said. "As Michiganders, we know we have a responsibility to face climate change head-on, not only to make lives better today, but to make sure life goes on centuries from now. Let's keep fighting for future generations."
The governor is widely seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party and is expected to potentially seek national office someday. For 2024, Whitmer has made clear that she supports President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection.
Biden—who ran on ambitious climate pledges in 2020 but has let campaigners down with decisions on the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Willow oil project, and leases for extracting fossil fuels from public lands and waters—plans to skip the United Arab Emirates-hosted U.N. climate summit, COP28, set to begin Thursday in Dubai.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nikki Haley Wins 'Billionaire Primary' With Koch Network Endorsement
A DNC representative said it is "no surprise" given that she "checks all of their boxes: slashing taxes for the ultrawealthy, gutting Social Security and Medicare, and ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans."
Nov 28, 2023
While former U.S. President Donald Trump remains the Republican Party's front-runner for 2024, the political network founded by right-wing billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch announced Tuesday that it is instead backing Nikki Haley.
The Americans for Prosperity Action (AFPA) endorsement is a big win for Haley, who served as Trump's ambassador to the United Nations during the first half of his presidency and before that as governor of South Carolina. She has been battling Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the second GOP spot, and the Iowa caucuses are now less than two months away.
"Subtext: Prior to the democratic primaries are the billionaire primaries," journalist Jane Mayer—who has reported extensively on the Koch Brothers and other rich donors behind the rise of the radical right in the United States—wrote on social media Tuesday.
Both DeSantis and Haley trail Trump significantly in national polling, but the ex-president is facing four criminal cases and legal arguments that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office after inciting an insurrection, so the next top GOP candidate could end up challenging Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection next year.
"AFP Action is proud to throw our full support behind Nikki Haley, who offers America the opportunity to turn the page on the current political era," says a memo from Emily Seidel, a senior adviser to the group. "She has what it takes to lead a policy agenda to take on our nation's biggest challenges and help ensure our country's best days are ahead."
"With the grassroots and data capability we bring to bear in this race, no other organization is better equipped to help her do it," the memo continues. Citing internal polling, the document claims that Haley is "in the best position to defeat Donald Trump in the primaries" and "by far the strongest candidate Republicans could put up against Joe Biden in a general election."
The memo adds that "in sharp contrast to recent elections that were dominated by the negative baggage of Donald Trump and in which good candidates lost races that should have been won, Nikki Haley, at the top of the ticket, would boost candidates up and down the ballot, winning the key independent and moderate voters that Trump has no chance to win."
Some critics have pushed back against such presentations of Haley. Stephen Prager wrote last month for Current Affairs that "the media framing of Haley and other candidates as 'moderate' helps to soften their vicious policy prescriptions and inure liberals who'd ordinarily be skeptical of them. As a result, liberals who despise Trump end up having a favorableview of someone like Haley—even though she often holds more conservative policy inclinations in many places."
As Common Dreamshighlighted when Haley confirmed her candidacy in February, Christina Harvey, executive director of progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, warned, "Make no mistake: Nikki Haley is no moderate."
"From her support of Trump's policy of putting children in cages and the regressive reproductive health policies she pushed as governor of South Carolina to her opposition to federal voting rights legislation and her unwavering support of Donald Trump—even after he incited the January 6 insurrection—Nikki Haley has shown her true colors," Harvey said.
The Democratic National Committee similarly pointed to her policy positions in response to the AFPA endorsement on Tuesday. DNC national press secretary Sarafina Chitika said that "it's no surprise the Koch network, architects of Trump's MAGAnomics agenda, found their match in Nikki Haley, who checks all of their boxes: slashing taxes for the ultrawealthy, gutting Social Security and Medicare, and ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans."
"Republicans have entered a new stage in their primary—lighting millions of dollars on fire to attack each other, all the while reminding voters that every MAGA Republican candidate is in lockstep support of the same extreme, out-of-touch agenda the American people rejected in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and will also reject next November, regardless of who emerges from this messy primary," Chitika charged.
Haley, meanwhile, shared an AFPA video about her on social media and said that she was "honored" to have the group's support.
DeSantis spokesperson Andrew Romeo said: "Congratulations to Donald Trump on securing the Koch endorsement. Like clockwork, the pro-open borders, pro-jail break bill establishment is lining up behind a moderate who has no mathematical pathway of defeating the former president. Every dollar spent on Nikki Haley's candidacy should be reported as an in-kind to the Trump campaign. No one has a stronger record of beating the establishment than Ron DeSantis, and this time will be no different."
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung toldThe New York Times that "Americans for Prosperity—the political arm of the China First, America Last movement—has chosen to endorse a pro-China, open borders, and globalist candidate in Nikki 'Birdbrain' Haley" and claimed that no amount of "shady money" would stop the former president from winning the party nomination.
The newspaper noted that AFPA "has been among the country's largest spenders on anti-Trump material this year, buying online ads and sending mailers to voters in several states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. All told, the group has spent more than $9 million in independent expenditures opposing Mr. Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
McDonald's Fined 0.0002% of 2022 Profits for Child Labor Violations
"Less than $1,000 per child," said one critic. "For one of the biggest franchises on Earth."
Nov 28, 2023
McDonald's, one of the largest employers in the world, was fined just $26,000—a tiny fraction of its profits—on Monday for violating child labor laws in Pennsylvania, with two franchisees found to be violating numerous rules in five stores.
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found that Paul and Meghan Sweeney, owners of a company called Endor, which runs five McDonald's locations, employed 34 children who were 14 and 15 years old.
The employers scheduled the teenagers to work outside the times that 14- and 15-year-olds are legally permitted to work, including during school hours, earlier than 7:00 am and 7:00 pm during the school year, and more than three hours on a school day.
Writer and organizer Joshua P. Hill said the $26,000 fine—amounting to less than $1,000 per child who was affected by the Sweeneys' employment practices—was "not even a slap on the wrist," especially considering that the $200 billion multinational fast food company is one of the world's largest companies.
John DuMont, district director for the Wage and Hour Division in Western Pennsylvania, said in a statement that the Sweeneys employed young teenagers "at the expense of their education or well-being."
"Fast food restaurants offer young workers an opportunity to gain valuable work experience," said DuMont. "The Fair Labor Standards Act allows for developmental experiences but restricts the work hours of 14- and 15-year-olds and provides for penalties when employers do not follow the law."
Earlier this year, the DOL found that three McDonald's stores in Kentucky were illegally employing more than 300 children—some as young as 10. A coalition of McDonald's shareholders demanded a third-party human rights assessment in June, citing the Kentucky case and that of a 15-year-old employee in Tennessee who was injured at work.
The AFL-CIO pointed out that the violations at stores in Brookville, Clarion, Punxsutawney, and St. Mary's, Pennsylvania, took place amid a right-wing push to roll back child labor laws.
With the backing of powerful conservative donors like Richard Uihlein, lawmakers in Florida, Iowa, Arkansas have pushed legislation to weaken child labor protections in recent months. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, signed a bill in May removing so-called "unnecessary restrictions" that keep minors from working in hazardous workplaces, and GOP Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a bill in March allowing companies to hire children under the age of 16 without verifying their age.
The finding at the Pennsylvania McDonald's locations serves as a reminder that "any lawmaker who votes to roll back child labor laws is a disgrace," said the AFL-CIO.
The fine announced on Monday only represents "two ten-thousandths of a single percent" of McDonald's gross profits in 2022, said the labor group.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular