SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"For every dollar a millionaire gives to charity, the public subsidizes 37 to 57 cents of that donation through diminished tax revenue."(Photo: Pixabay/CC0)
If You Take a Charitable Tax Deduction, You Should Actually Give to Charity
Wealthy donors are hoarding money in shady "charity" accounts in the face of urgent community needs
Jul 31, 2018
In every community, there are nonprofit charities that serve real needs: local food pantries, programs addressing the opioid crisis, the Red Cross chapters that come to our aid after a storm. Charities provide vital services to the people and places they serve.
These organizations lean heavily on volunteers, fundraisers, and donors. And most ordinary donors give without consideration of a tax break -- people give their time, treasure, and talent without keeping score.
For many ultra-wealthy donors, however, charity can be motivated not just by generosity, but also by tax avoidance.
A case in point is the surge of donor-advised funds, or DAFs, created in recent years by wealthy donors. We studied these accounts in Warehousing Wealth, a new report for the Institute for Policy Studies.
A DAF is like a mini-foundation, a holding account for giving -- but with substantially greater benefits and conveniences for the donors.
But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
When donors contribute to a DAF, they take a tax deduction -- often a big one. But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
Originally created by community foundations, DAFs have been recently adopted by for-profit Wall Street firms like Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, and Charles Schwab.
These firms created charitable DAFs to serve their wealthy clients' philanthropic goals, while happily charging fees to keep funds under management. They have no legal incentive to see funds move in a timely way to active charities, so corporate-affiliated DAFs have been growing exponentially in recent years.
A decade ago, the biggest donation recipients in the United States were the United Way, the Red Cross, and the American Cancer Society. Today, it's the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. In fact, six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Donations to DAFs grew by 66 percent over the past five years, compared to just 15 percent for charitable giving by individual donors. Donations to Fidelity Charitable grew over 400 percent over seven years, to nearly $7 billion last year.
Our tax code provides incentives for people to give to charity through the charitable tax deduction. The ultra-wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of this deduction -- but that comes at a cost to the rest of us.
For every dollar a millionaire gives to charity, the public subsidizes 37 to 57 cents of that donation through diminished tax revenue. By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
So there's a natural public interest in making sure DAF donations at least move quickly to active charities. But there's no legal requirement for DAFs to pay out quickly -- or ever.
DAFs also open up loopholes for donors and private foundations to get around tax restrictions, and have little transparency and accountability.
There are simple reforms that could prevent these abuses.
Lawmakers could require the distribution of DAF donations within a fixed number of years. They could delay the tax deduction until funds are paid out to a public charity.
They could also ban DAFs from giving to private foundations, and vice versa -- closing loopholes that further delay giving to active charities. And they could bring greater scrutiny to gifts of appreciated assets.
We don't want to discourage charitable giving, but the current system poses significant risks to nonprofits, the people they serve, and taxpayers. As a society, we can't condone hoarding wealth at a time of urgent social needs.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Chuck Collins
Chuck Collins is co-founder of CARP and author of Burned by Billionaires: How Concentrated Wealth and Power are Ruining Our Lives and Planet.
Helen Flannery
Helen Flannery directs research for the Charity Reform Initiative and is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
In every community, there are nonprofit charities that serve real needs: local food pantries, programs addressing the opioid crisis, the Red Cross chapters that come to our aid after a storm. Charities provide vital services to the people and places they serve.
These organizations lean heavily on volunteers, fundraisers, and donors. And most ordinary donors give without consideration of a tax break -- people give their time, treasure, and talent without keeping score.
For many ultra-wealthy donors, however, charity can be motivated not just by generosity, but also by tax avoidance.
A case in point is the surge of donor-advised funds, or DAFs, created in recent years by wealthy donors. We studied these accounts in Warehousing Wealth, a new report for the Institute for Policy Studies.
A DAF is like a mini-foundation, a holding account for giving -- but with substantially greater benefits and conveniences for the donors.
But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
When donors contribute to a DAF, they take a tax deduction -- often a big one. But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
Originally created by community foundations, DAFs have been recently adopted by for-profit Wall Street firms like Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, and Charles Schwab.
These firms created charitable DAFs to serve their wealthy clients' philanthropic goals, while happily charging fees to keep funds under management. They have no legal incentive to see funds move in a timely way to active charities, so corporate-affiliated DAFs have been growing exponentially in recent years.
A decade ago, the biggest donation recipients in the United States were the United Way, the Red Cross, and the American Cancer Society. Today, it's the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. In fact, six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Donations to DAFs grew by 66 percent over the past five years, compared to just 15 percent for charitable giving by individual donors. Donations to Fidelity Charitable grew over 400 percent over seven years, to nearly $7 billion last year.
Our tax code provides incentives for people to give to charity through the charitable tax deduction. The ultra-wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of this deduction -- but that comes at a cost to the rest of us.
For every dollar a millionaire gives to charity, the public subsidizes 37 to 57 cents of that donation through diminished tax revenue. By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
So there's a natural public interest in making sure DAF donations at least move quickly to active charities. But there's no legal requirement for DAFs to pay out quickly -- or ever.
DAFs also open up loopholes for donors and private foundations to get around tax restrictions, and have little transparency and accountability.
There are simple reforms that could prevent these abuses.
Lawmakers could require the distribution of DAF donations within a fixed number of years. They could delay the tax deduction until funds are paid out to a public charity.
They could also ban DAFs from giving to private foundations, and vice versa -- closing loopholes that further delay giving to active charities. And they could bring greater scrutiny to gifts of appreciated assets.
We don't want to discourage charitable giving, but the current system poses significant risks to nonprofits, the people they serve, and taxpayers. As a society, we can't condone hoarding wealth at a time of urgent social needs.
Chuck Collins
Chuck Collins is co-founder of CARP and author of Burned by Billionaires: How Concentrated Wealth and Power are Ruining Our Lives and Planet.
Helen Flannery
Helen Flannery directs research for the Charity Reform Initiative and is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
In every community, there are nonprofit charities that serve real needs: local food pantries, programs addressing the opioid crisis, the Red Cross chapters that come to our aid after a storm. Charities provide vital services to the people and places they serve.
These organizations lean heavily on volunteers, fundraisers, and donors. And most ordinary donors give without consideration of a tax break -- people give their time, treasure, and talent without keeping score.
For many ultra-wealthy donors, however, charity can be motivated not just by generosity, but also by tax avoidance.
A case in point is the surge of donor-advised funds, or DAFs, created in recent years by wealthy donors. We studied these accounts in Warehousing Wealth, a new report for the Institute for Policy Studies.
A DAF is like a mini-foundation, a holding account for giving -- but with substantially greater benefits and conveniences for the donors.
But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
When donors contribute to a DAF, they take a tax deduction -- often a big one. But those funds can then sit in the DAF for years, even generations, before they're granted out to charities working to meet real social needs.
Originally created by community foundations, DAFs have been recently adopted by for-profit Wall Street firms like Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, and Charles Schwab.
These firms created charitable DAFs to serve their wealthy clients' philanthropic goals, while happily charging fees to keep funds under management. They have no legal incentive to see funds move in a timely way to active charities, so corporate-affiliated DAFs have been growing exponentially in recent years.
A decade ago, the biggest donation recipients in the United States were the United Way, the Red Cross, and the American Cancer Society. Today, it's the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. In fact, six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Six of the ten largest charity recipients are DAFs.
Donations to DAFs grew by 66 percent over the past five years, compared to just 15 percent for charitable giving by individual donors. Donations to Fidelity Charitable grew over 400 percent over seven years, to nearly $7 billion last year.
Our tax code provides incentives for people to give to charity through the charitable tax deduction. The ultra-wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of this deduction -- but that comes at a cost to the rest of us.
For every dollar a millionaire gives to charity, the public subsidizes 37 to 57 cents of that donation through diminished tax revenue. By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
By giving to their own selected charities, millionaires are paying less for public services like infrastructure, national defense, veteran care, and parks.
So there's a natural public interest in making sure DAF donations at least move quickly to active charities. But there's no legal requirement for DAFs to pay out quickly -- or ever.
DAFs also open up loopholes for donors and private foundations to get around tax restrictions, and have little transparency and accountability.
There are simple reforms that could prevent these abuses.
Lawmakers could require the distribution of DAF donations within a fixed number of years. They could delay the tax deduction until funds are paid out to a public charity.
They could also ban DAFs from giving to private foundations, and vice versa -- closing loopholes that further delay giving to active charities. And they could bring greater scrutiny to gifts of appreciated assets.
We don't want to discourage charitable giving, but the current system poses significant risks to nonprofits, the people they serve, and taxpayers. As a society, we can't condone hoarding wealth at a time of urgent social needs.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.