He got in one little fight and the donors got scared
And said, “Wifey’s cuckin’ with her lover and her ass in the air”
I can hear this gif…
AHHH!
Assaulting people does tend to make one less endearing.
Please donate to our… SMACK… charity. Oh, and keep my wife’s motherfucking name, out yo motherfucking… Please donate… MOUTH.
Maybe they could donate their own money.
Which is weird because I thought that’s how rich people used foundations named after themselves? I thought it was mostly self-funded and a way to lower their tax burden
You lower your tax burden by as much as the taxes you would have otherwise paid on the money you gave to charity.
If you give 100$ that would have been taxed at 30%, you get a 30$ tax deduction, you’re still down 70$.
Yeah, but if you control said foundation, you can then have it spent on things that you care about. It isn’t the get out of tax free card that some people make it out to be, but it can probably be beneficial in some situations.
Is what I, someone who hasn’t got the slightest clue about U.S. law, thinks.
Sure, but in theory the charity can be audited and it shouldn’t be buying you stuff you would have spent that money on otherwise… Like, you can’t give money to a charity and have it buy you a yacht.
I mean, sure. I was more thinking about “I care about deforestation/child poverty/outlawing abortion/etc, so I’m gonna make sure my money goes there, and I won’t even have to pay taxes on (that part of) it”, with maybe a bit of “I own (many shares of) a company that does X, so why not suggest that the foundation prefers them as a supplier”.
Like, that doesn’t allow you to buy yachts with it, but if you’re working with that kind of money, you probably have a yacht, or don’t want one/another, and exerting influence is the most interesting thing you can use it for. The particular objective doesn’t have to be harmful, but I feel that it gives very few people another way to excert outsized control on our world, and take revenue away from the state, which might also waste it, but over which the people should, theoretically, be able to excert more influence than on a very wealthy individual.
But that’s a tax advantage anyone can have access to by giving money to the charity of their choice.
The tax advantage, yes, the control, no. I like giving to doctors without borders, but I can’t control their objectives, nor their leadership.
In the end, my problem is with giving power to individuals who can’t be held accountable. The tax part was mostly an excuse to rant about that.
I can’t hire my friends to run my charity and pick their salary
You can pay yourself as admin of said charity. Give me $100, I pay $20 tax or stick it in charity to reduce my tax burden. I have $80. I get 100 other people to give my charity $100 each, it has $10k, I take 50% for admin costs, the rest is disbursed. I still make more money than lost to any tax. That’s how a rich person makes money by running a charity. Make even more family money by putting your kids on the BoD.
And then you pay taxes on that salary.
Of course. Still making $, though.
Technically you can as long as the yacht is used exclusively for the charity. This was the case when the rightwing tried to say a BLM charity foundation misused funds to buy a mansion, but it turns out the mansion stayed in the hands of the charity even after those administrators left the foundation. AFAIK the mansion was only ever used for meetings, fundraisers, and celebrations.
Foundations aren’t deductible though. You have to give it away to an honest-to-God charity approved by the IRS for it to do anything. And even then, you can never get more money by donating it than you would just keeping the money.
Foundations are typically 501c3s
My bad, that’s true. I guess it’s that private foundations are more limited in how much you can deduct. To qualify as a public charity, a foundation needs to get at least a third of its funding from the public and have other board members, so they can’t just be self-funded and self-directed. A private foundation still has to be for a qualified charitable purpose but only lets you deduct half as much of contributions.
They put their money into other people’s charities so it doesn’t look so obvious. Scratching each other’s backs.
doesn’t look so obvious
So what doesn’t look so obvious? You know that donations can be claimed on your taxes too, right?
They don’t get the same kind of social debts between each other when they donate to their own charities. You know, the back scratching thing that I mentioned.
There is a lot more to it than just the charitable donation deduction. They are all getting a tax deduction for exchanging money with other wealthy people through their charities and the charities spend money on each other’s businesses.
The post-slap life is a hard life
It’s the post-slap life for us
It’s the post-slap life for us
'Stead of treated
We get tricked
'Stead of kisses
We get kicked
It’s the post-slap life
If Will left Jada, and went full scorched earth on her and the scientologists (e.g. Leah Remini), We’d all love him again.
I wouldn’t. He’s always been a cocky prick. You could see it come out in interviews sometimes.
He basically physically threatened Colbert while being interviewed on his show for his role in Ali. Will Smith is charming, so he’s gotten away with a lot. The mask is off now though.
Edit: the Colbert interview was for Hancock, not Ali.
https://www.cc.com/video/ilejmp/the-colbert-report-will-smith
Ali came out in 2001, while The Colbert Report didn’t Debut until 2005. link?
You’re right it was an interview for Hancock.
https://www.cc.com/video/ilejmp/the-colbert-report-will-smith
So when he made a comment about how Stephen must have been beaten up at some point? I mean. That’s reaching. it was awkward, but imo really doesn’t rise to “basically physically threatened.” Especially since Colbert has had him on his shows repeatedly afterwards, you’d think that if Stephen didn’t feel safe around him, probly wouldn’t have him back on.
On another note, god I miss the Colbert Report. That was peak satire.
That’s how veiled threats work. There was nothing wrong with Colbert’s face. Smith brought up someone kicking his ass out of nowhere. Colbert understood and even said something like “I hope nobody kicks my ass this interview”. Smith later states how he’s handsome and strong. Etc.
Do you not understand how banter works? Have you never had a conversation with friends before? I mean the guy is a douche but you don’t need to just make wild shit up, there’s plenty of ACTUAL things he’s done to not like him before you start lying
Perhaps you just didn’t pick up on the threat, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It was obvious enough for me to notice it and remember it 16 years later.
You think I just kept that interview in my pocket that long waiting for the right opportunity to… lie about Will Smith? And that seems to make you angry?
This is Jaden isn’t it? I just found Jaden Smith on Lemmy.
I mean, he also broke into his Muhammad Ali act around the same time, so it could have come from there, but I guess I see your point? I’m just not prepared to judge the guy based upon that.
I watched the whole thing, no where in that does he threaten anyone. He’s a pompous douche promoting his movie but he doesn’t remotely threaten anyone
That must be a big slap in the face.
I looked it up and today is the 2 year anniversary of The Slap. Doesn’t seem like it’s been that long.
That’s because every day is torture in this late stage capitalist hellscape
We all know the saying, time flies when you’re being tortured.
I WANT TO GET OFF MR BONES WILD RIDE
The Slappening
Did he go to this year’s oscars?
No, he voluntarily returned his membership to the academy and they banned him from attending for 10 years.
deleted by creator
Shitty movie bitch and maniacal evil groomer villain, aka Scientology Abridged still exist?
