An oil portrait of Oprah Winfrey with a pancake on her head.
Posted on 09/15/2008 3:15:20 PM PDT by iowamark
“That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income”
0.4 percent of their income??
“0.4 percent of their income??”
Nevvver minddd!
That’s right and remember what Jesus said about it.
Amen to that. What's a measly $50M when you're worth over a billion?
You have misunderstood my point. Oprah always seems to milk her giving for PR purposes.
I remember one year Algore gave a total of $15.00 while he was VP. That makes Biden look generous.
"The Oprah Winfrey Foundation"This list is silly -- and ignorant of the tax code. In 2006, The Oprah Winfrey Foundation was worth $181 million, and the "Angel" foundation was worth $27 million. By law, each are to donate 5% of assets, which means in 2006 she probably gave out around $10 million between these two Foundations. And she has others, including the "Winfrey Leadership Academy" which in '06 listed $42 million in assets.
These Foundations were created with pre-tax money diverted from business operations. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to hear it. It wouldn't make sense, otherwise. So, the larger question is that if she gave $50million last year, from where was the money? Did she write the checks? Did she have a one-time dispersement? Did she donate only through the Foundations? And to what tax advantage?
You can play around with tax-deductible moneys all day long at http://foundationcenter.org/
As Oprah, Rush would be insane not to protect assets through charitable foundations. It does, however, render these "generosity" top tens ludicrous.
You seem to have missed my point as well...WHO CARES why people give to charity...do we have to know their intent as well now? What’s the difference? 50 million is 50 million whether you know about it or not.
BTTT
By all reports he’s been consistently generous and considerate of all his family members as well. Like the genuine generosity of Reagan, true conservatism is tied with its own modest compassion—not the big-hoopla/big-government style.
It was historically a point of significant distinction, when givers were supposed to be concerned with their morals and motivations. From that vantage, ‘vanity giving’ was discouraged.
But you’re right, it doesn’t necessarily make a whit of difference to the recipient, in our vain times it probably encourages more giving, and the rationale—whether a cover or valid—is that it provides leadership and something of an endorsement, encouraging others to give to the same or other causes.
When Oprah donates it always ends up bad. She never follows up to make sure her money is being used properly and it ends up evil permeates the programs. Like those African women who were molesting the children they were supposed to be helping. Or when she gave everyone in the audiance cars and didn't realize they would have to pay the taxes on it.
Exactly right...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.